Since some of you are Hating on Mike Vick w/o facts...

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

So, this is your version of "facts"? Vick kills dogs. I don't care how good a QB he is because he's a POS person.

This has what exactly to do with his ability to play quarterback?

[MrNFL_FanIQ]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigsmallwood

Drew Brees is GOOD...for compiling stats. But he does not WIN GAMES. Huge Difference.

Ha.

Here's a question, how many players are on a team?

TEAMS win games. Michael Vick never won a game, the Atlanta Falcons won games.

You are one of the fools who believe "OMG ONLY THE QB MATTERS!!!" when you have running backs, wide receivers, tight ends, guards, centers, tackles, ends, d-tackles, linebackers, corners, safeties and special teamers who also take the field too.

But I guess they have no relevance as if the team wins, ONLY THE QB MATTERS.

Michael Vick isn't remotely close to breathing the same air as Drew Brees. And on the other thread, I gave you 17 QBs that are starters, and I'd take a number of backups over Vick.

[CM Hooe]

If your argument for Vick being a great quarterback is that he wins big games, I believe he's won two "big games" in his career, that being the Wild Card win in Green Bay and whoever they beat to get to the NFC Championship where they lost to Philadelphia, IIRC. Certainly there have been a number of quarterbacks to come through the league who have won two big games, and certainly that sample size is nowhere near large enough to assert that Vick is in fact a winner. Going by this logic, Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than any quarterback who has never won a Super Bowl.

If your argument for Vick being a great quarterback is statistics, the numbers certainly don't add up. Sure, teams had to gameplan for a Vick-led offense differently due to the threat he posed as a runner, but his passing numbers which I posted earlier were mediocre at best; even moreso disappointing given that teams were likely taking players out of coverage on any given play to spy Vick.

Bottom line, you don't have a strong argument at all for Vick being a great quarterback.

[bigsmallwood]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

So, this is your version of "facts"? Vick kills dogs. I don't care how good a QB he is because he's a POS person.

Yea...mmm...I am not talking about the fact that he killed dogs. I am simply talking football. What does away from the field is what got him in prison...

[tmccormi]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigsmallwood

Do you know how many times Vick has been to the Pro-Bowl?

Most real NFL fans know that the Pro Bowl is a joke, and that guys like Vick who get voted in are done so because of their name and fans like you who vote for him just because of it.

And btw, teams don't have to gameplan the same way for guys like Brees and Manning because they have to gameplan against the entire offense. D Coordinators had to gameplan against Vick in the run, because they knew once they did that there was no way he was going to beat them as a passer

[MrNFL_FanIQ]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigsmallwood

. He has a VERY strong arm and is fairly accurrate as a QB. I would refrain from calling him garbage

Fairly accurate????????????

What???????????????????????????????

Seriously?????????

Also, you mentioned the Pro Bowl, which is voted on by people who like flashy plays and little substance. Hell, Vince Young went to the Pro Bowl, and he was TERRIBLE. (And was rightfully benched)

You also mentioned Vick's Madden rating, as if that's what determines a guys talent.

Just because you could run around in circles and throw off your back foot 60 yard with Vick on Madden 04 doesn't make him a good QB.

[bigsmallwood]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrNFL_FanIQ

Ha. Here's a question, how many players are on a team? TEAMS win games. Michael Vick never won a game, the Atlanta Falcons won games. You are one of the fools who believe "OMG ONLY THE QB MATTERS!!!" when you have running backs, wide receivers, tight ends, guards, centers, tackles, ends, d-tackles, linebackers, corners, safeties and special teamers who also take the field too. But I guess they have no relevance as if the team wins, ONLY THE QB MATTERS. Michael Vick isn't remotely close to breathing the same air as Drew Brees. And on the other thread, I gave you 17 QBs that are starters, and I'd take a number of backups over Vick.

Obviously football is a team sport...you know what I am saying. Lets not get too lost here sir.

[bigsmallwood]

Quote: Originally Posted by Krioniq

If your argument for Vick being a great quarterback is that he wins big games, I believe he's won two "big games" in his career, that being the Wild Card win in Green Bay and whoever they beat to get to the NFC Championship where they lost to Philadelphia, IIRC. Certainly there have been a number of quarterbacks to come through the league who have won two big games, and certainly that sample size is nowhere near large enough to assert that Vick is in fact a winner. Going by this logic, Trent Dilfer is a better quarterback than any quarterback who has never won a Super Bowl. If your argument for Vick being a great quarterback is statistics, the numbers certainly don't add up. Sure, teams had to gameplan for a Vick-led offense differently due to the threat he posed as a runner, but his passing numbers which I posted earlier were mediocre at best; even moreso disappointing given that teams were likely taking players out of coverage on any given play to spy Vick. Bottom line, you don't have a strong argument at all for Vick being a great quarterback.

Not at all. Because statistic wise Trent Dilfer next to BIg Ben had the worst super bowl performance by a winning QB.