Vick Struggling

[Stout]

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.

Hey, the guy is being ridiculous...who am I to stop? Nobody said Brees is BETTER, they just said he's a better QUARTERBACK and PASSER. Kerouac has taken the thread into la-la land. Carry on.

 

[kerouac9]

Nobody said Brees is BETTER, they just said he's a better QUARTERBACK and PASSER. Kerouac has taken the thread into la-la land. Carry on.

I agree that Brees is the better passer; I've done it a ton of times, on this thread. I don't agree that Brees is the better quarterback. The main responsiblity of the quarterback isn't passing, it's making sure that the offense wins games. That's what Vick does, and he does it better than Brees. If you want to come up with a way to explain away Vick's .600 winning percentage as a starter, or the horrible record that the Falcons have when he's not on the field taking snaps, good luck with that.

You pay your quarterback to win games. That's what Vick does, and he does it better than Brees. And has since the beginning. There's no getting around that FACT.

But good luck trying.

 

[FlagstaffDave]

Hey, the guy is being ridiculous...who am I to stop? Nobody said Brees is BETTER, they just said he's a better QUARTERBACK and PASSER. Kerouac has taken the thread into la-la land. Carry on.

I didn't mean you, just this thread in general. I called you out earlier only cause you kept going on about Brees in my opinion, but don't take it personally. I speak my mind, but I don't mean it to personally knock anyone.

 

[Stout]

I didn't mean you, just this thread in general. I called you out earlier only cause you kept going on about Brees in my opinion, but don't take it personally. I speak my mind, but I don't mean it to personally knock anyone.

No worries, bro. Have one on me

 

[Stout]

I agree that Brees is the better passer; I've done it a ton of times, on this thread. I don't agree that Brees is the better quarterback. The main responsiblity of the quarterback isn't passing, it's making sure that the offense wins games. That's what Vick does, and he does it better than Brees. If you want to come up with a way to explain away Vick's .600 winning percentage as a starter, or the horrible record that the Falcons have when he's not on the field taking snaps, good luck with that.

You pay your quarterback to win games. That's what Vick does, and he does it better than Brees. And has since the beginning. There's no getting around that FACT.

But good luck trying.

The TEAM has had a .600 winning percentage. VICK'S numbers have been worse than Brees' numbers. If you're going by TEAM WINS, you need to use other factors. Like defense, which you refuse to do. By pointing to a team stat and saying that's why he's a better individual player, you're undermining your own argument. Passing yard, passing touchdowns, completion percentage, etc...these are all stats that lead directly back to the QB. Wins, as YOU HAVE SAID, can be had by caretaker QBs. Super Bowls can be had by caretaker QBs. Chumps can get to the NFC title game (Stewart). IMO, you have to at least be a good caretaker that doesn't turn it over to win a Super Bowl. Vick is NOT an accurate or a good QB, and he turns the ball over too much to be a caretaker. Brees is far more accurate, has far better passing stats, and makes far fewer mistakes that hurt his team.

 

[moklerman]

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.

So the ratio is more important than the +20 td's overall that Kordell scored? I don't think Vick's 1.37 td's per game can be viewed as "taking his team to the playoffs on his back". I don't think Warrick Dunn's 1,400 yards, 5.1 yard average and 4 td's is any less help than Bettis' numbers either.

Like I said before, why aren't we talking about Vick's ability to "carry" Atlanta to the playoffs in 2005? That's where he is now.

 

[moklerman]

The TEAM has had a .600 winning percentage. VICK'S numbers have been worse than Brees' numbers. If you're going by TEAM WINS, you need to use other factors. Like defense, which you refuse to do. By pointing to a team stat and saying that's why he's a better individual player, you're undermining your own argument. Passing yard, passing touchdowns, completion percentage, etc...these are all stats that lead directly back to the QB. Wins, as YOU HAVE SAID, can be had by caretaker QBs. Super Bowls can be had by caretaker QBs. Chumps can get to the NFC title game (Stewart). IMO, you have to at least be a good caretaker that doesn't turn it over to win a Super Bowl. Vick is NOT an accurate or a good QB, and he turns the ball over too much to be a caretaker. Brees is far more accurate, has far better passing stats, and makes far fewer mistakes that hurt his team.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

 

[FlagstaffDave]

No worries, bro. Have one on me

Don't mind if I do.

And one thing I think most of us will agree with is I hope both of these QB's struggle anytime they play the Cardinals.

 

[Stout]

Don't mind if I do.

And one thing I think most of us will agree with is I hope both of these QB's struggle anytime they play the Cardinals.

W00t!

 

[Shane]

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.

Big difference between dissapearing and being to busy to worry about posting on every thread till it runs dry. especially when there are three other guys making you look silly in the debate IE Stout, Moklerman, and suprspck! SO really no need for me to pile on.

 

[BigDavis75]

Big difference between dissapearing and being to busy to worry about posting on every thread till it runs dry. especially when there are three other guys making you look silly in the debate IE Stout, Moklerman, and suprspck! SO really no need for me to pile on.

Did you actually post this. Do you have 12000 posts yet? How are they making him look silly, Stout has posted the same thing for 20 friggin' posts.

Which is more important Completion % or winnning % for a QB?

Please answer it.

 

[BigDavis75]

The TEAM has had a .600 winning percentage. VICK'S numbers have been worse than Brees' numbers.

So what? Vick has won and has been responsible for those wins. He is a proven winner, Brees is not. Please try to deny that.[

Wins, as YOU HAVE SAID, can be had by caretaker QBs. Super Bowls can be had by caretaker QBs. Chumps can get to the NFC title game (Stewart). IMO, you have to at least be a good caretaker that doesn't turn it over to win a Super Bowl.

Then why hasn't Brees? BTW Stewart didn't make the NFC title game it was the AFC (nice call there), and he played well that year and I believe he made the PB.

Vick is NOT an accurate or a good QB, and he turns the ball over too much to be a caretaker. Brees is far more accurate, has far better passing stats, and makes far fewer mistakes that hurt his team.

So he is not a caretaker, but he has been a proven winner (making the playoffs despite what you said above about "having to at least be a good caretaker") in and out of the playoffs. So what does that mean? Maybe even you can understand this then, Vick is a good QB.

 

[BigDavis75]

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.

I can't believe you actually said this. Please make a list for us, include 16 QBs you would take over him, 20 if you can. Thanks in advance.

 

[SuperSpck]

Ya know... slightly off topic, but why did Kordell Stewart have a hot/cold switch that was so bad it was almost polar? I mean at some points the guy looked perfect, at other times (most times) he's look really bad.

 

[conraddobler]

Ya know... slightly off topic, but why did Kordell Stewart have a hot/cold switch that was so bad it was almost polar? I mean at some points the guy looked perfect, at other times (most times) he's look really bad.

Bad?

I saw him QB against the Chiefs here once and remember thinking it was the first time I believed I could throw better than an NFL QB.

Good point, he was so awful that game it was unreal, the ball skipped 4 or 5 times before it got within 10 yards of the WR a ton of times and I remember thinking at the time that I just witnessed the only live QB that I consider worse than Rick Meir.

 

[moklerman]

Which is more important Completion % or winnning % for a QB?

Completion pct. is more important. Winning pct. isn't a qb statistic. Coach's stat? Yes. Team stat? Yes. Individual? No.

So what? Vick has won and has been responsible for those wins.

Yes, when Vick accounts for 0 td's and multiple turnovers, it inspires the defense to play harder and the coaches to coach better.

Then why hasn't Brees? BTW Stewart didn't make the NFC title game it was the AFC (nice call there), and he played well that year and I believe he made the PB.

Why hasn't Brees won the Super Bowl? You do realize only 3 different qb's have won the Super Bowl in the last five years, right? You're not arguing that Vick is better than a guy like, say Peyton Manning? Or Carson Palmer? This goes back to the fact that playoff success is more tied to the team and the coach. Why hasn't Brees had more success in the playoffs? Marty Schottenheimer. He's a terrible playoff coach. He was in Cleveland. And Kansas City. And now San Diego.
As far as Stewart in the 2001 playoffs, he threw 1 td and 4 interceptions. He did make it to the pro bowl that year and the very next year lost his job to Tommy(turnover) Maddox. Brees' performance in the playoffs was pretty decent in my opinion. Completed 74% of his passes for over 300 yards and two td's. But, he's not a winner. But when Vick goes 12/24(50%) for 136 yards no td's 1 int 26 ryds and 0td's he's a playmaker? Why exactly is he a great qb when he rushes for more yards than he passed (82!) against the Rams in the second round, but somehow not at all responsible for disappearing against the Eagles in the NFC Championship?

I can't believe you actually said this. Please make a list for us, include 16 QBs you would take over him, 20 if you can. Thanks in advance.

You seem to be having a hard time dealing with the fact that Michael Vick produces about the same as Brooks Bollinger and Josh McCown. That's the class of qb that he is based on the only measurable information we have. Hell, I think better make sure he doesn't get hurt because Matt Schaub will show Atlanta how a WCO is actually supposed to be run and Vick will be asking Kordell how to deal with the elevator ride from the penthouse to the outhouse over night. Vick is a novelty. Those don't last in the NFL and it seems as if the league has caught up with his act. His abilities don't equate to good statistics and his abilities didn't equate to a winning season for the Falcons in 2005 much less a playoff appearance. His lack of passing prowess limits the Falcons offensively and the team is becoming very one dimensional and the only team they can beat in their division is New Orleans (0-4 vs. TB/CAR).

 

[Stout]

Ya know... slightly off topic, but why did Kordell Stewart have a hot/cold switch that was so bad it was almost polar? I mean at some points the guy looked perfect, at other times (most times) he's look really bad.

Hmm, good point. Perhaps it was the team carrying him when he did well? Otherwise he was quite the bi-polar QB.

 

[Stout]

Ooh, wow, you're SOOO smart and cool because I accidentally typed 'N' instead of 'A'. Damn, I'd better stop posting now

Wow, I thought I'd only get around 16, but I managed 20. I'm sure you'll laugh, because you'd prefer a running back to a guy that could actually complete a pass, but there you are. Well, truth be told, I'm iffy on whether or not I'd take Brooks over Vick, but I threw him in there anyway.

Palmer
Leftwich
Roethlisberger
Brady
Manning
Manning
McNair
Volek
Green
Collins
Brees
McNabb
Favre
Culpepper
Delhomme
Brooks
Simms
Warner
Bulger
Hasselbeck

 

[Stout]

Did you actually post this. Do you have 12000 posts yet? How are they making him look silly, Stout has posted the same thing for 20 friggin' posts.

Which is more important Completion % or winnning % for a QB?

Please answer it.

I think Moklerman effectively ripped this argument to e-shreds.

 

[Shane]

Did you actually post this. Do you have 12000 posts yet? How are they making him look silly, Stout has posted the same thing for 20 friggin' posts.

Which is more important Completion % or winnning % for a QB?

Please answer it.

Yes i did. The funny thing is I dont even have to answer. Moklerman did it for me perfectly just above. So it saves me the time. He is literally ripping your guys argument to little tiny shreds. Its actually quite comical.

 

[kerouac9]

Palmer
Leftwich - Arguable. From someone to talks about Vick being an injury risk, this is pretty silly. He's never done anything, either.
Roethlisberger
Brady
P. Manning
Manning - Umm... Why? Was his 52.8 completion percentage and 75.9 QB rating that impressive to you?
McNair - All right, I guess. Guy's 33 years old and put up some average numbers
Volek - 77.6 QB rating, 56.8 completion percentage
Green - Utter "system" QB. He couldn't run the WCO.
Collins - Now I know you're joking
Brees - That's kind of what we're arguing, but I guess if you want your team to win 8-9 games a season and lose in the first round of the playoffs, he's your guy.
McNabb
Favre - 70.9 QB rating, threw 9 more INTs than TDs? Why don't you just say "I irrationally hate Michael Vick"?
Culpepper - Yeah, he was sure having a great season before it mercifully ended.
Delhomme - Hard to argue with results, but he's kind of like the NFC's version of Drew Brees. Puts up solid stats, but isn't going to win a lot of games for you, and you don't worry about him among your top 2-3 concerns when you're game-planning.
Brooks - You can have him, since he'll be fired this offseason.
Simms -
Warner
Bulger
Hasselbeck

The last three guys are all system QBs who would be beyond average if placed anywhere else in the NFL. I have 6 QBs that I would probably rather have than Vick.

Your list is silly. It's not like most of the guys you mentioned even fulfill your own requirements. It's pretty obvious why you're like so many other Cardinal fans: you prefer mediocrity and "history" over taking a chance on greatness. Good.

 

[moklerman]

The last three guys are all system QBs who would be beyond average if placed anywhere else in the NFL.

That's highly speculative in Bulger's and Hasslebeck's cases. Both those guy's just needed to get a chance to play and have succeeded quite well since given the chance. Hasslebeck was actually the hottest qb prospect on the market when he went to Seattle. Warner has succeeded at every level of pro football he's played(Arena MVP, NFLE MVP(I think), NFL MVP) as well as posting an 85 rating for three different teams. He's performed well in three different NFL systems while Vick has had an offense built around him and been tutored, taught and spoon fed the position for five years and still can't complete more than half his passes in a system that was designed for a qb to do just that(Montana/Young/Grbac all teased or surpassed the 70% mark in SF).

It's pretty obvious why you're like so many other Cardinal fans: you prefer mediocrity and "history" over taking a chance on greatness

Is Vick supposedly, even possibly going to be "great"? Once Vick get's past Kordell Stewart in ability, I'll consider you're statement. Hell, he's not even as good as Kordell at this point. "Slash" used to play out of the slot and catch passes from real qb's. Kordell could throw as well(poorly) as Vick, could run almost as well(less yards but way more td's) and could run pass routes and catch the ball for td's. Yeah, Vick's gonna be a great one. Cardinals fans are just deluded into wanting a qb that can actually get the ball to their bread & butter wr's. Why on Earth a Cardinal fan would want Vick in Arizona, essentially wasting Boding and Fitz is beyond me.

 

[Stout]

The last three guys are all system QBs who would be beyond average if placed anywhere else in the NFL. I have 6 QBs that I would probably rather have than Vick.

Your list is silly. It's not like most of the guys you mentioned even fulfill your own requirements. It's pretty obvious why you're like so many other Cardinal fans: you prefer mediocrity and "history" over taking a chance on greatness. Good.

And it's pretty clear you're hung up on some mysterious 'greatness' surrounding Vick. He can create plays, sure, but he'll lose a heck of a lot of games too. And Collins has gotten to that plateau of a title game, just as you're spewing for your boy Vick.

Bottom line, do I WANT all of those QBs I've listed? Hell no. Would I want them over VICK? Hell yes. Once you get it through your head that I don't like Vick as a QB, you'll start to understand why a lot of other guys look a lot better to me. And to many other people, I'd wager.

 

[kerouac9]

And it's pretty clear you're hung up on some mysterious 'greatness' surrounding Vick. He can create plays, sure, but he'll lose a heck of a lot of games too. And Collins has gotten to that plateau of a title game, just as you're spewing for your boy Vick.

Bottom line, do I WANT all of those QBs I've listed? Hell no. Would I want them over VICK? Hell yes. Once you get it through your head that I don't like Vick as a QB, you'll start to understand why a lot of other guys look a lot better to me. And to many other people, I'd wager.

Maybe, he just hasn't yet. After all, he's got a .600 winning %.

 

[AzWins23]

Vick sucks!! Most overrated player in the NFL