Vick Struggling

[Stout]

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.

Look, you're the one who drew the analogy that since Vick is like Elway, Elway is better than Brees, and so you're right. That's horse hockey, and you know it, and you can't back out of it.

It's simple. Okay, they both played below average for roughly the same amount of time. How, in your warped world, does that make them the same? Lots of QBs play just like Elway did in the beginning, and do NOT go on to greatness. CAN Vick follow in his footsteps? Anything's possible. Will he? I doubt it. You've tried to twist the thread with this crazy rationale of comparing Vick and Elway. Foolish. You're wrong and you can't admit it.

Again, I say to you...how much you want to bet Vick will never sniff Elway's accomplishments?

 

[kerouac9]

Again, I say to you...how much you want to bet Vick will never sniff Elway's accomplishments?

Brett Favre, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Troy Aikman never sniffed Elway's accomplishments. That's a fool's bet.

But Elway was good without putting up gaudy passing stats. He was a good quarterback without putting up gaudy passing stats. Check this out:

During the 11 years following the strike-shortened season of 1982, Denver made 7 postseason appearances. As a rookie, John Elway led the team to a playoff berth in 1983 and to 13 victories in 1984. In the latter year, wide receiver Steve Watson and running back Sammy Winder each enjoyed 1,000-yard seasons. The club once again fielded the AFC’s top defense, this time anchored by linebacker Karl Mecklenburg and safety Dennis Smith.

Reeves guided Denver to three Super Bowls in four years during the late 1980s, but despite offensive units that featured Elway, running back Bobby Humphrey, and receiver Vance Johnson, as well as consistently strong defenses, the Broncos failed to earn an NFL championship.

During the mid-1990s Denver remained a division power as the team’s offense added wide receivers Shannon Sharpe and Anthony Miller and running back Terrell Davis.

When the Broncos went to the Super Bowl in 1987, 1988, and 1990, John Elway had passer ratings of 83.4, 71.4, and 78.5. He still went to the playoffs 7 times his first 11 seasons. Explain to me how Michael Vick doesn't play like John Elway. I'm saying look at the stats and look at the records and tell me how they're not the same. Tell me more than "they're just not". You're the one that's so sure.

Michael Vick has lead his team to the playoffs in two of his first four years as a starter. You guys make it sound like it's impossible to win the Super Bowl unless you complete 65% of your passes. That's just plain not true.

Stout, you're the one saying that the analogy is patently false, but you're not saying why. If it's simply a matter of longevity, then stop talking smack for another 11 years when we can see the whole picture. Elway didn't "stink" during his first 10 seasons, he guided his team to the playoffs 8 times!!! Are you kidding me?

 

[Duckjake]

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

K9 I'll give you a $1000 if you can find anywhere on this thread that I said that Brees was a better passer than Vick or Elway. I'm a huge fan of Michael Vick and the intangibles he brings to the game.

The king of obfuscation strikes again.

 

[kerouac9]

K9 I'll give you a $1000 if you can find anywhere on this thread that I said that Brees was a better passer than Vick or Elway. I'm a huge fan of Michael Vick and the intangibles he brings to the game.

The king of obfuscation strikes again.

Truly, I'm sorry. I was looking back to see who'd posted a lot, and I confused who my friends were (and that's a really tenuous "friends", I understand). I meant Shane H, who disappeared suddenly. I'll change the original post.

Sorry again. I was really wrong.

 

[Stout]

Brett Favre, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Troy Aikman never sniffed Elway's accomplishments. That's a fool's bet.

But Elway was good without putting up gaudy passing stats. He was a good quarterback without putting up gaudy passing stats. Check this out:



When the Broncos went to the Super Bowl in 1987, 1988, and 1990, John Elway had passer ratings of 83.4, 71.4, and 78.5. He still went to the playoffs 7 times his first 11 seasons. Explain to me how Michael Vick doesn't play like John Elway. I'm saying look at the stats and look at the records and tell me how they're not the same. Tell me more than "they're just not". You're the one that's so sure.

Michael Vick has lead his team to the playoffs in two of his first four years as a starter. You guys make it sound like it's impossible to win the Super Bowl unless you complete 65% of your passes. That's just plain not true.

Stout, you're the one saying that the analogy is patently false, but you're not saying why. If it's simply a matter of longevity, then stop talking smack for another 11 years when we can see the whole picture. Elway didn't "stink" during his first 10 seasons, he guided his team to the playoffs 8 times!!! Are you kidding me?

You're analogy is that they're the SAME. They aren't. They may BECOME the same, but I find it unlikely. As such, I don't have to explain squat. Your argument is baseless at the foundation. So a QB that doesn't have gaudy numbers out of the gate can become better. Whoop-de-doo. Name me one situation where that's the case, and I'll name you ten or so more where it isn't. You're simply throwing out the big name, saying they're the same, and hoping it will stick. It's not.

Bottom line, is Brees a better passing QB than Vick? Hands down, YES. Is he a better QB? IMO, yes. Your opinion differs. Fine. YOU can't deny Brees is the better passer, I cannot deny that Vick is an electric player that can make things happen. We can disagree on how suited he is to play the position, but I'm not going to let you get away with blanketly comparing Vick to Elway. Ludicrous.

 

[kerouac9]

You're analogy is that they're the SAME. They aren't. They may BECOME the same, but I find it unlikely. As such, I don't have to explain squat. Your argument is baseless at the foundation. So a QB that doesn't have gaudy numbers out of the gate can become better. Whoop-de-doo. Name me one situation where that's the case, and I'll name you ten or so more where it isn't. You're simply throwing out the big name, saying they're the same, and hoping it will stick. It's not.

Bottom line, is Brees a better passing QB than Vick? Hands down, YES. Is he a better QB? IMO, yes. Your opinion differs. Fine. YOU can't deny Brees is the better passer, I cannot deny that Vick is an electric player that can make things happen. We can disagree on how suited he is to play the position, but I'm not going to let you get away with blanketly comparing Vick to Elway. Ludicrous.

Point to the post where I said "Vick and Elway are the same". I said that their numbers at this point in thier careers were almost identical. Why don't you admit that? And that the success of their teams despite pedestrian statistics is also nearly identical.

And you keep saying things like "So a QB that doesn't have gaudy numbers out of the gate can become better." Look at Elway's career stats. His numbers didn't suddenly improve. He was a career 56.9 percent passer. His career rating was 79.9. John Elway's career passer rating was below average!

If you can't say that a QB can win--can become one of the five best QBs in the history of the NFL--without being a "great passer"--which apparently means throwing for 60%--the you're being dishonest. Elway was a great quarterback before he won the Super Bowl in 1997. Michael Vick is on that same road.

 

[Russ Smith]

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.

I don't think he said he's as good as Elway turned out, just as good as Elway started out. I'd have to see the numbers to be sure but people forget Elway was AWFUL early in his career. I always remember the MNF game his rookie year where he finally threw a shovel pass for about a 5 yard gain and the announcers said "elway finally found a pass he could complete."

Denver fans to this day blame it on Dan Reeves and his offense.

I wouldn't say Vick and Elway remind me much of each other beyond sheer arm strength, Elway threw a lot more and ran a lot less, but he was a guy who wasn't particularly accurate for much of his career.

Shanahan coming to Denver is what made Elway go from being a guy with a cannon and a lot of comebacks, to a Super Bowl winning QB.

I'd have to see the stats but it wouldn't surprise me if they're somewhat similar.

 

[BigDavis75]

K9 is right with the Elway comparison, so here is another one. Randall Cunningham:

- In his first 5 years he never had a comp. % over 60
- In his first 5 years his high QB rating was 83, Vick's was 81.6
- Cunningham put up similar rushing yards but less TDs in his first 5
- Cunnignham's high in his first 5 for Y per A was 6.9, Vick's was 7.2


Cunningham turned out pretty good, didn't he?

Since Vick has only played 5 years that is all he can be compared on, Stout.

 

[BigDavis75]

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.

Imagine that, the Falcons were very good with Vick that season and beat the Pack in Lambeau and the year after that they get hurt and they stink.

Which is more important completion % or winning %. Only a one word response is required, thank you.

 

[SuperSpck]

Only one word?! Crap. I choose...

Percentage!!

 

[kerouac9]

I don't think he said he's as good as Elway turned out, just as good as Elway started out. I'd have to see the numbers to be sure but people forget Elway was AWFUL early in his career. I always remember the MNF game his rookie year where he finally threw a shovel pass for about a 5 yard gain and the announcers said "elway finally found a pass he could complete."

Denver fans to this day blame it on Dan Reeves and his offense.

I wouldn't say Vick and Elway remind me much of each other beyond sheer arm strength, Elway threw a lot more and ran a lot less, but he was a guy who wasn't particularly accurate for much of his career.

Shanahan coming to Denver is what made Elway go from being a guy with a cannon and a lot of comebacks, to a Super Bowl winning QB.

I'd have to see the stats but it wouldn't surprise me if they're somewhat similar.

Vick runs more than anyone ever, but Elway had great feet and could scramble. He went over 200 yards rushing 11 times in his career, and over 250 yards rushing 5 times. For comparison, Scramblin' Steve Young went over 200 yards rushing 9 times in his career, over 250 yards 8 times. Of course, when he did go over, he went crazy. Maybe a better comparison is to Jake Plummer.

Elway went to three Super Bowls before Shanahan, though. Elway was a winner before Shanahan came to town, and even after Shanahan he didn't put up Steve Young/Brett Favre completion numbers.

 

[Stout]

Point to the post where I said "Vick and Elway are the same". I said that their numbers at this point in thier careers were almost identical. Why don't you admit that? And that the success of their teams despite pedestrian statistics is also nearly identical.

And you keep saying things like "So a QB that doesn't have gaudy numbers out of the gate can become better." Look at Elway's career stats. His numbers didn't suddenly improve. He was a career 56.9 percent passer. His career rating was 79.9. John Elway's career passer rating was below average!

If you can't say that a QB can win--can become one of the five best QBs in the history of the NFL--without being a "great passer"--which apparently means throwing for 60%--the you're being dishonest. Elway was a great quarterback before he won the Super Bowl in 1997. Michael Vick is on that same road.

First of all, here...Now, let's hear Stout, Molkerman, and Shane H come in and explain how Drew Brees is a better passer than John Elway.
The argument in this thread has been Brees v Vick. YOU tell me how what you're trying to say in the post this was taken from is NOT you making Vick and Elway the same. Sorry, you made the bed, so you sleep in the damn thing.

I NEVER said a QB can't win without being a great passer. Ever. I don't think Vick will, but look at the past...Dilfer wasn't a great passer, and he won the SB. The problem is, Vick isn't a great passer, AND he's a terrible decision maker, AND he turns the ball over constantly, AND he's a constant injury problem. So, no, I do NOT think Elway and Vick are a good comparison.

So take your John Elway home and stop being ridiculous. You've tried to make Vick both Elway and Young in the same damn thread. You're so off topic, and so out in left field, it's not even funny any more.

 

[Stout]

K9 is right with the Elway comparison, so here is another one. Randall Cunningham:

- In his first 5 years he never had a comp. % over 60
- In his first 5 years his high QB rating was 83, Vick's was 81.6
- Cunningham put up similar rushing yards but less TDs in his first 5
- Cunnignham's high in his first 5 for Y per A was 6.9, Vick's was 7.2


Cunningham turned out pretty good, didn't he?

Since Vick has only played 5 years that is all he can be compared on, Stout.

Okay. Live in your dreamworld, guys. Vick is all the things you mentioned as far as similarities to other great QBs. The problem is, he's also a few other things. A MUCH bigger injury risk (proof is in the pudding), a MUCH bigger turnover risk, and a MUCH worse decision maker. This is undeniable. The debate should center on whether he can fix these problems. I don't think he will.

Look, compare him to past QBs all you want, but it doesn't make VICK HIMSELF even an average starting QB. Explosive playmaker? Yes indeed. Good QB? NO.

 

[conraddobler]

We were able to shut him down all game wasn't the score something awful like 9-6?

I forget, anyhow he won the game against a team that year that was awful ourselves and only because Josh turned it over 4 times on their side of the field.

We had a pretty good plan, don't let him run, make him throw, controlled rushes that didn't so much try to sack him but specifically took away lanes for him to scramble.

This worked and it would not have worked against Elway or the others you mention they'd have been able to pass their way out of that. He couldn't and until he can, he's just an exciting oddity.

 

[Stout]

We were able to shut him down all game wasn't the score something awful like 9-6?

I forget, anyhow he won the game against a team that year that was awful ourselves and only because Josh turned it over 4 times on their side of the field.

We had a pretty good plan, don't let him run, make him throw, controlled rushes that didn't so much try to sack him but specifically took away lanes for him to scramble.

This worked and it would not have worked against Elway or the others you mention they'd have been able to pass their way out of that. He couldn't and until he can, he's just an exciting oddity.

Well said. Take away his feet, and you've completely shut down Vick. Not necessarily easy to do, but teams have started figuring it out.

 

[moklerman]

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.

Mid to late 90's? Elway started his career in 83. That was 23 years ago. I think the league is somewhat different today than it was back then. Especially when it comes to qb's numbers. Every era in the NFL see's a higher overall qb rating than the last.

Another thing about the Elway comparison is that Elway wasn't really considered a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame until the back to back Super Bowl win's. He was good, but the earleir Super Bowl teams Denver had were fueled throughout the season by their defense.

Also, to say that Vick and Elway are the same or even similar because they had a comparable completion pct. means you're leaving out the fact that Elway had 92 td's in his first five years. Vick has 70. I think 22 td's is at least worth mentioning. By Elway's second year, he was in the top 10 among qb's in completions, yards and td's, and continured to be in those categories each year. Vick has yet to rank in the top 10 in any of those categories as far as I can tell.

Among his contemporaries, Vick is very substandard statistically and he isn't improving. That's the biggest problem I have with him. He's treading water. He, in my opinion, should have been able to show some improvement by now especially with the running game that Atlanta has supported him with. His second year he had a 2 to 1 td/int ratio, but every year since then he's been barely over 1 to 1. Completing a little over half your passes with a turnover for every td isn't really commendable.

 

[kerouac9]

We were able to shut him down all game wasn't the score something awful like 9-6?

I forget, anyhow he won the game against a team that year that was awful ourselves and only because Josh turned it over 4 times on their side of the field.

We had a pretty good plan, don't let him run, make him throw, controlled rushes that didn't so much try to sack him but specifically took away lanes for him to scramble.

This worked and it would not have worked against Elway or the others you mention they'd have been able to pass their way out of that. He couldn't and until he can, he's just an exciting oddity.

Umm... didn't the Falcons still win that game? Wasn't the clinching play made by Michael Vick himself? It didn't work because the Cardinals still lost the game. Vick's a winner, and that can't be discounted.

 

[moklerman]

Vick's a winner, and that can't be discounted.

Everything you've argued in favor of Vick can easily be attributed to Kordell Stewart.

 

[kerouac9]

Everything you've argued in favor of Vick can easily be attributed to Kordell Stewart.

Except for all the ways that Kordell Stewart wasn't a winner, and Vick is. But besides that, yeah, I guess you're right. Like against the Broncos with Jake Plummer, teams played the Steelers with Kordell to make sure that you put the ball in Kordell's hands and make him beat you. Teams don't do that against Vick. They do everything they can to put the thumb on Vick and make the WRs or RBs beat them.

 

[Stout]

Except for all the ways that Kordell Stewart wasn't a winner, and Vick is. But besides that, yeah, I guess you're right. Like against the Broncos with Jake Plummer, teams played the Steelers with Kordell to make sure that you put the ball in Kordell's hands and make him beat you. Teams don't do that against Vick. They do everything they can to put the thumb on Vick and make the WRs or RBs beat them.

Um, to make the WRs beat you, that means the QB has to get them the ball. Let's be realistic...teams try to get Vick to THROW the ball so he cannot beat you. Why else would you design a defense to close down a QB's running lanes INSTEAD OF putting an intense pass rush on him? Teams WANT Vick to have to throw the ball to win, because he'll lose. Thank you, good day, you can go home now.

 

[moklerman]

Except for all the ways that Kordell Stewart wasn't a winner, and Vick is.

From 1997-2001 When Kordell was the starter of the Steelers the team went 46-34 (.575). I believe he split time with Tomczak in 1999 so I don't know which games should be credited as starts. Kordell played in every game during those years though, so his "presence" should count(a la Vick). Vick is 30-20-1 as a starter(.600).

Which qb is which?

1065com 1904att 55.9% 12,014yds 6.3ypa 63td 64int 2,113ryd 27rtd 72.0rating

726com 1342att 54.1% 9032yds 6.7ypa 51td 39int 2,820ryd 19rtd 75.8rating

Both qb's are "winner's", both qb's complete about 55% of their passes, both have about the same rating, both have rushed for over 2,000 yards, both complete a little under 7 yards per attempt. One has 90 td's, the other has 70. Which one is the superstar who can carry his team to victory singlehandedly and which is just ol' Kordell Stewart?

 

[kerouac9]

Um, to make the WRs beat you, that means the QB has to get them the ball. Let's be realistic...teams try to get Vick to THROW the ball so he cannot beat you. Why else would you design a defense to close down a QB's running lanes INSTEAD OF putting an intense pass rush on him? Teams WANT Vick to have to throw the ball to win, because he'll lose. Thank you, good day, you can go home now.

Stout, you're barely making sense at this point. Perhaps you need to take a breather to gain some composure. Vick had a smaller percentage of completions per poor throw than Josh McCown last season and more passes dropped. The guy's a dangerous runner, and, no, he hasn't progressed as a passer as much as hoped. But he's still been to the NFC Championship game and won a handful of playoff games. And he's the most dangerous player in the NFL. Defensive coordinators build their game plans to contain him.

Who know who else they do that for? Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Carson Palmer.

That's not bad company to be in.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You're becoming increasingly shrill and senseless. Take a timeout, brother.

 

[kerouac9]

From 1997-2001 When Kordell was the starter of the Steelers the team went 46-34 (.575). I believe he split time with Tomczak in 1999 so I don't know which games should be credited as starts. Kordell played in every game during those years though, so his "presence" should count(a la Vick). Vick is 30-20-1 as a starter(.600).

Which qb is which?

1065com 1904att 55.9% 12,014yds 6.3ypa 63td 64int 2,113ryd 27rtd 72.0rating

726com 1342att 54.1% 9032yds 6.7ypa 51td 39int 2,820ryd 19rtd 75.8rating

Both qb's are "winner's", both qb's complete about 55% of their passes, both have about the same rating, both have rushed for over 2,000 yards, both complete a little under 7 yards per attempt. One has 90 td's, the other has 70. Which one is the superstar who can carry his team to victory singlehandedly and which is just ol' Kordell Stewart?

The latter QB is Vick. I mean, you can cite all the ones that you want, but the one that jumps out to me is the TD to INT ratio. Vick's is +12, Kordell is -1. That's the difference between a guy who take his team to the playoffs on his back and a guy that hopes the Jerome Bettis rushes for 1200 yards and 7 TDs.

I mean, if you really look at Michael Vick, how his team responds to him, how the NFL responds to him, and how he takes over games, and really see similarities to Kordell Stewart, I can't change that. But I think you're just engaging in some sophistry, because everyone saw that the Steelers were winning games despite Kordell Stewart, and once they brought in a guy who could play QB, he was off the roster. Everything points to the fact that the Falcons win because Vick is on the field. That's not really a disputable point.

 

[FlagstaffDave]

You guys are still going on about this? You would think that the Cardinals are going to sign one of these guys the way this is getting out of hand.

For those of us who aren't willing to pucker up to Brees we should just tell his supporters that he's better, maybe that will keep them quiet for once.

 

[Stout]

Stout, you're barely making sense at this point. Perhaps you need to take a breather to gain some composure. Vick had a smaller percentage of completions per poor throw than Josh McCown last season and more passes dropped. The guy's a dangerous runner, and, no, he hasn't progressed as a passer as much as hoped. But he's still been to the NFC Championship game and won a handful of playoff games. And he's the most dangerous player in the NFL. Defensive coordinators build their game plans to contain him.

Who know who else they do that for? Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Carson Palmer.

That's not bad company to be in.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You're becoming increasingly shrill and senseless. Take a timeout, brother.

Um, no, you're not making any sense, and you know it, and it's really rather humorous. Moklerman has pointed out that Stewart has the same kind of accomplishments as Vick, so where is that point of yours going again? And oh yes, teams gameplan their defense around Vick, but they gameplan to FORCE HIM TO PASS. If a defense feels the best way to win is to force the opposing QB to throw, would you be confident in the QB's passing ability?

Put simply, Vick is not a good passer. You know it, I know it, the world knows it. You're pissing in the wind, partner. And, back to point, Brees is a better passer than Vick. Prove how that is wrong. You can't. You can try to change the basic argument if you want, but you simply cannot disprove that statement. Good night.