Vick Struggling

[kerouac9]

Vick sucks!! Most overrated player in the NFL

Obviously. Look how overrated he is on this board.

 

[Shane]

Obviously. Look how overrated he is on this board.

Certainly is overrated by you.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

What I find funny is some of the people that defend McCown bring up his winning % as a measure of his ability as a QB yet throw away the same statistic as it applies to Mike Vick. It goes the other way too. Other people on this thread who in the past have ripped McCown and said winning % does not matter use that same stat to prop up Vick.

 

[kerouac9]

I was thinking that I might be having some cognitive dissonance on that, as well, Mao. But I think that there's a difference between a .600 winning percentage and McCown's--what?--.435 winning percentage? A big difference. And I think that people who actually watch Vick can often point to individual plays in wins that he made the either won the game or sealed the victory. Those moments are much more fewer and far between.

I really wonder whether the people that bash Vick on thie board have even seen him play in more than the Cards-Falcs game and the Falcs-Bears game.

 

[moklerman]

Like I said, until you understand and/or acknowledge that a qb doesn't have a winning pct., much less rely on it as the foundation for your argument, you really don't have a point. Did you see the MNF game of the Falcons/Jets? I've seen what Vick does and doesn't do. How'd the Falcons do against their division last year? 2-4. So, Vick can lead the Falcons to victory over the Saints. His 23/46 (50%) 343yds 2td 2int 71.2 rating hardly seem like carrying the team to me but hey, I guess a win's a win, right. It doesn't matter how he actually plays, as long as Atlanta wins he must be good.

 

[kerouac9]

Like I said, until you understand and/or acknowledge that a qb doesn't have a winning pct., much less rely on it as the foundation for your argument, you really don't have a point. Did you see the MNF game of the Falcons/Jets? I've seen what Vick does and doesn't do. How'd the Falcons do against their division last year? 2-4. So, Vick can lead the Falcons to victory over the Saints. His 23/46 (50%) 343yds 2td 2int 71.2 rating hardly seem like carrying the team to me but hey, I guess a win's a win, right. It doesn't matter how he actually plays, as long as Atlanta wins he must be good.

Oh, nice one, M. I gues the fact that Vick was 5-0 against the Panthers until this season is totally meaningless.

For some QBs, yeah, I think that you can't really take the winning percentage into the equation. Josh McCown is one of those guys. Drew Brees is another. But it seems to me that the Falcons are a totally different team with Vick's under center (as the 2003 season illustrated to the point that I can't believe you really find this debatable--Reeves was already fired and the team went 3-1 when Vick returned. Isn't that like unprecedented, or something?).

The true test for an MVP-caliber quarterback is whether or not you could probably write off the season if they went down. Not even because they necessarily have the best tools or the worst backups, but because they become the personality of their team. Vick is in company with maybe 8 other quarterbacks.

You're not going to convince me otherwise, but the fact that it seems like you're dodging this entire issue by saying that "victories are team stats" seems like a cop-out. Sometimes they are, but anyone who has seen Vick will his team to victory against high-quality competition, and understands what he means to that franchise and fan base, knows that W's can also be individual stats.

The only person more individually responsible to the success of his team in the last 4 years than Michael Vick is Tom Brady.

 

[moklerman]

Oh, nice one, M. I gues the fact that Vick was 5-0 against the Panthers until this season is totally meaningless.

No, it actually helps prove my opinion that the league is catching up to him. If Vick is "willing" his team to victory against quality opponents, what heppened in 2005?

(as the 2003 season illustrated to the point that I can't believe you really find this debatable--Reeves was already fired and the team went 3-1 when Vick returned. Isn't that like unprecedented, or something?).

I don't think it clearly illustrates anything. Reeves had worn out his welcome in Atlanta and the team was falling apart. It's like arguing that Jamie Martin is a better qb than Marc Bulger because the Rams started 2-0 under Vitt/Martin. Five games at the end of a meaningless season don't really prove anything in terms of the 2003 Falcons(to me, anyway). It isn't meaningless, but it doesn't prove anything. The following year, the Falcons had a new HC, new attitude, fresh outlook and a whole bunch of other things going their way and it translated to wins. That's part of the reason why I have such a problem with the "Vick carries the Falcons" theory. If that were true, why was there dropoff in 2005? Vick was another year removed from his injury, had that much more experience, his te and rb both put up good stat's and went to the probowl yet the team was 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs and lost to Carolina twice and Tampa Bay twice. Teams they used to beat are now sweeping them.

The true test for an MVP-caliber quarterback is whether or not you could probably write off the season if they went down.

This is a tough argument to validate. When Vick went down in 2003, yes it was crushing to the Falcons. To me, it's largely due to the fact that Kurt Kittner and Doug Johnson were the backups. Had Kitna or some other decent qb been there, the picture wouldn't have been so bleak. Those two are not NFL caliber qb's. As starters or backups. In 2005/2006, I think the story is different for the Falcons. If Vick goes down, I don't think they'll miss a beat and may actually improve on offense. No, defenses won't have to spy Vick, but they will have to recognize the wr's as a potential threat instead of leaving defenders one on one.

You're not going to convince me otherwise, but the fact that it seems like you're dodging this entire issue by saying that "victories are team stats" seems like a cop-out.

In football, victories ARE team stat's. No other team sport is as team oriented as football and no player can claim sole success of his accomplishments or team's victories in football. They just can't.

The only person more individually responsible to the success of his team in the last 4 years than Michael Vick is Tom Brady.

I can't argue with the success of the Patriots and Tom Brady but whether or not he was individually able to do something that no one else could can only be speculated upon. Actually, if you'll remember, Drew Bledsoe was the qb who got New England past Pittsburgh in the 2001 AFC Championship game so it could be theorized that other qb's may have been able to perform as well in the system and situation as Tom Brady. He's good, but just like my argument, New England win's as a team. That's why the keep winning even though they have injuries, lose coaches and players. Bellechick knows how to run a team and not put impetus on one player. When Brady went out, he brought in Bledsoe. When Dillon went out, he brought in Faulk. Etc., etc. Using New England as an example of how one player carries a team is so inaccurate in my opinion that I question how you see the game.

 

[moklerman]

Green - Utter "system" QB. He couldn't run the WCO.

I just noticed this "analysis" of Trent Green. I've never understood this argument when talking about qb's. Montana, Young, Warner, Brady, Aikman all benefitted from being in a good system with a good team. Which good/great qb's played well on bad team's and no system? Besides all of which, Green's put up good numbers in Washington, St. Louis and Kansas City, all of which don't run identical systems. He at least put up good numbers. Vick hasn't put up good numbers in a while, if at all. I'd much rather have a "system" guy putting up numbers than an athlete who doesn't.

 

[kerouac9]

It's kind of obvious that we're going around in circles here, and even I'm kind of getting tired of talking about this, but I'll say one more thing about this because I respect your considered opinions on this. Then I'll let the Vick haters have the last word.

No, it actually helps prove my opinion that the league is catching up to him. If Vick is "willing" his team to victory against quality opponents, what heppened in 2005?

A bunch of things happened in 2005. Part of it I think is that the criticism of the way Vick plays started to get to him, he started trying to stay in the pocket to appease his critics, and he couldn't run the offense the same way. The other possibility is that this was a transition that Vick needed to go through to become a better passer, and he'll bounce back next season better than ever after working to establish a rapport with Roddy White and Michael Jenkins.

The "league is catching up to him" argument doesn't carry a lot of weight with me because it seemed like Vick was trying to be more of a passer this season out of concerted effort, not because teams were keeping him behind the line of scrimmage.

I don't think it clearly illustrates anything. Reeves had worn out his welcome in Atlanta and the team was falling apart. It's like arguing that Jamie Martin is a better qb than Marc Bulger because the Rams started 2-0 under Vitt/Martin. Five games at the end of a meaningless season don't really prove anything in terms of the 2003 Falcons(to me, anyway). It isn't meaningless, but it doesn't prove anything. The following year, the Falcons had a new HC, new attitude, fresh outlook and a whole bunch of other things going their way and it translated to wins. That's part of the reason why I have such a problem with the "Vick carries the Falcons" theory. If that were true, why was there dropoff in 2005? Vick was another year removed from his injury, had that much more experience, his te and rb both put up good stat's and went to the probowl yet the team was 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs and lost to Carolina twice and Tampa Bay twice. Teams they used to beat are now sweeping them.

Shouldn't four wins "at the end of a meaningless season" when "the Falcons were falling apart" be more impressive? Isn't it more difficult to win when the team's totally given up on its coach and defensive coordinator? And it's not like those wins came against stiffs, either. The Falcons beat the eventual NFC Champion Carolina Pathers, the defending Super Bowl Champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers (in Tampa), and a Jaguars team that won three of their last 5 with Byron Leftwich.

I'm not even going to take your "Martin v. Bulger" comment seriously, because you can't compare a 2 game stretch with a 5 game stretch, and we both know that. I would use it to bolster my "system QB" arugement, considering that Bulger, Martin, and the kid from Harvard all seemed to do okay when starting for the Rams, but that's a tangential issue.

And I'll be the first to admit that Vick has historically had problems with the Bucs. I think he's something like 1-6 against them now. Because they're so fast in the Front 7, they've been able to contain him.

2005 was the first season that Carolina'd been able to handle the Falcons, though. Part of that is because they picked up Thomas Davis in the draft, who was drafted ahead of Derrick Johnson because they wanted someone who could help them contain Vick. Hard to say that a guy is "overrated" when teams are using first round draft picks with a single player in their head (this was the same reason that the Packers drafted Nick Barnett after 2002, by the way). Also, though, I think part of it is that Michael wasn't being himself this season. He's historically had great rushing days against the Panthers, but had a total of 5 attempts against them this year.

This is a tough argument to validate. When Vick went down in 2003, yes it was crushing to the Falcons. To me, it's largely due to the fact that Kurt Kittner and Doug Johnson were the backups. Had Kitna or some other decent qb been there, the picture wouldn't have been so bleak. Those two are not NFL caliber qb's. As starters or backups. In 2005/2006, I think the story is different for the Falcons. If Vick goes down, I don't think they'll miss a beat and may actually improve on offense. No, defenses won't have to spy Vick, but they will have to recognize the wr's as a potential threat instead of leaving defenders one on one.

Because Kitna did so much for the Bengals when Carson Palmer went down? Some players are so far above average/beyond the pale that not even above-average backups can lift the team to mediocrity. Vick is one of those players, and so is Carson Palmer. Matt Schaub is 0-2 as a starter. He had one good start last season against a Patriots team that was at the nadir of their season, and even his 300-yard, 3 TD performance wasn't good enough to win. Vick returned the next week and the Falcons went on a three-game winning streak.

In football, victories ARE team stat's. No other team sport is as team oriented as football and no player can claim sole success of his accomplishments or team's victories in football. They just can't.
I can't argue with the success of the Patriots and Tom Brady but whether or not he was individually able to do something that no one else could can only be speculated upon. Actually, if you'll remember, Drew Bledsoe was the qb who got New England past Pittsburgh in the 2001 AFC Championship game so it could be theorized that other qb's may have been able to perform as well in the system and situation as Tom Brady. He's good, but just like my argument, New England win's as a team. That's why the keep winning even though they have injuries, lose coaches and players. Bellechick knows how to run a team and not put impetus on one player. When Brady went out, he brought in Bledsoe. When Dillon went out, he brought in Faulk. Etc., etc. Using New England as an example of how one player carries a team is so inaccurate in my opinion that I question how you see the game.

Yes, Drew Bledsoe came in in the Conference Championship game and beat the Steelers. Don't mention the fact that Tom Brady was still the leading passer in that game (121 yards). Or that that game was 5 years ago.

Anyone who followed the Patiots this season saw how Cory Dillion was limping around and that Faulk was useless as his backup, and that Tom Brady held that team together with his bare hands for two months waiting for anyone to give him a hand. That whole team was on Tom Brady, and everyone knew it. He had to average over 250 passing yards a game to get that team to 9-7 and win a pretty horrible AFC East. But if you feel good characterizing the last four years of a team based on one game five years ago, you're welcome to it. I'm sure that everyone who watches the NFL understands that Doug Flutie could have gotten the Pats to the playoffs last season.

 

[FlagstaffDave]

Can't we just agree to disagree already?

I mean do any of you actually think one side is going to say you know what your right, Brees is the better QB or Vick is the better QB. Nobody is going to change their mind no matter what stats you dig up. I mean isn't this thread getting a bit stale?

Both of these QB's are darn good, cause if they weren't they wouldn't be the starter for their teams. And they have athletic talents that a lot of us certainly don't have.

This thread will go on for years at that rate it's going.

 

[kerouac9]

I just noticed this "analysis" of Trent Green. I've never understood this argument when talking about qb's. Montana, Young, Warner, Brady, Aikman all benefitted from being in a good system with a good team. Which good/great qb's played well on bad team's and no system? Besides all of which, Green's put up good numbers in Washington, St. Louis and Kansas City, all of which don't run identical systems. He at least put up good numbers. Vick hasn't put up good numbers in a while, if at all. I'd much rather have a "system" guy putting up numbers than an athlete who doesn't.

I'd excuse Montana, Young, and Brady from your list, mostly because those three guys didn't have anything like comperable talent around them when they were at their best--winning Super Bowls.

Kansas City and St. Louis run identical offenses. Martz may have made the St. Louis version a little more sophisticated because he didn't have to deal with the elements, but the one that Green learned under Martz/Vermeil was the same one he ran in KC with Vermeil/Saunders. The better question to ask would be who would pay top dollar to Green if he were to be cut tomorrow? Or Bulger, for that matter? Or Warner, when he got cut twice? The NFL seems to recognize that these QBs' performances don't match their talent. I don't really know why so many fans want to deny it.

And it's not only about numbers. Vick's teams have advanced deep into the playoffs. Have any of Trent Green's? There are QBs that put up good numbers, and there are QBs that are winners. In some places the lists overlap.

And now I promise to stop talking. I missed the intermediate post.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

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.

Yet you dont think taking a shot at arguably the most exciting player to come out of college in forever is worth taking a shot at? hmmmm......

 

[BigDavis75]

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

Vick's a RB now? Your posts are just getting more and more ridiculous. God forbid a guy can run. Last time I checked RBs run for more than they pass.

This list is bull and you know it.

Please find a ranking site that will agree with you. There are several out there. Please just find a few that put Vick at #21 or below.

Have you ever watched Vick or is this some previous hate agianst him. Cavs fan?

 

[moklerman]

I'd excuse Montana, Young, and Brady from your list, mostly because those three guys didn't have anything like comperable talent around them when they were at their best--winning Super Bowls.

I'm not sure how to read this. Are you saying those three had a lot of talent around them or no talent around them?

Kansas City and St. Louis run identical offenses.

I think you may want to rethink this statement before committing to it. Vermeil and Saunders and Green all came from St. Louis, but they hardly run the same offense.

The NFL seems to recognize that these QBs' performances don't match their talent. I don't really know why so many fans want to deny it.

So are you saying that a qb is only as talented as the contract he's playing for? Or that the "NFL" is never wrong? Do you realize that Warner has been the highest paid qb in the league the last two years? He was receiving money from St. Louis, NY and Arizona all at the same time. $12 milliion a year if I'm not mistaken. Does that mean he's really admired by the NFL?

And it's not only about numbers. Vick's teams have advanced deep into the playoffs. Have any of Trent Green's? There are QBs that put up good numbers, and there are QBs that are winners. In some places the lists overlap.

Vick and the Falcons have been to the playoffs twice in five years. Vick averaged 152 yards passing and 1/2 td per game in his playoff career. That is not spectacular nor special. It doesn't make him a winner any more than Trent Green either. The Chiefs are 0-1 with Green at qb in the playoffs. He completed 60% of his passes, threw a td and didn't turn the ball over. The team scored 31 points. More than Vick in 3 out 4 of his playoff games.

And now I promise to stop talking. I missed the intermediate post.

I encourage you not to. Flagstaff can go read something else if he doesn't want to be a part of this one. We're not hurting anyone and there's no reason we can't banter about this if we want to. I'm sure there will be plenty of mock drafts(and nothing else) for everyone to read.

Please find a ranking site that will agree with you. There are several out there. Please just find a few that put Vick at #21 or below.

How 'bout NFL.com? Or ESPN.com? They have Vick ranked at #25 out of 34. I don't know of any sites that measure ability, so we'll have to settle for performance until further notice.

 

[FlagstaffDave]

Flagstaff can go read something else if he doesn't want to be a part of this one. We're not hurting anyone and there's no reason we can't banter about this if we want to.

Grow up.

If you want to look like a fool and talk about the same thing over and over then go for it. And what will the end result be? Everyone will still have the same opinion and you have wasted tons of time on researching stats and arguing with folks that couldn't care less about your opinion (me included).

Get a life moklerman.

 

[Stout]

Vick's a RB now? Your posts are just getting more and more ridiculous. God forbid a guy can run. Last time I checked RBs run for more than they pass.

This list is bull and you know it.

Please find a ranking site that will agree with you. There are several out there. Please just find a few that put Vick at #21 or below.

Have you ever watched Vick or is this some previous hate agianst him. Cavs fan?

Yeah, Vick plays QB much like a RB would...look to run first, and pass poorly if forced to do it. Face it, man, when he's forced to pass to win the game, they don't often win. Why? Because he turns it over more than he scores TDs, and he's not good at passing the ball. To me, a QB kind of needs to be able to pass the ball. Vick can't seem to do it. All the arm strength in the world, but that's about it.

 

[kerouac9]

So are you saying that a qb is only as talented as the contract he's playing for? Or that the "NFL" is never wrong? Do you realize that Warner has been the highest paid qb in the league the last two years? He was receiving money from St. Louis, NY and Arizona all at the same time. $12 milliion a year if I'm not mistaken. Does that mean he's really admired by the NFL?

I'm saying that players--especially veteran players--are paid based on how the NFL views their talent and what the market would be for them. They get paid for their esteimated value to the franchise.

It's quite wrong to say that Warner was "getting paid by three teams" last season. He may have been counting against the caps of three teams, but he wasn't cashing three paychecks every week.

The League sets the value for players when they become available. There's no better way to put it. Warner/Bulger/Green would get nowhere near the price Michael Vick got last season, and you know it. Because the system makes them all look better than they are.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Yeah, Vick plays QB much like a RB would...look to run first, and pass poorly if forced to do it. Face it, man, when he's forced to pass to win the game, they don't often win. Why? Because he turns it over more than he scores TDs, and he's not good at passing the ball. To me, a QB kind of needs to be able to pass the ball. Vick can't seem to do it. All the arm strength in the world, but that's about it.

I've read this thread from beginning to end, and I agree with this statement the most.

Vick in a nutshell: Contain him in the pocket, don't allow him to use his superstar running ability, let him beat you with his Kordell Stewartesque passing ability.

He is a horrible passer, but not a horrible complete player.

Kerouac is Vick a good passer? If not, then he isn't good at the main function of a QB. It's like say saying I have this gun that shoots really fast but isn't accurate at all. Sure, the gun will get you a few kills here and there, but when it comes down to it, it will get you killed.

My prediction on Vick, he'll get 2 more seasons to improve as a passer or the Falcons will cut him loose.

 

[BACH]

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.

Good post!

You can argue for both QBs. Brees is a much better pure QB than Vick, but Vick has the X-factor. All the points for both players have already been discussed so not need in repeating them.

One point that I think is missing from this thread is the system. IMO Vick leaves his team with much less options than Brees, which makes Brees the better QB. Vick is one worst passing QBs in the league and that forces the Falcons to be this power running team, because the only way to make Vick an effective passer is using the play-action, which furthermore helps setting up the boot-legs from Vick.

The Falcons are forced to be a one dimentional power running team as long as Vick remains the starter. They're very good at that, but IMO they'll never be able play from behind and why they'll away be a good team but never a great team.

 

[moklerman]

The League sets the value for players when they become available. There's no better way to put it. Warner/Bulger/Green would get nowhere near the price Michael Vick got last season, and you know it. Because the system makes them all look better than they are.

By this rationale, Eli Manning and Alex Smith are two of the best qb's in the league right now. I understand your point but there have been way too many instances of a player being way overpaid for reasons other than their actual talent. I think if Vick hit the open market right now, he wouldn't get anywhere near the fat contract he got from Atlanta last year. I'm relatively sure that Atlanta assumed(and definitely hoped) that Vick was "turning the corner" and becoming an actual qb. He didn't improve though, and looking at his stat's actually regressed. I think the shine has worn off that penny. Look at the media's perception(not an accurate guage in many ways). I doubt you could find a writer or talking head before the 2004 season that would actually criticize or question Vick's ability/potential. Now, not only do the question is performances, they question him about his performances.

Grow up.

If you want to look like a fool and talk about the same thing over and over then go for it. And what will the end result be? Everyone will still have the same opinion and you have wasted tons of time on researching stats and arguing with folks that couldn't care less about your opinion (me included).

Get a life moklerman.

If you could care less, why are you still preaching to me? I enjoy discussing football. Apparently quite a few people enjoy discussing the topic at hand. If you're not one of them, why start dictating to others what they should or shouldn't talk about? Just find another thread that interests you. Do you REALLY think you're speaking for everyone else in this forum?

Kerouac is Vick a good passer? If not, then he isn't good at the main function of a QB. It's like say saying I have this gun that shoots really fast but isn't accurate at all. Sure, the gun will get you a few kills here and there, but when it comes down to it, it will get you killed.

This is a good analogy, but I'm almost afraid to know how many could actually relate(rather than imagine)! LOL

 

[SuperSpck]

Grow up.

If you want to look like a fool and talk about the same thing over and over then go for it. And what will the end result be? Everyone will still have the same opinion and you have wasted tons of time on researching stats and arguing with folks that couldn't care less about your opinion (me included).

Get a life moklerman.

If you're not interested in a discussion, don't read about it. Certainly don't complain about it, that's classless.

 

[BigDavis75]

They have Vick ranked at #25 out of 34. I don't know of any sites that measure ability, so we'll have to settle for performance until further notice.

You misunderstood, I'm not talking stats-wise. I'm talking about where they rank on actual ability. For example, Casey Hampton is middle-of -the-road stats wise but is a much better player, probably a top 5 DT. Do you see what I'm saying? Check out TSN? or some place where they grade out players.

 

[moklerman]

I understand what you're saying, but performance is a pretty accurate indicator in my opinion. Ability can't be measured. TSN or anywhere else that put's together a list of who they like is just that--who they "like". Like I've said, I think a blueprint for containing and even stopping Vick has been established. Look at how Atlanta finished 2005-four losses in five games(New Orleans still let's Vick run free and loses because of it.). It doesn't sound like Vick is willing anything but losses.

 

[BigDavis75]

I understand what you're saying, but performance is a pretty accurate indicator in my opinion. Ability can't be measured. TSN or anywhere else that put's together a list of who they like is just that--who they "like". Like I've said, I think a blueprint for containing and even stopping Vick has been established. Look at how Atlanta finished 2005-four losses in five games(New Orleans still let's Vick run free and loses because of it.). It doesn't sound like Vick is willing anything but losses.

Vick is much better than his stats and is more important to the Falcons than his stats. can we establish that?

San Diego lost 3 of their last four, so do teams have a plan for Brees?

If you could find an actual ratings site that has him lower then #21 that would be great.

 

[Duckjake]

I understand what you're saying, but performance is a pretty accurate indicator in my opinion. Ability can't be measured. TSN or anywhere else that put's together a list of who they like is just that--who they "like". Like I've said, I think a blueprint for containing and even stopping Vick has been established. Look at how Atlanta finished 2005-four losses in five games(New Orleans still let's Vick run free and loses because of it.). It doesn't sound like Vick is willing anything but losses.

You can contain runners but you can't stop wide receivers. Atlanta has very poor WR's compared to most NFL teams. I wouldn't trade any of our top three for any of theirs. If Atlanta can get Vick an Anquan Boldin or Larry Fitzgerald who can make teams pay for keying on Vick maybe they won't lose those four of five games.