Vick Struggling

[moklerman]

Any argument that claims a team "just win's" with so-and-so at qb, in spite of poor individual output, isn't approaching the argument honestly. If you like Vick better, that's fine. Stand up for your preference, but to list the team's accomplishments as a result of him just being there seems ludicrous.

Now, this argument in general is a bit ludicrous since Brees, as it stands this very moment, is injured and who know's how his surgically repaired shoulder is going to actually respond. However, assuming that Brees comes back healthy, he seems to be a better qb statistically at this stage in their respective careers. Brees has had two solid years of production and has been improving as a qb while Vick has been struggling to learn how to play qb in the NFL. Brees is a top 10 rated qb (89.1 #10 overall) and Vick is a bottom 10 rated qb (73.1 #25 out of 34 qualifying qb's).

Most importantly, Vick's progress and consistancy are hardly desirable. He's still completing around only 55% of his passes which is very poor by today's NFL standards. In addition, his completion pct. went down this year as well as his td's, yards per pass attempt, rushing yards, rushing average, and rating, while his interceptions and fumbles increased. Most of all, his team struggled and they didn't make the playoffs in a relatively weak year for the NFC and that's supposed to be the big intangible about Vick. So, statistically he's getting worse and his intangibles aren't carrying the team(not that I believe they ever did).

Now, would I rather have, in Brees, a qb that's completing 65% of his passes(compared to 55%), more than a yard more per completion, almost 20 more total td's (54 to 38) all with fewer turnovers(23 to 27)? And, doesn't have an alias (Ron Mexico)? Yes, I think I'd go with Brees as a qb for my team. The Cardinals. The Falcons. Any team. I'd take Brees over Vick as my qb. Rb? Foot race? Those might be different stories, but not NFL qb.

 

[Stout]

I don't know. I'd call the guy that wins more games and leads his team to the playoffs and keeps his team from owning the #1 overall draft pick is more of the gamebreaker.

But that's just me. I mean, it's not like the Falcons are going to draft Michael Vick's replacement. Or that Drew Brees has gone to the Pro Bowl three times. Or won in the playoffs. If you really believed that it was about scoring TDs, you'd be championing Trent Green. Seriously: Drew Brees? The guy had one good season in a contract year. What a surprise. The Chargers asked more from him this year after LT got banged up and he fell back down to earth. I bet it's a little easier playing QB for a team when you're not among the top 2 players that the DC is concerned about.

Take Brees off the Chargers, and they're an 8-10 win team still. Take Vick off the Falcons, and they don't win 5 games. Who's better?

*sigh* It's a TEAM game. Look up the defensive numbers during Vick's 'magical' years where he singlehandedly (if we're to believe YOU) led them to the playoffs, and see what those defensive numbers are. Surprisingly, when their DEFENSE is good, they're also good. So, take Vick off that team, I think they improve. I believe Schaub will turn out to be a good starter, and with even an average passer, that team has a strong Super Bowl potential. Problem is, they have a guy that can run at QB, but who is garbage at the ACTUAL position.

And did you actually use the PRO BOWL as an argument? I believe Vick was 13th in passer rating in the NFC ALONE, and somehow made the Pro Bowl...can you say UNDESERVING!?!?!?

 

[spanky1]

Any argument that claims a team "just win's" with so-and-so at qb, in spite of poor individual output, isn't approaching the argument honestly. If you like Vick better, that's fine. Stand up for your preference, but to list the team's accomplishments as a result of him just being there seems ludicrous.

Now, this argument in general is a bit ludicrous since Brees, as it stands this very moment, is injured and who know's how his surgically repaired shoulder is going to actually respond. However, assuming that Brees comes back healthy, he seems to be a better qb statistically at this stage in their respective careers. Brees has had two solid years of production and has been improving as a qb while Vick has been struggling to learn how to play qb in the NFL. Brees is a top 10 rated qb (89.1 #10 overall) and Vick is a bottom 10 rated qb (73.1 #25 out of 34 qualifying qb's).

Most importantly, Vick's progress and consistancy are hardly desirable. He's still completing around only 55% of his passes which is very poor by today's NFL standards. In addition, his completion pct. went down this year as well as his td's, yards per pass attempt, rushing yards, rushing average, and rating, while his interceptions and fumbles increased. Most of all, his team struggled and they didn't make the playoffs in a relatively weak year for the NFC and that's supposed to be the big intangible about Vick. So, statistically he's getting worse and his intangibles aren't carrying the team(not that I believe they ever did).

Now, would I rather have, in Brees, a qb that's completing 65% of his passes(compared to 55%), more than a yard more per completion, almost 20 more total td's (54 to 38) all with fewer turnovers(23 to 27)? And, doesn't have an alias (Ron Mexico)? Yes, I think I'd go with Brees as a qb for my team. The Cardinals. The Falcons. Any team. I'd take Brees over Vick as my qb. Rb? Foot race? Those might be different stories, but not NFL qb.

Excellent post......great content and analysis. This is the kind of poster that I like to see over here.

 

[kerouac9]

*sigh* It's a TEAM game. Look up the defensive numbers during Vick's 'magical' years where he singlehandedly (if we're to believe YOU) led them to the playoffs, and see what those defensive numbers are. Surprisingly, when their DEFENSE is good, they're also good. So, take Vick off that team, I think they improve. I believe Schaub will turn out to be a good starter, and with even an average passer, that team has a strong Super Bowl potential. Problem is, they have a guy that can run at QB, but who is garbage at the ACTUAL position.

And did you actually use the PRO BOWL as an argument? I believe Vick was 13th in passer rating in the NFC ALONE, and somehow made the Pro Bowl...can you say UNDESERVING!?!?!?

So it's just like a magical coincidence that the Defense plays really well when Vick's on the field, and then stinks it up when he's not? Same personnel on defense, same personnel on offense. One player different. 11-5 v. 5-11.

The real dishonesty is that you apparently think that the Falcons can win with Matt Shaub, when that has never been shown to be the case. His record as a starter is horrible.

Yes, football is a team game, but great individual players can singlehandedly bring a team to victory. Michael Vick, Tom Brady, and Deion Sanders were all those kinds of players. Drew Brees just plain isn't.

And that's why I'd rather have Vick.

 

[Duckjake]

*sigh* It's a TEAM game. Look up the defensive numbers during Vick's 'magical' years where he singlehandedly (if we're to believe YOU) led them to the playoffs, and see what those defensive numbers are. Surprisingly, when their DEFENSE is good, they're also good. So, take Vick off that team, I think they improve. I believe Schaub will turn out to be a good starter, and with even an average passer, that team has a strong Super Bowl potential. Problem is, they have a guy that can run at QB, but who is garbage at the ACTUAL position.

And did you actually use the PRO BOWL as an argument? I believe Vick was 13th in passer rating in the NFC ALONE, and somehow made the Pro Bowl...can you say UNDESERVING!?!?!?

San Diego had comparable defensive #'s to Atlanta's the past two years.

Both teams have had comparable W-L records

The problem with this discussion is that the Brees backers are making the case for Brees being the better Passer. The Vick advocates are arguing that Vick is a better Player.

The only thing that bugs me is that neither one of the Cards RB's had as many yards rushing as Vick did last year.

 

[moklerman]

Excellent post......great content and analysis. This is the kind of poster that I like to see over here.

Thanks, it's nice to know that all the useless hours I spend doing research aren't completely wasted. LOL

So it's just like a magical coincidence that the Defense plays really well when Vick's on the field, and then stinks it up when he's not? Same personnel on defense, same personnel on offense. One player different. 11-5 v. 5-11.

Let's look at a few of the Falcons' wins over the past two years and Vick's stat's in those games:
NYJ 11/26 116yds 0td 3int 2rtd 16.3 rating
PHI 12/23 156yds 0td 1int 1rtd 55.7 rating
ARZ 10/20 115yds 0td 1int 0rtd 46.9 rating
These are from wins. I'm sure most of us probably saw the MNF game against the Jets. The Falcons won in spite of Vick that day for sure.

Also, it's pointed out that the team went from 5-11 in 2003 to 11-5 in 2004. To be fair, it should be pointed out that they were 6-4-1 when Vick was injured in 2002. Also, in 2003 Dan Reeves was fired in the middle of the season as head coach. No team plays well in a year where the coach is gripping because the writing's on the wall. Add to that, Doug Johnson and Kurt Kittner(!) were the guys at backup qb. So, to make a blanket statement about the Falcons losing just because Vick wasn't there seems a little inaccurate. Oh, an what about the 8-8 led Falcons from this year? Why aren't we discussing his "magic" on that record?

The real dishonesty is that you apparently think that the Falcons can win with Matt Shaub, when that has never been shown to be the case. His record as a starter is horrible.

I think he's 0-2 as a starter(important side note, most of the stat services don't list "starts" or "w/l" as a category of statistic on qb's. I wonder why that is?) so "horrible" seems a bit extreme. In his 1 start in 2005 combined with a couple of mop-up appearances:
32att 61com 447yds 4td 0int 98.2rating (that's 25 points higher than Vick in 2005 for those of you keeping track)

Yes, football is a team game, but great individual players can singlehandedly bring a team to victory.

There's just so much wrong with this thought process that I'm really kind of surprised that you've chosen to argue it. If you don't understand that it takes 10 other guys to make the 1 guy successful in the NFL...or any football league, then I think you're missing out on why football is such a great team sport. Basketball I can see your point. Even baseball. But football?!? How did Deion run back those punts without the special teams creating running lanes? How does Tom Brady complete his passes without the offensive line giving him ton's of time to stand in the pocket? How does Vick...oh wait, he just shows up and Atlanta's defense plays better. You got me on that one.

The problem with this discussion is that the Brees backers are making the case for Brees being the better Passer. The Vick advocates are arguing that Vick is a better Player.

I don't think I've been arguing that at all. Brees is a better "QB". He doesn't run as much as Vick, but he passes for much more than Vick does running and passing combined so the yardage is in Brees' favor. He also has more combined td's and fewer combined to's. Brees is a better qb.

 

[fball13]

So it's just like a magical coincidence that the Defense plays really well when Vick's on the field, and then stinks it up when he's not? Same personnel on defense, same personnel on offense. One player different. 11-5 v. 5-11.

The real dishonesty is that you apparently think that the Falcons can win with Matt Shaub, when that has never been shown to be the case. His record as a starter is horrible.

Yes, football is a team game, but great individual players can singlehandedly bring a team to victory. Michael Vick, Tom Brady, and Deion Sanders were all those kinds of players. Drew Brees just plain isn't.

And that's why I'd rather have Vick.

Well stated... In 2003 (when Vick broke his leg in the pre-season), the team was 2-10 without him and 3-1 with him... aka-difference maker.

 

[moklerman]

Well stated... In 2003 (when Vick broke his leg in the pre-season), the team was 2-10 without him and 3-1 with him... aka-difference maker.

I pointed this out before, Atlatna was 6-4-1 in 2002 without Vick in the lineup. What does that "prove"? Basically, the Falcons were good one year without Vick when he was injured and bad one year when Vick was injured. All it really proves to me is that Vick get's injured a lot.

 

[Stout]

San Diego had comparable defensive #'s to Atlanta's the past two years.

Both teams have had comparable W-L records

The problem with this discussion is that the Brees backers are making the case for Brees being the better Passer. The Vick advocates are arguing that Vick is a better Player.

The only thing that bugs me is that neither one of the Cards RB's had as many yards rushing as Vick did last year.

Man, I should just let Moklerman go to town...he's systematically dismantling all arguments for Vick

Seriously, though, Duck is right in that respect. I'm saying Brees is a better QUARTERBACK. There's no argument to be had, because it's been proven correct. I defy anyone to in any way show to the contrary. Is Vick a better overall player? Well, at QB, I'd contend that he's not. A team must have certain tangibles in a QB to win a SB that Vick does not yet possess. Will he ever develop them? I doubt it, as the chances get slimmer with every season that passes, with Vick failing to improve passing the football.

 

[kerouac9]

I pointed this out before, Atlatna was 6-4-1 in 2002 without Vick in the lineup. What does that "prove"? Basically, the Falcons were good one year without Vick when he was injured and bad one year when Vick was injured. All it really proves to me is that Vick get's injured a lot.

According to this, Vick played in 15 games in 2002. He set a career high for TD passes that season. Vick was the first Quarterback to beat the Packers in Lambeau Field that season. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Are you so desperate to prove that Vick's not a winner that you're blantantly making things up?

2002 was his best statistical season as a quarterback. I guess it proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for playing.

 

[kerouac9]

San Diego had comparable defensive #'s to Atlanta's the past two years.

Both teams have had comparable W-L records

The problem with this discussion is that the Brees backers are making the case for Brees being the better Passer. The Vick advocates are arguing that Vick is a better Player.

The only thing that bugs me is that neither one of the Cards RB's had as many yards rushing as Vick did last year.

And San Diego last season lost in the first round of the playoffs. Atlanta went to the NFC Championship game. Neither team made the playoffs this season, but Atlanta was in a much more difficult division (2 playoff teams v. 1).

No one's arguing that Brees isn't the better passer. I guess it just depends on whether or not you want a Trent Dilfer or Steve Young. One guy will pass okay, the other guy's going to fill seats and win a bunch of games by himself. Whatever.

 

[Stout]

I guess it just depends on whether or not you want a Trent Dilfer or Steve Young. One guy will pass okay, the other guy's going to fill seats and win a bunch of games by himself. Whatever.

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. Brees is Dilfer and Vick is Young? Wow, that's incredibly naive, wrong, and foolish.

First, Brees is better than Dilfer. That should go without saying, but I'm typing it just to make sure. Vick=Young? Maybe in Mora's wet dreams! Vick hasn't come close to accomplishing what Young has, and if he can't even begin to sniff Young's jock strap as it pertains to QB numbers, he never will.

 

[kerouac9]

Okay, you've officially gone off the deep end. Brees is Dilfer and Vick is Young? Wow, that's incredibly naive, wrong, and foolish.

First, Brees is better than Dilfer. That should go without saying, but I'm typing it just to make sure. Vick=Young? Maybe in Mora's wet dreams! Vick hasn't come close to accomplishing what Young has, and if he can't even begin to sniff Young's jock strap as it pertains to QB numbers, he never will.

Brees = Good passer, Dilfer = Good passer. Brees doesn't have nearly the intangibles that a great passer like Brady has, nor the skills and vision that an equally great passer like Manning has. He's a little better than the Ferottes, Dilfers, Brad Johnsons, Kerry Collins, and Kurt Warners of the NFL, but not by much. He wouldn't survive in a place like Buffalo, New York, or Chicago (or San Francisco), where he'd have to deal with weather.

I take back the Young/Vick comparison. Sorry if I was a little blinded by the fact that they were both left-handed scramblers with a reputation for running first. I supposed that a better comparison for Vick would be John Elway. Want to know how many years Elway was in the NFL before he hit 60% passing? Eleven. Vick's completion percentages in his last two years are virtually identical to Elway's in his fourth and fifth seasons in the league. Elway threw for more TDs, but didn't rush for as many.

Now, let's hear Stout, Molkerman, and Shane H come in and explain how Drew Brees is a better passer than John Elway.

I'll be waiting.

 

[spanky1]

According to this, Vick played in 15 games in 2002. He set a career high for TD passes that season. Vick was the first Quarterback to beat the Packers in Lambeau Field that season. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Are you so desperate to prove that Vick's not a winner that you're blantantly making things up?

2002 was his best statistical season as a quarterback. I guess it proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for playing.

If 2002 was Vick's best statistical year as a QB then his trend line is going down and that cannot be interpreted in a positive way.

The comment that Vick was the 1st QB to beat the Packers in Lambeau Field tells me what? That because he won in the frozen tundra he is therefore a good QB?

Vick is a good athlete.....just like the kid from Penn State....but is he a good QB? That is the rub.

 

[SuperSpck]

And San Diego last season lost in the first round of the playoffs. Atlanta went to the NFC Championship game. Neither team made the playoffs this season, but Atlanta was in a much more difficult division (2 playoff teams v. 1).

No one's arguing that Brees isn't the better passer. I guess it just depends on whether or not you want a Trent Dilfer or Steve Young. One guy will pass okay, the other guy's going to fill seats and win a bunch of games by himself. Whatever.

I wouldn't go so far as to use the word much when dividing the difference between the AFC West and the NFC south.

In fact, as a W-L records go, the Atlanta Falcons were in the NFC South, which had a combined record of 33 wins and 31 losses. The San Diego Chargers are in the AFC East conference, whose combined to have 36 wins and 28 losses.
The other conference in football to post the same high in win totals was the NFC East (36w/28l).

There was no division in the NFL to exceed the AFC West's win total, making them argueably the best division in the NFL.

To prevent backlash, the division team in the NFC South with the worst record was the New Orleans Saints, with a W/L record of 3-13. The worst team in the AFC West was the Oakland Raiders, with a W/L record of 4-12. Unforturnate for this discussion, the Saints and Raiders did not play each other.

In the NFC South the second worst team (or third best, if you're a Cards fan like me!) was... the Atlanta Falcons, 8 wins 8 losses.
In the AFC West the second worst team (or third best dammit!) was the San Diego Chargers with a record of 9 wins and 7 losses.

For those keeping score at home, NFC W/L record: 126-130, AFC W/L record: 130-126...

So when you say that the NFC South is a tougher division than the AFC West I wonder... does the ATF know what you've got that gives you such a fuzzy perspective?

 

[SuperSpck]

Now, let's hear Stout, Molkerman, and Duckjake come in and explain how Drew Brees is a better passer than John Elway.

I'll be waiting.

I'm not those guys, sorry for butting in (and having to spell the word "Butt" which looks funny), but Drew Brees is Brees, not Dilfer (the difference? A super bowl ring, Brees does not own one). Mike Vick is Mike Vick, not John Elway, it doesn't matter if Brees is a better or worse qb than Elway (worse) because this thread turned into Vick v Brees, not Elway v Brees.

Now if you want to turn this disscussion into Elway v Brees then fine, let's do that, but if that happens I can't help but notice...

... Vick's no longer in the discussion?

 

[kerouac9]

I wouldn't go so far as to use the word much when dividing the difference between the AFC West and the NFC south.

In fact, as a W-L records go, the Atlanta Falcons were in the NFC South, which had a combined record of 33 wins and 31 losses. The San Diego Chargers are in the AFC East conference, whose combined to have 36 wins and 28 losses.
The other conference in football to post the same high in win totals was the NFC East (36w/28l).

There was no division in the NFL to exceed the AFC West's win total, making them argueably the best division in the NFL.

To prevent backlash, the division team in the NFC South with the worst record was the New Orleans Saints, with a W/L record of 3-13. The worst team in the AFC West was the Oakland Raiders, with a W/L record of 4-12. Unforturnate for this discussion, the Saints and Raiders did not play each other.

In the NFC South the second worst team (or third best, if you're a Cards fan like me!) was... the Atlanta Falcons, 8 wins 8 losses.
In the AFC West the second worst team (or third best dammit!) was the San Diego Chargers with a record of 9 wins and 7 losses.

For those keeping score at home, NFC W/L record: 126-130, AFC W/L record: 130-126...

So when you say that the NFC South is a tougher division than the AFC West I wonder... does the ATF know what you've got that gives you such a fuzzy perspective?

Maybe, but then look at Playoff performance. The NFC South won three playoff games (Panthers over Giants and Bears; Bucs over Redskins--all of those games on the road). The Broncos beat a broken Patriots team and then got dismantled by the eventual Super Bowl Champions.

The AFC West's total is bolstered by the ******** performance of the Denver Broncos last season. If nothing else, the NFC South should be credited with being so competitive.

 

[kerouac9]

I'm not those guys, sorry for butting in (and having to spell the word "Butt" which looks funny), but Drew Brees is Brees, not Dilfer (the difference? A super bowl ring, Brees does not own one). Mike Vick is Mike Vick, not John Elway, it doesn't matter if Brees is a better or worse qb than Elway (worse) because this thread turned into Vick v Brees, not Elway v Brees.

Now if you want to turn this disscussion into Elway v Brees then fine, let's do that, but if that happens I can't help but notice...

... Vick's no longer in the discussion?

Did you look at the stats? Vick and Elway's are virtually identical at the same point in their careers. The contention of Stout and others is that the measure of a QB should not be his wins or the greater performance of his team, but his completion percentage and the number of TDs he throws (apparently). Based on those criteria, then Brees is a better QB than Elway ever was (Elway went over 60% passing exactly once in his entire career).

If you're going to say that Vick's a horrible QB, then you should have to cop to Elway, who has the same numbers, being an equally horrible QB. Hell of an athlete, though. Or something.

I'm happy to talk about Vick v. Brees, but if these guys don't want to take into account whether or not a guy wins, then I don't really see what the discussion is.

 

[Stout]

Okay, Kerouac, you just labelled Vick as good a passer as John Elway. You lost all credibility and I don't even have to continue in order to make you sound bad. But I will. Vick MAY turn out to be as good as John Elway, IF he develops as well as Elway did. That ain't gonna happen. I'll give you every dime I ever make, if you make the same guarantee, that Vick will NEVER match Elway's passing numbers. Wanna take the bet?

You're flailing, my friend. How many QBs who start out with such pathetic ratings for THAT long in their careers end up becoming as good as Elway? Wow, nice try.

Trying to say you won because Elway is better than Brees. How juvenile.

 

[kerouac9]

Okay, Kerouac, you just labelled Vick as good a passer as John Elway. You lost all credibility and I don't even have to continue in order to make you sound bad. But I will. Vick MAY turn out to be as good as John Elway, IF he develops as well as Elway did. That ain't gonna happen. I'll give you every dime I ever make, if you make the same guarantee, that Vick will NEVER match Elway's passing numbers. Wanna take the bet?

You're flailing, my friend. How many QBs who start out with such pathetic ratings for THAT long in their careers end up becoming as good as Elway? Wow, nice try.

Trying to say you won because Elway is better than Brees. How juvenile.

Look at the numbers, Stout, and explain to me what the difference is. Tell me. Longevity? You can't just say "they're different" without identifying what the difference is. If you're so right, articulate that. The completion numbers are the same, the INT numbers are identical, and the TD totals are very similar. I'm not saying that Vick in Year 5 is as good as Elway in Year 15, or that Vick will be Elway in Year 15 if and when Vick's in Year 15. I'm saying that the raw numbers for passing are the same.

Elway's a great quarterback not because of his numbers, but because he was a winner. His teams won. I see similar things about Vick. Elway had two years where his QB rating was over 90. In his first 10 years in the league, Elway had one season where his QB rating was over 80. The reason why he was still the starting QB then? I bet it has something to do with him being a winner.

Kind of like Michael Vick.

 

[moklerman]

2002 was his best statistical season as a quarterback. I guess it proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for playing.

You're right, when I was looking at all the numbers, I mixed up Vick's stat's and Atlanta's record for 2002/2003. They were 9-6-1 in Vick's "career" year and fell off the following year.

As far as your Elway/Vick comparisons I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age". Unless you want to argue Kelly Holcomb is a better qb than Namath, Starr, Jurgenson, etc. I never said that completion pct. was the only criteria for what I think makes a good qb, but I'll take the guy who's completing 10% more of his passes for more td's every time when we're talking about qb's.

 

[SuperSpck]

Maybe, but then look at Playoff performance. The NFC South won three playoff games (Panthers over Giants and Bears; Bucs over Redskins--all of those games on the road). The Broncos beat a broken Patriots team and then got dismantled by the eventual Super Bowl Champions.

The AFC West's total is bolstered by the ******** performance of the Denver Broncos last season. If nothing else, the NFC South should be credited with being so competitive.

I understand the point you're making with an individual team's success in the playoffs and how the representitive of those divisions made a strong case for their ability as a football team and from that their respective division, but I feel that the regular season W/L record is a better indicator of a divisions toughness than postseason play is, because all teams do not compete in the playoffs (the point of the playoffs, sure).

In the regular season teams play each divisional rival two times in one year.

This season the Saints (I believe that strength is found in the weakest link, therefore I keep going back to the worst teams in the division as a basis for comparison) had a record of 1-5, meaning that everytime another team played the Saints, divisionally speaking, they had a great shot of winning. Oakland on the other hand, went 0-6. They dun got spank-ed. Clearly the NFC South has the edge in the better of the worst teams, divisionally speaking.

Back to the Chargers and the Falcons (holy crap, this whole divisions thing is almost like a completely different topic isn't it?!) the Falcons went 2-4 in division play, one game better than the divisions' worst representitive. The Chargers went 3-3, which isn't all that great, but it's not a losing record. As previously mentioned both Falcons and Chargers where the 3rd place team in the division.

The first and second place teams in the South were Tampa and Carolina (5-1, 4-2), the first and second place teams in the West had identical records in Denver and KC (5-1, 4-2) so the true deciding factor in showing which team had the better division fall on the topics of the conversation, San Diego and Atlanta. San Diego makes a better accounting of itself as a team by posting a better in conference record than does "the ATL".

 

[kerouac9]

As far as your Elway/Vick comparisons I think you missed the part where I said "in this day and age". Unless you want to argue Kelly Holcomb is a better qb than Namath, Starr, Jurgenson, etc. I never said that completion pct. was the only criteria for what I think makes a good qb, but I'll take the guy who's completing 10% more of his passes for more td's every time when we're talking about qb's.

I don't know. I mean, I'm looking at Steve Young's carrer passing stats, and he had 10 years of 60%+ completion percentages. Brett Favre was over 60% passing his first 4 years as a starter. I don't think that comparing the mid- to late-90s to today's NFL is the same as going and saying it's like Bart Starr and Joe Namath 40 years ago. It's goofy. The game hasn't changed that much in the past 15 years.

Again, it's not the numbers that Elway put up that makes him great, it was that he was a winner. So's Vick.

 

[spanky1]

I'm not those guys, sorry for butting in (and having to spell the word "Butt" which looks funny), but Drew Brees is Brees, not Dilfer (the difference? A super bowl ring, Brees does not own one). Mike Vick is Mike Vick, not John Elway, it doesn't matter if Brees is a better or worse qb than Elway (worse) because this thread turned into Vick v Brees, not Elway v Brees.

Now if you want to turn this disscussion into Elway v Brees then fine, let's do that, but if that happens I can't help but notice...

... Vick's no longer in the discussion?

kerouac has a tendency to put so many "knotts" into a thread that it can quickly cause one to forget what the hell the topic line ever was. It's a specialty of his.

 

[kerouac9]

I understand the point you're making with an individual team's success in the playoffs and how the representitive of those divisions made a strong case for their ability as a football team and from that their respective division, but I feel that the regular season W/L record is a better indicator of a divisions toughness than postseason play is, because all teams do not compete in the playoffs (the point of the playoffs, sure).

In the regular season teams play each divisional rival two times in one year.

This season the Saints (I believe that strength is found in the weakest link, therefore I keep going back to the worst teams in the division as a basis for comparison) had a record of 1-5, meaning that everytime another team played the Saints, divisionally speaking, they had a great shot of winning. Oakland on the other hand, went 0-6. They dun got spank-ed. Clearly the NFC South has the edge in the better of the worst teams, divisionally speaking.

Back to the Chargers and the Falcons (holy crap, this whole divisions thing is almost like a completely different topic isn't it?!) the Falcons went 2-4 in division play, one game better than the divisions' worst representitive. The Chargers went 3-3, which isn't all that great, but it's not a losing record. As previously mentioned both Falcons and Chargers where the 3rd place team in the division.

The first and second place teams in the South were Tampa and Carolina (5-1, 4-2), the first and second place teams in the West had identical records in Denver and KC (5-1, 4-2) so the true deciding factor in showing which team had the better division fall on the topics of the conversation, San Diego and Atlanta. San Diego makes a better accounting of itself as a team by posting a better in conference record than does "the ATL".

Eh... I'll concede the point, but it seems like the Falcons lost twice to the two playoff teams in the NFC South and The Chargers lost twice to the playoff team in the AFC West and then to another team that missed the playoffs. At a certain point, it's kind of impossible to decide.