Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
        (https://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi)
      

        the Gridiron >> the Red Zone >>  start michael vick?
        
(Message started by: geojon on Sep 19th, 2004, 12:10am)
Title: start michael vick?
Post by geojon on Sep 19th, 2004, 12:10am
would anybody here start michael vick?
is it the new west coast offense or his injury last season?
he's just not the same guy.

what would you do?

tks.

george
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by BarnabyWilde on Sep 19th, 2004, 12:14am
George,

What are your other options?
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by sameoldsameold on Sep 19th, 2004, 4:27am
depending on options i dont think i would play him this week....but yes knowing other options would help alot.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by geojon on Sep 19th, 2004, 9:11am
my other qb is a. brooks. not exactly setting the world on fire either.

tks.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by junkyardjake on Sep 19th, 2004, 9:57am
You are probably fine with either Vick or Brooks, I don't think anyone would be shocked if they had similiar games this week playing at home against St. Louis and San Fran respectively.

However, you are correct in that Vick doesn't appear to be 100% with his running ability at the moment.  I would probably start Brooks against the dreadful 49er defense, but you should be fine either way.

JYJ :^)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by StegRock on Sep 19th, 2004, 12:35pm

on 09/19/04 at 09:57:28, junkyardjake wrote:
I would probably start Brooks against the dreadful 49er defense, but you should be fine either way.


I would lean this way as well.  But, it is a very close call.  Good luck, bro! [smiley=shamrock.gif]
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by geojon on Sep 19th, 2004, 1:00pm
tks, guys, for your input. I think you are right: it's a toss-up. I'll stick with vick for one more week then maybe I'll do a trade for a premo qb, got a million starting rbs--l. gordon, d. foster, e. james, f. taylor and d. davis--to bargain with.

george
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 20th, 2004, 6:26am

on 09/19/04 at 09:57:28, junkyardjake wrote:
You are probably fine with either Vick or Brooks, I don't think anyone would be shocked if they had similiar games this week playing at home against St. Louis and San Fran respectively.

However, you are correct in that Vick doesn't appear to be 100% with his running ability at the moment.  I would probably start Brooks against the dreadful 49er defense, but you should be fine either way.

JYJ :^)


Great advice! And also, don't let others influence you about Vick losing his superpowers. I am posting in my league after his 100 yard rushing performance and assking where all the Vick Nay-Sayers are now?

I played him this week and made out!
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by junkyardjake on Sep 20th, 2004, 7:04am
Aaron Brooks  279 yards, 3 TDs
Michael Vick 179 yards, 1 TD, 109 yds rushing

Aaron Brooks  (279 *.05)  + (3TD * 4 pts per TD) = 25.95

Michael Vick (179 *.05) + (1TD * 4 pts per TD) + (109 * .10) = 23.85

Aaron Brooks-  25.95
Michael Vick- 23.85

Steg and I both said ' Brooks would have a slight edge'

What's your point ?

JYJ :^)

Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 20th, 2004, 12:28pm

on 09/20/04 at 07:04:15, junkyardjake wrote:
Aaron Brooks  279 yards, 3 TDs
Michael Vick 179 yards, 1 TD, 109 yds rushing

Aaron Brooks  (279 *.05)  + (3TD * 4 pts per TD) = 25.95

Michael Vick (179 *.05) + (1TD * 4 pts per TD) + (109 * .10) = 23.85

Aaron Brooks-  25.95
Michael Vick- 23.85

Steg and I both said ' Brooks would have a slight edge'

What's your point ?

JYJ :^)


Not sure I get this. Maybe cuz what I meant to do in last post was to communicate to the original poster rather than, YOU inparticular. I only quoted you cuz, as I said in my post (MY POINT), you gave great advice.

Thanks for the breakdown on stats but, I fully aware of how both QBs did.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by junkyardjake on Sep 20th, 2004, 1:05pm
My apologies for the math lesson, I thought you were being a smart ass, as in 'Oh yeah, great advice to start Brooks over Vick, look at those mad excellent rushing numbers !'.

I must have confused you with a different smartass  :)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 20th, 2004, 2:39pm
I am a smart ass JYJ but, try only to BEE in my own league as it is part of the fun there. Outside my territory thats not the case (or at least I hope that not to be the case). No problem though,  cuz, I wasn't exactly clear in my post - looking back on it, I quoted you but, was referring to the original poster because I think he mentioned trading Vick away.
Also, guys in my league were so trying to give me crap about Vick all pre-season long which was the comment referring to the Nay-Sayers - my post really was quite confusing, sorry about that - just really tired this week and haven't caught up on my sleep just yet but, still trying to add a little to the Grid.

good luck
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 20th, 2004, 3:34pm
Michael Vick is an overrated fraud.  He is an injury waiting to happen.  He is not a great passer.  He is not an ideal QB for the west coast offense that Mora/Knapp are installing.  He has marginally talented receivers.  I have never had Vick on a fantasy team and am happy about that.

He throws for 179 yards and runs for 109 yards against a poor Rams defense and all of a sudden the guy is a Unitas-Sayers combo?  He had one TD pass against a weak secondary!

Just my [smiley=twocents.gif].  I'm not a fan of the guy, obviously, and am just waiting for him to get injured so rookie Matt Schaub can show the city of Atlanta how the WCO can be run with the right QB.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 20th, 2004, 5:24pm

on 09/20/04 at 15:34:44, Philly wrote:
Michael Vick is an overrated fraud.  He is an injury waiting to happen.  He is not a great passer.  He is not an ideal QB for the west coast offense that Mora/Knapp are installing.  He has marginally talented receivers.  I have never had Vick on a fantasy team and am happy about that.

He throws for 179 yards and runs for 109 yards against a poor Rams defense and all of a sudden the guy is a Unitas-Sayers combo?  He had one TD pass against a weak secondary!

Just my [smiley=twocents.gif].  I'm not a fan of the guy, obviously, and am just waiting for him to get injured so rookie Matt Schaub can show the city of Atlanta how the WCO can be run with the right QB.


And this is one of the most ridiculous overrated 2-cent-comments-opinions I have ever heard about a SUPERSTAR player.

His talent is OBVIOUS - just look at the Falcons record w/ him in the lineup and w/out him.

Facts are facts and the Falcons are a terrible team w/out him and a playoff bound team w/ him.

Any and every QB is an injury waiting to happen. Your analysis of his one game against the Rams is a poor attempt to prove a point that isn't even evident.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 21st, 2004, 12:31am

on 09/20/04 at 17:24:27, KillerKingSting wrote:
And this is one of the most ridiculous overrated 2-cent-comments-opinions I have ever heard about a SUPERSTAR player.

He's a superstar collegiate player... an NFL player with superstar potential... but certainly not a superstar player.


Quote:
His talent is OBVIOUS - just look at the Falcons record w/ him in the lineup and w/out him.

How many games have they had with him and without him... not a good ratio, is it?  In 3+ years in the league now, he's started a total of 23 games.


Quote:
Facts are facts and the Falcons are a terrible team w/out him and a playoff bound team w/ him.

What did they have to replace him with?  Doug Johnson?  Kurt Kittner?  I think some of the blame for the poor showings could be put squarely in their laps...


Quote:
Any and every QB is an injury waiting to happen.

True enough.  I imagine Peyton Manning is an injury waiting to happen too, yet he's avoided them.  Vick has a history here...


Quote:
Your analysis of his one game against the Rams is a poor attempt to prove a point that isn't even evident.

Let's look at his first game of the season then, too... Wow, even worse numbers against a poor San Fran team.

--

The point is, Vick (while healthy, which isn't a lock) is a solid FF QB because of his running ability.  He doesn't win fantasy games with his arm.  He has never thrown more than 2 TDs in a game.  He has only one 300 yard passing game in his NFL career.  I can name 10 QBs who I would rather have as an NFL QB and I'll never draft him for my fantasy team because he is just too big a risk for inconsistent returns.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 21st, 2004, 2:46am

on 09/21/04 at 00:31:09, Philly wrote:
He's a superstar collegiate player... an NFL player with superstar potential... but certainly not a superstar player.


Certainly IMO he is. There is NO other QB in the NFL that could replace his talents - thats super-stardom.


Quote:
How many games have they had with him and without him... not a good ratio, is it?  In 3+ years in the league now, he's started a total of 23 games.


Ratio is good enough for me and obviously the Falcons as well. I would even be willing to bet a lot of other NFL teams out there would salivate at the chance to nab him. In fact, the whole talk about the Charger's anemic QB situation started with them PASSING on Vick. Must mean that THEY see something in Vick that YOU have failed to give him credit for. (they being the NFL media which includes prior NFL players who I would BET have more scouting talent than you.)


Quote:
What did they have to replace him with?  Doug Johnson?  Kurt Kittner?  I think some of the blame for the poor showings could be put squarely in their laps...


Ahhhhhhh, now your making MY (and Vicks) point for me. In your first post, you went on to critisize Vick up and down. But what you aren't eluding to is the fact that I brought up which is, VICK is the Atlanta Falcons - Put him behind Brett Farve's OL, give him any ONE of the top RBs in the game, throw him some stud wideouts and then, you'll see his passing numbers increase. YOUR blaming Vick's prior passing short-comings solely on him - your analysis is incomplete and subjectively fogged at best.


Quote:
True enough.  I imagine Peyton Manning is an injury waiting to happen too, yet he's avoided them.  Vick has a history here...


Funny, that you are now giving ONE example of ONLY TWO QBs that you can say that about. Your getting quite desparate in your rebutal. Try again.


Quote:
Let's look at his first game of the season then, too... Wow, even worse numbers against a poor San Fran team.


I'm sure there are other great QBs that have had  soso first game stats in the history of the NFL and especially when their coaches don't give them a chance to play the preseason out. ::)

--


Quote:
The point is, Vick (while healthy, which isn't a lock) is a solid FF QB because of his running ability.  He doesn't win fantasy games with his arm.  He has never thrown more than 2 TDs in a game.  He has only one 300 yard passing game in his NFL career.  I can name 10 QBs who I would rather have as an NFL QB and I'll never draft him for my fantasy team because he is just too big a risk for inconsistent returns.


No QB these days would be a lock to be healthy. Why don't you predict for me each year when each and every QB will go down with injury (if in fact they will according to you) and then, I'll buy into your opinion on Vick.

Fact is that the NFL is parity these days and that INCLUDES the OLINE and especially THIS year you'll see that as evidence (more OLINE movement because of salary cap issues than ever before in the history of the NFL - lets talk facts here shall we?) - and with OLINE movement , you have incontinuity which = SACKS which = INJURED QBs.

Read above statement about the ATLANTA FALCONS TEAM as a whole entity instead of blaming Vick's sub-par passing numbers soley on him and his talents and his style of play.

An NFL team is exactly THAT. Its a TEAM effort. Even you eluded (gotta give you credit for soemthing) that he didn't have top WRs.

TEAM EFFORT. He is an Elway in the making (no not exactly- but only in the way that he has basically been a one man show) until he gets a full team around him.

By the way, when Vick had to throw to win that game against Pittsburg in 2002, he had over 400 yards passing with your so called - not so great WRs to throw to. He only threw 8 INTs that year as well. Was there a year in which Manning threw that low of a number of INTs? No there wasn't.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 21st, 2004, 10:02am
OK, first off, let's figure out what we're arguing here... is it Vick as a fantasy QB or Vick as an NFL QB...  I get the sense that you are arguing it from an NFL point of view, so that is how I'll respond.

Again, yes, every QB (heck, every NFL player) is an injury risk.  It is a contact sport and the league can only protect QBs so much.  But Vick has a higher risk than most because he gets hit so much more than most QBs.  He relies extensively on running and therefore assumes a greater risk.

We can't really judge Vick on 2001 (only 2 games started), 2003 (4 games started), or 2004 (2 games started) fully.  We can, however, look at his 2002 season where the Falcons made the playoffs.  He played 15 of the 16 regular season games.  He had an 8-6-1 record (not terribly impressive).  In that season he had an outstanding TD to INT ratio.  He made very few mistakes while throwing the ball.  But he averaged only one TD a game.  He threw for 2900+ yards (which is less than 200 yards a game).  He had NINE fumbles!  Granted, he only lost one of them, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he fumbles so often.  

You seem to be arguing the point that he is a superstar because of his talent.  He is a gifted athlete.  There is certainly no denying that.  He is probably the most physically and athletically gifted athlete EVER to play the QB position.  But he is still nothing more than an average to above-average NFL QB.  He is not a superstar, and a large part of that is because he cannot be counted on to play every game.


on 09/21/04 at 02:46:19, KillerKingSting wrote:
Certainly IMO he is. There is NO other QB in the NFL that could replace his talents - thats super-stardom.
I base superstardom on results, not on talent alone.  Could Daunte Culpepper or Donovan McNabb replace him and put up as good (if not better numbers)?  I believe so.



Quote:
Ratio is good enough for me and obviously the Falcons as well. I would even be willing to bet a lot of other NFL teams out there would salivate at the chance to nab him. In fact, the whole talk about the Charger's anemic QB situation started with them PASSING on Vick.
You seem to be forgetting that it started before that with a fellow named Ryan Leaf.  And if the ratio of games started to games missed is good enough for the Falcons, why did they waste a pick on one of the more highly rated rookie QBs instead of shoring up their woeful offensive line or filling a hole on defense?



Quote:
Must mean that THEY see something in Vick that YOU have failed to give him credit for. (they being the NFL media which includes prior NFL players who I would BET have more scouting talent than you.)
And they probably have more scouting talent than you too, which means that there is no reason for incompetent football morons like the two of us to even bother having an opinion, right?



Quote:
Ahhhhhhh, now your making MY (and Vicks) point for me. In your first post, you went on to critisize Vick up and down. But what you aren't eluding to is the fact that I brought up which is, VICK is the Atlanta Falcons - Put him behind Brett Farve's OL, give him any ONE of the top RBs in the game, throw him some stud wideouts and then, you'll see his passing numbers increase. YOUR blaming Vick's prior passing short-comings solely on him - your analysis is incomplete and subjectively fogged at best.
Put Kordell Stewart behind the best OL with a stud RB and two stud WRs and he could be in the Hall of Fame too.  The reality is what it is... A superstar player has to be able to overcome the shortfalls of his team to succeed.  Barry Sanders never had a stud QB or a great O-line to work with.



Quote:
Funny, that you are now giving ONE example of ONLY TWO QBs that you can say that about. Your getting quite desparate in your rebutal. Try again.
Do you really want me to go through all the QBs that have played since Vick came into the league and compare the percentage of games missed because of injury?  I could find the stats and do it, but it would take a LOT of time and I think we both know that Vick would still be near the bottom of the list.



Quote:
I'm sure there are other great QBs that have had  soso first game stats in the history of the NFL and especially when their coaches don't give them a chance to play the preseason out. ::)
It's not just the two games of 2004 that I'm basing this on... it's his entire history since he entered the league in 2001.  And his not playing in pre-season was as much his decision as his coach's.  In fact, I remember reading articles where Mora was getting frustrated that Vick was getting so little practice with the new offensive system.


Quote:
No QB these days would be a lock to be healthy. Why don't you predict for me each year when each and every QB will go down with injury (if in fact they will according to you) and then, I'll buy into your opinion on Vick.
It's not just my opinion that Vick is an injury risk. It's his style of play. He was flipped upside down last week against the Rams on a run. I watched him take a vicious shot from Brian Dawkins in the playoffs in 2002. He plays without abandon and will pay the price for that in the end.


Quote:
Fact is that the NFL is parity these days and that INCLUDES the OLINE and especially THIS year you'll see that as evidence (more OLINE movement because of salary cap issues than ever before in the history of the NFL - lets talk facts here shall we?) - and with OLINE movement , you have incontinuity which = SACKS which = INJURED QBs.
David Carr was sacked more than anyone in 2002 and he stayed healthy.  Drew Bledsoe was sacked more than anyone in 2003 and he stayed healthy.  


Quote:
By the way, when Vick had to throw to win that game against Pittsburg in 2002, he had over 400 yards passing with your so called - not so great WRs to throw to.

Here's the line from the game (courtesy of NFL.com):
11/10 @Pittsburgh
Tie 34-34
24-46-294-1-0
Sacked 4-29
Rushes 10-52-1
Fumbles 1
The game was a tie, not a win.  He had 294 passing yards (where did you get 400+?).  He completed just over half his passes and took a lot of sacks.  He threw only one TD pass.


Quote:
He only threw 8 INTs that year as well. Was there a year in which Manning threw that low of a number of INTs? No there wasn't.

Was there a year that Vick threw anywhere near as many passes as Manning?  More passes=more INTs.  Manning threw only 10 INTs in 16 games in 2003 (Vick had 8 in 15 games in 2002) and Manning threw about 140 more passes than Vick did and 13 more TDs.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 21st, 2004, 1:10pm

on 09/21/04 at 10:02:51, Philly wrote:
OK, first off, let's figure out what we're arguing here... is it Vick as a fantasy QB or Vick as an NFL QB...  I get the sense that you are arguing it from an NFL point of view, so that is how I'll respond.


Your "senses" are wrong. I like him as a FF & NFL QB. And as far as I am concerned, this is a discussion, not an argument.


Quote:
Again, yes, every QB (heck, every NFL player) is an injury risk.  It is a contact sport and the league can only protect QBs so much.  But Vick has a higher risk than most because he gets hit so much more than most QBs.  He relies extensively on running and therefore assumes a greater risk.


hmmmm, surely that makes sense BUT, I don't see Eli Manning surviving too much longer than ANY of the scrambling QBs out there under the Giant's OLINE this year. So, I have to disagree at some level with your analysis.


Quote:
We can't really judge Vick on 2001 (only 2 games started), 2003 (4 games started), or 2004 (2 games started) fully.  We can, however, look at his 2002 season where the Falcons made the playoffs.  He played 15 of the 16 regular season games.  He had an 8-6-1 record (not terribly impressive).  In that season he had an outstanding TD to INT ratio.  He made very few mistakes while throwing the ball.  But he averaged only one TD a game.  He threw for 2900+ yards (which is less than 200 yards a game).  He had NINE fumbles!  Granted, he only lost one of them, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he fumbles so often.


Yup, he only LOST one of them - "almost" doesn't cut it.
Also, are you showing your inability to see the BIG PICTURE of Vick's success in the 2002 season? He took a non-playoff team to the playoffs and beat BRETT FARVE & COM. AT GREEN BAY.
HE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL that year despite your non-approval of HOW he did it.
Are QBs allowed to be different in your mind? Are they allowed to win games - no matter HOW they do it - differently? in order for them to be successful QBs?
Yes, of course they are. Your analysis and attempt at downgrading his playoff year is just plain SILLY and seems like another desparate attempt at you making a point against one of the outstanding, upcoming, young superstar QBs  in the NFL.


Quote:
You seem to be arguing the point that he is a superstar because of his talent.  He is a gifted athlete.  There is certainly no denying that.  He is probably the most physically and athletically gifted athlete EVER to play the QB position.  But he is still nothing more than an average to above-average NFL QB.  He is not a superstar, and a large part of that is because he cannot be counted on to play every game.


In YOUR MIND he is nothing more than an average QB AND he has superstardom written all over him.


Quote:
I base superstardom on results, not on talent alone.  Could Daunte Culpepper or Donovan McNabb replace him and put up as good (if not better numbers)?  I believe so.


No, Daunte NOR McNabb have the athletic ability of Vick IMO. Watch him run and watch the other 2 QBs mentioned run - there is no comparison.



Quote:
You seem to be forgetting that it started before that with a fellow named Ryan Leaf.  And if the ratio of games started to games missed is good enough for the Falcons, why did they waste a pick on one of the more highly rated rookie QBs instead of shoring up their woeful offensive line or filling a hole on defense?


I wouldn't exactly call Matt Schaub a highly rated QB when you have the likes of Manning, Rivers & Roeth in the draft not to mention ANY team having the oppurtunity to draw Henson to their team.
I saw your post on the GBRFL2 in which you have Vick sailing through the  air during a backflip (yet another attempt to discredit him - ONE play of the WHOLE successful game you posted rather than - once again - the BIG picture - shows your predjudice in this area quite clearly). As if M.Schaub has done ANYTHING in the NFL to this point to get SOOOOOOOOOOO excited about - what did he do? Win some Pre-Season type vanilla games???
And you are trying to discredit Vick?
This is getting to easy for me.
Your giving credit to a BUP QB who has never played in a NFL game thats COUNTS for the regular season standings YET , your philosophy is to discredit a QB who has been successful on the REAL competitive level of NFL play?
I'm laughing at this! [smiley=laugh.gif]



Quote:
And they probably have more scouting talent than you too, which means that there is no reason for incompetent football morons like the two of us to even bother having an opinion, right?


I agree with them, so please don't include me in your incompetent and moronic view of Vick. ;D



Quote:
Put Kordell Stewart behind the best OL with a stud RB and two stud WRs and he could be in the Hall of Fame too.  The reality is what it is... A superstar player has to be able to overcome the shortfalls of his team to succeed.  Barry Sanders never had a stud QB or a great O-line to work with.


I totally disagree and there is a HUGE diffwerence between Stewart & Vick - that difference INCLUDES INTS!!!! Hello!
Lets not compare apples to oranges here, (RBs to QBs) or shall we say that based on your ONLY realistic KNOCK on Vick (that being his injury prone status) that you also wouldn't have J.Lewis on your team because of his 2 knee surgerys? Oh, I am almost positive you would've had him on your FF team last season especially. Stick w/ QBs analysis here ;)



Quote:
Do you really want me to go through all the QBs that have played since Vick came into the league and compare the percentage of games missed because of injury?  I could find the stats and do it, but it would take a LOT of time and I think we both know that Vick would still be near the bottom of the list.


Yes, I do. Every single one of them please. You are making an accusation against one of the upcoming uperstart QBs in the league and that accusation offers absolutely NO insight whatsoever into his future development ala McNair and the knock on him as a scrambler who couldn't pass the ball (look at him now!) (and by the way, all the time McNair actually had a talented team on his side) and even your beloved McNabbit who has been critisized up & down about his sccuracy being below 60% UNTIL (another great point of mine) he this season when their anemic offense acquired T.O.
Yes, do the stats and present them and explain your absolute ignorance of Vick's development.



Quote:
t just the two games of 2004 that I'm basing this on... it's his entire history since he entered the league in 2001.  And his not playing in pre-season was as much his decision as his coach's.  In fact, I remember reading articles where Mora was getting frustrated that Vick was getting so little practice with the new offensive system.[quote]

Uh huh. Read the above responses please.

[quote]t just my opinion that Vick is an injury risk. It's his style of play. He was flipped upside down last week against the Rams on a run. I watched him take a vicious shot from Brian Dawkins in the playoffs in 2002. He plays without abandon and will pay the price for that in the end.


You have some credit here for your analysis BUT, the fact is that when Vick went down last year it was on a play in which he was NOT past the line of scrimage which means that, ANY QB could've takken that shot behind the LOS and gotten injured for the season. Pennington did and hes NOT a scrambler by any means.


Quote:
Crr was sacked more than anyone in 2002 and he stayed healthy.  Drew Bledsoe was sacked more than anyone in 2003 and he stayed healthy.


This is desparate to include a QB (Carr) that was NOT healthy last season. This season to date = Rattay down x 2; Maddox out at least 6 weeks; mLosman with a broken bone and out; Brunell w/ a hammy - day to day; Brees w/ a concussion; to name a few AND VICK IS STILL standing despite his ever-so dangerous ways of playing QB - you had better hope Peyton Manning doesn't go down this year - that wouldn't do any justice for your present analysis now would it?


Quote:
the line from the game (courtesy of NFL.com):
11/10 @Pittsburgh
Tie 34-34
24-46-294-1-0
Sacked 4-29
Rushes 10-52-1
Fumbles 1
The game was a tie, not a win.  He had 294 passing yards (where did you get 400+?).  He completed just over half his passes and took a lot of sacks.  He threw only one TD pass.


Where are the Running TDs he got in that game OR are you now getting desparate enough to only show your lopsided view of things and not the WHOLE enchilada?
I stand corrected on his passing yard stats.


Quote:
re a year that Vick threw anywhere near as many passes as Manning?  More passes=more INTs.  Manning threw only 10 INTs in 16 games in 2003 (Vick had 8 in 15 games in 2002) and Manning threw about 140 more passes than Vick did and 13 more TDs.


One sided - no big picture - view once again. WRs are sometimes just as much at fualt for their poor route running and "not on the same oage" as the QB inablities as are QBs for INTs.
Manning has Harison - Vick doesn't.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 21st, 2004, 1:14pm
QBs I would rather have running my NFL team than Vick if I was an NFL Head Coach/GM/Owner...  (in no particular order)

Peyton Manning
Daunte Culpepper
Donovan McNabb
Brett Favre
Matt Hasselbeck
Steve McNair
Chad Pennington
Tom Brady
Kyle Boller (just kidding ;))
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 21st, 2004, 2:06pm
LOL on the Kyle Boller pick. :D
By the way, I fixed my last post in which I included one of my responses along w/ yours in the grey. Sorry about that!
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 21st, 2004, 3:23pm

on 09/21/04 at 13:10:42, KillerKingSting wrote:
Yup, he only LOST one of them - "almost" doesn't cut it.
Fumble recovery has nothing to do with his ability... it's luck.  The fact that he fumbled the ball so many times speaks to his abilities.


Quote:
Also, are you showing your inability to see the BIG PICTURE of Vick's success in the 2002 season? He took a non-playoff team to the playoffs and beat BRETT FARVE & COM. AT GREEN BAY. HE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL that year despite your non-approval of HOW he did it.
Are QBs allowed to be different in your mind? Are they allowed to win games - no matter HOW they do it - differently? in order for them to be successful QBs?
Yes, of course they are. Your analysis and attempt at downgrading his playoff year is just plain SILLY and seems like another desparate attempt at you making a point against one of the outstanding, upcoming, young superstar QBs  in the NFL.
The Falcons team had a solid year in 2002. They made the playoffs in large part because they had an opportunistic and aggressive defense and had a RB combo (Dunn and Duckett) who rushed for nearly 1500 yards.  And they had an exciting QB who could improvise and win games with his feet. I'll grant you all of that.

As far as QBs getting things done different ways, I'm an Eagles fan, so I've followed Cunningham and McNabb closely and know that a QB can be effective player by using more than his arm.



Quote:
No, Daunte NOR McNabb have the athletic ability of Vick IMO. Watch him run and watch the other 2 QBs mentioned run - there is no comparison.
Athletic ability is based on more than just running ability, isn't it?  It's not really that simple, is it?  Have you seen 290 lb. defensive linemen try to tackle McNabb or Culpep, only to be tossed aside like a Snickers wrapper? Let's not forget their guns for arms. Neither of the two would be able to put up as good rushing yards in the Atlanta system as Vick does, but I believe they would both more than make up for it with their arms. They both read defenses better than Vick (but I'll chalk that one up to experience and playing time - Vick has been injured too much to have a chance there...).



Quote:
I wouldn't exactly call Matt Schaub a highly rated QB when you have the likes of Manning, Rivers & Roeth in the draft not to mention ANY team having the oppurtunity to draw Henson to their team.

Sure, Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger were the highest rated QBs in this year's draft, but there were QBs like Losman and Rivers right behind them.  If you listen to those "media experts" so much, you'd realize that he was a very highly rated QB and projected as early as a second round pick.


Quote:
I saw your post on the GBRFL2 in which you have Vick sailing through the  air during a backflip (yet another attempt to discredit him - ONE play of the WHOLE successful game you posted rather than - once again - the BIG picture - shows your predjudice in this area quite clearly).
That was there to post an excellent photograph more than anything... and also to point out the fact that Matt Schaub may be starting in the league sooner than later if Vick keeps doing 360s like that.  It was a great run.  I'm not taking that away from him.  However, it was also a big hit and there was a very good chance that he could land wrong and get hurt.


Quote:
As if M.Schaub has done ANYTHING in the NFL to this point to get SOOOOOOOOOOO excited about - what did he do? Win some Pre-Season type vanilla games???
And you are trying to discredit Vick?
This is getting to easy for me.
Your giving credit to a BUP QB who has never played in a NFL game thats COUNTS for the regular season standings YET , your philosophy is to discredit a QB who has been successful on the REAL competitive level of NFL play?
I'm laughing at this! [smiley=laugh.gif]

I'm not saying that Matt Schaub is a superstar.  I'm not even saying that he will be one some day.  All I know is that I saw him run the WCO very effectively (against second, third, fourth string competition in pre-season).  It doesn't mean a whole lot, but he still has to be able to make the throws, which he did.  I thought he looked good and I think he has an excellent opportunity ahead of him.  Is he as talented as Vick?  Certainly not.  Is he a better passer?  Possibly... no one knows yet.



Quote:
I totally disagree and there is a HUGE diffwerence between Stewart & Vick - that difference INCLUDES INTS!!!! Hello!
Yes, there is a big difference between the two.  All I'm saying is that there are a lot of QBs who could do very well with the right weapons, Stewart being one of them.  (Look at his stats from 2001 with a very good team in front of him.)


Quote:
Yes, I do. Every single one of them please. You are making an accusation against one of the upcoming uperstart QBs in the league and that accusation offers absolutely NO insight whatsoever into his future development ala McNair and the knock on him as a scrambler who couldn't pass the ball (look at him now!) (and by the way, all the time McNair actually had a talented team on his side) and even your beloved McNabbit who has been critisized up & down about his sccuracy being below 60% UNTIL (another great point of mine) he this season when their anemic offense acquired T.O.
Yes, do the stats and present them and explain your absolute ignorance of Vick's development.

The point I made was about his games missed because of injury between 2002 (when he was first a starter) and present.  Of all the other NFL QBs who were the #1 QB on their teams for that duration, he would rank near the bottom in games started because of injuries.  I didn't offer to present stats concerning his development.  Please argue the point at hand and don't twist it to suit your needs.


Quote:
This is desparate to include a QB (Carr) that was NOT healthy last season. This season to date = Rattay down x 2; Maddox out at least 6 weeks; mLosman with a broken bone and out; Brunell w/ a hammy - day to day; Brees w/ a concussion; to name a few AND VICK IS STILL standing despite his ever-so dangerous ways of playing QB - you had better hope Peyton Manning doesn't go down this year - that wouldn't do any justice for your present analysis now would it?
I was providing a counterpoint to your argument that Sacks=injuries by demonstrating that the QB who got sacked the most in each of the past two years and the fact that each one started all 16 games for their respective team.



Quote:
Where are the Running TDs he got in that game OR are you now getting desparate enough to only show your lopsided view of things and not the WHOLE enchilada? I stand corrected on his passing yard stats.
If you'll look closely, I DID include them in his rushing stats... 10 rushes, 52 yards, 1 TD.  Does the fact that I did show the whole enchilada change things now?  Tommy Maddox was the one who passed for 400+ yards in that game.  Vick threw for one TD and ran for one TD.  You brought up that game in the first place to prove your lopsided point and your misconstruing of the facts still hasn't convinced me that you are right.


--------


Let me sum it all up for you now, BIG PICTURE style to make you happy.

Michael Vick is an extraordinary athlete.  He has talent seeping out his pores.  He may someday become an outstanding QB.  But right now, he is a good NFL QB.  Not a great one, mind you.  He is certainly not a superstar.  I have him ranked #9 on my list of best QBs.  Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I called him a fraud in my first post.  But I do think he is overrated and I also would not have him as my starting FF QB.  Sure, he'll put up decent numbers occasionally, but he is maddeningly inconsistent and he is an injury risk (more so than many other QBs in the league).  No one refers to Peyton Manning as injury prone.  Chad Pennington had a broken wrist last year, but he doesn't have the label injury prone either.  Why is it that Vick does?  (And there are many of those "experts" out there that have given him that designation, not just me...)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 21st, 2004, 6:17pm

on 09/21/04 at 15:23:54, Philly wrote:
Fumble recovery has nothing to do with his ability... it's luck.  The fact that he fumbled the ball so many times speaks to his abilities.


OLINE has much to do with getting to the QB in order for him to fumble to begin with. Talk OLINE which you seem to have completely ignored thus far (among other things - though, it seems I have gotten to you a bit after reading this post - your definitely changing your tune from your initial smack down on Vick's abilities :-*).


Quote:
The Falcons team had a solid year in 2002. They made the playoffs in large part because they had an opportunistic and aggressive defense and had a RB combo (Dunn and Duckett) who rushed for nearly 1500 yards.  And they had an exciting QB who could improvise and win games with his feet. I'll grant you all of that.


Look, let me put it to you this way since you are just NOW catching on to the bigger picture here reagdring Vick.
There is much more to a QB than his passing stats. INTANGIBLES are undoubtably one of the MOST important factotrs to consider. Reading defenses- responding to those reads- WINNING GAMES (which he has done on a consistent basis WHEN he has been the starter), leading his team to the playoffs, BEATING Farve & Company at Lambeau Field in the process, intangibles, intangibles, intangibles. Vick's got em. And his development upside is SKY freakin high.


Quote:
As far as QBs getting things done different ways, I'm an Eagles fan, so I've followed Cunningham and McNabb closely and know that a QB can be effective player by using more than his arm.


Great then, its about time you give credit where credit is due and VICK gets that credit. Remember, I didn't come to YOU about how great Vick was (and yes even to JYJ, VICK DID have MAD RUSHING stats - and thats something to celebrate!!!!! By the way, In Insane Scoring methods which is a high performance type format - VICK outscored Brooks ;D) - you Phiilly came to ME about Vick and called him a FRAUD. Don't expect me to take that sitting down. All I did was take your silly-so-Philly comments and put them in their rightful place = ridiculous.



Quote:
Athletic ability is based on more than just running ability, isn't it?  It's not really that simple, is it?  Have you seen 290 lb. defensive linemen try to tackle McNabb or Culpep, only to be tossed aside like a Snickers wrapper? Let's not forget their guns for arms. Neither of the two would be able to put up as good rushing yards in the Atlanta system as Vick does, but I believe they would both more than make up for it with their arms. They both read defenses better than Vick (but I'll chalk that one up to experience and playing time - Vick has been injured too much to have a chance there...).


McNabb was injured as wel and in the season in which his Eagle team was counting on him to take em all the way (in other words, they had a decent chance to make it that year of the Tampa Stampa Bowl but, choked nevertheless at HOME w/ McNabbit at the helm) so NO, I don't think McNabb who has yet to pass for 60% in his WHOLE career as a starting NFL QB can be said to ber a much better passer than Vick - even at this stage of his career - he needed a TOP flight receiver to even come close to 60% (and the jury is still out - only 2 games won't tell that tale) regarding his accuracy percentage. Steve Young had Joe Montanna to watch and learn from before he took the field w/ Jerry Rice waiting in the wings (I mention him because he is another scrambling type QB),............Vick is doing whatever he is doing (winning games, taking his team to the playoffs, FILLING UP STADIUMS AND SELLING OUT GAMES) just about on his lonesome.

Fact is fact = Vick is starting Falcons win games - Vick is out - Falcons look awful.



Quote:
Sure, Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger were the highest rated QBs in this year's draft, but there were QBs like Losman and Rivers right behind them.  If you listen to those "media experts" so much, you'd realize that he was a very highly rated QB and projected as early as a second round pick.


I did forget to mention Losman. But you've mentioned Rivers twice. Hes only one QB.
Schuab was rated as a very good career BACKUP QB. I did my research on the rooks.
No comparison to the likes of Losman, Rivers, Roeth, & Manning (not to mention Henson).


Quote:
That was there to post an excellent photograph more than anything... and also to point out the fact that Matt Schaub may be starting in the league sooner than later if Vick keeps doing 360s like that.  It was a great run.  I'm not taking that away from him.  However, it was also a big hit and there was a very good chance that he could land wrong and get hurt.


It was a great photo and thanks for sharing w/ the Grid. Just messing w/ you  ;)


Quote:
I'm not saying that Matt Schaub is a superstar.  I'm not even saying that he will be one some day.  All I know is that I saw him run the WCO very effectively (against second, third, fourth string competition in pre-season).  It doesn't mean a whole lot, but he still has to be able to make the throws, which he did.  I thought he looked good and I think he has an excellent opportunity ahead of him.  Is he as talented as Vick?  Certainly not.  Is he a better passer?  Possibly... no one knows yet.


Thats more like it and just for the record, he doesn't have the arm Vick has.



Quote:
Yes, there is a big difference between the two.  All I'm saying is that there are a lot of QBs who could do very well with the right weapons, Stewart being one of them.  (Look at his stats from 2001 with a very good team in front of him.)


Nah, Stewart had his chance in Pitt with a lot of weapons and couldn't make it to the Big Dance and shortly thereafter (next season AHEM) his downfall was evident.
Bad example IMO.


Quote:
The point I made was about his games missed because of injury between 2002 (when he was first a starter) and present.  Of all the other NFL QBs who were the #1 QB on their teams for that duration, he would rank near the bottom in games started because of injuries.  I didn't offer to present stats concerning his development.  Please argue the point at hand and don't twist it to suit your needs.


Oh like you haven't done that to date? please, throw stones ONLY if you haven't been hit with one on the head first.
By the way, I again, do NOT look at this like an argument. Rather, its an educational process for you - me the teacher - you the student [smiley=LMFAO.gif], as to the great potential and already evident talent Vick has.
Your whole biasis against Vick was predicated on his injury status BECAUSE really, thats all you had. Everything else, his development, his team around him, his intangibles, his athletic aibilities, his rocket like arm, EVERYTHING else, you seemed to have voluntarily ignored to make your point seem much more dramatic than, it ever was and ever will be.


Quote:
I was providing a counterpoint to your argument that Sacks=injuries by demonstrating that the QB who got sacked the most in each of the past two years and the fact that each one started all 16 games for their respective team.


Once again, you are providing ONE example of Carr getting sacked the most ine ONE season and not getting hurt - IF , and thats a BIG IF thus far, your going to provide or prove a poiint, do a NFL-WIDE analysis of what you are actually accusing Vick of otherwise, your point is subjectively constricted and carries little if any at all, merit.



Quote:
If you'll look closely, I DID include them in his rushing stats... 10 rushes, 52 yards, 1 TD.  Does the fact that I did show the whole enchilada change things now?  Tommy Maddox was the one who passed for 400+ yards in that game.  Vick threw for one TD and ran for one TD.  You brought up that game in the first place to prove your lopsided point and your misconstruing of the facts still hasn't convinced me that you are right.


How about ME telling you WHY I did something rather than, you doing so. You have been so misconstrued yourself in your feeble & subjectively influenced opinion about Vick (you probably didn't have the oppurtunity to draft him so, your next strategy is to knock him  [smiley=awwgee.gif]) that you were hopelessly grabbing at straws.


--------



Quote:
Let me sum it all up for you now, BIG PICTURE style to make you happy.


BEElieve me Philster, I don't need your summary to make Vick -Vick - or to make me happy. I am just happy to trade thoughts with you ansd kind of chalk this up as what they do on other sites (herb -vs- Earl about Daunte!!!, Joe -vs- Arron regarding Nick Barnett, he -vs- she, it -vs- they,........it seems to be pretty popular these days and so, a perk to the Gird I would hope is Billy -vs- Philly regarding Vick!!!!! LOL)


Quote:
Michael Vick is an extraordinary athlete.  He has talent seeping out his pores.  He may someday become an outstanding QB.  But right now, he is a good NFL QB.  Not a great one, mind you.  He is certainly not a superstar.  I have him ranked #9 on my list of best QBs.  Maybe I exaggerated a bit when I called him a fraud in my first post.  But I do think he is overrated and I also would not have him as my starting FF QB.  Sure, he'll put up decent numbers occasionally, but he is maddeningly inconsistent and he is an injury risk (more so than many other QBs in the league).  No one refers to Peyton Manning as injury prone.  Chad Pennington had a broken wrist last year, but he doesn't have the label injury prone either.  Why is it that Vick does?  (And there are many of those "experts" out there that have given him that designation, not just me...)


Really Philly, depends on what scoring system you are using. In the Insane Gang's system, he's a top performer. There is NO LAW on what FF rules should be (you do play in the GBRFL2, don't you - a completely different, absolutely creative and innovative game of FF!!!) and so, Vick I would dare to say is a TOP 10 peformer in most leagues out there (and you did say you'd rather have 10 other QBs on your team - right?).
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 21st, 2004, 11:28pm

on 09/21/04 at 18:17:05, KillerKingSting wrote:
OLINE has much to do with getting to the QB in order for him to fumble to begin with. Talk OLINE which you seem to have completely ignored thus far (among other things - though, it seems I have gotten to you a bit after reading this post - your definitely changing your tune from your initial smack down on Vick's abilities :-*).
O-line certainly has a lot to do with that.  His O-line now is weak.  His O-line in 2002 was fairly solid.

As far as me changing my tune?  Not happening brother... I still feel he is overrated (as a FF and NFL QB) and is NOT a superstar.





Quote:
There is much more to a QB than his passing stats. INTANGIBLES are undoubtably one of the MOST important factotrs to consider. Reading defenses- responding to those reads- WINNING GAMES (which he has done on a consistent basis WHEN he has been the starter), leading his team to the playoffs, BEATING Farve & Company at Lambeau Field in the process, intangibles, intangibles, intangibles. Vick's got em. And his development upside is SKY freakin high.

The only intangible he has is his running ability.  He has won one playoff game in his career. Even then he threw for only 117 yards & rushed for 64, and the win was due in a very large part to the Atlanta defense and special teams.



Quote:
Great then, its about time you give credit where credit is due and VICK gets that credit. Remember, I didn't come to YOU about how great Vick was (and yes even to JYJ, VICK DID have MAD RUSHING stats - and thats something to celebrate!!!!! By the way, In Insane Scoring methods which is a high performance type format - VICK outscored Brooks ;D) - you Phiilly came to ME about Vick and called him a FRAUD. Don't expect me to take that sitting down. All I did was take your silly-so-Philly comments and put them in their rightful place = ridiculous.
I didn't come to you with this issue.  This isn't even your thread.  I just posted my opinion of Vick and you seemed to take great offense at it.  So be it.  When I called him a fraud it wasn't meant to be a slight to you, but if you want to carry his jock, that's fine.




Quote:
McNabb was injured as wel and in the season in which his Eagle team was counting on him to take em all the way (in other words, they had a decent chance to make it that year of the Tampa Stampa Bowl but, choked nevertheless at HOME w/ McNabbit at the helm) so NO, I don't think McNabb who has yet to pass for 60% in his WHOLE career as a starting NFL QB can be said to ber a much better passer than Vick - even at this stage of his career - he needed a TOP flight receiver to even come close to 60% (and the jury is still out - only 2 games won't tell that tale) regarding his accuracy percentage. Steve Young had Joe Montanna to watch and learn from before he took the field w/ Jerry Rice waiting in the wings (I mention him because he is another scrambling type QB),............Vick is doing whatever he is doing (winning games, taking his team to the playoffs, FILLING UP STADIUMS AND SELLING OUT GAMES) just about on his lonesome.

Lifetime stats: McNabb 57% completion rate (with WRs like Torrance Small, James Thrash, Na Brown, Todd Pinkston, Charles Johnson, etc.)
Vick: 53%



Quote:
I did forget to mention Losman. But you've mentioned Rivers twice. Hes only one QB.
Schuab was rated as a very good career BACKUP QB. I did my research on the rooks.
No comparison to the likes of Losman, Rivers, Roeth, & Manning (not to mention Henson).

The second Rivers was supposed to be Schaub.  Sorry for the mistake.  But anyway, most of the research I did (and I did a helluva lot of it - anyone who was here throughout the late winter and early spring can attest to that) indicated that Schaub had an NFL-caliber arm to go with outstanding size and accuracy.  They also said that he was a first day selection... none of them said career backup.


Quote:
Nah, Stewart had his chance in Pitt with a lot of weapons and couldn't make it to the Big Dance and shortly thereafter (next season AHEM) his downfall was evident.
Bad example IMO.
Vick had a chance to get there too in 2002, but failed miserably against the Eagles who beat them down with a still-injured McNabb.


Quote:
By the way, I again, do NOT look at this like an argument. Rather, its an educational process for you - me the teacher - you the student [smiley=LMFAO.gif], as to the great potential and already evident talent Vick has.
Interesting how you are not referring to Vick as a superstar anymore and talking more about his potential... looks like maybe you are changing your mind about things.


Quote:
How about ME telling you WHY I did something rather than, you doing so. You have been so misconstrued yourself in your feeble & subjectively influenced opinion about Vick (you probably didn't have the oppurtunity to draft him so, your next strategy is to knock him  [smiley=awwgee.gif]) that you were hopelessly grabbing at straws.
OK, tell me why your brought up the Steelers game from 2002 in the first place?  Then tell me why you lied about him throwing for 400+ yards in a win, when it turns out he threw for 294 in a tie.  Then tell me why you accused me of ignoring his rushing TDs (yes, you used a plural), when I had already included the statistic and showed he had ONE (singular) rushing TD.  I'm sure you had a great point to make about that game.  Let's see if you can do it with the actual facts instead of fabricating your own statistics...   [smiley=caughtonthecan.gif]

I've had opportunities to draft him and haven't done so.  I think he has poor weapons on offense and is an injury risk and don't need his inconsistency at the #1 QB position.




Quote:
Really Philly, depends on what scoring system you are using. In the Insane Gang's system, he's a top performer. There is NO LAW on what FF rules should be (you do play in the GBRFL2, don't you - a completely different, absolutely creative and innovative game of FF!!!) and so, Vick I would dare to say is a TOP 10 peformer in most leagues out there (and you did say you'd rather have 10 other QBs on your team - right?).
That's fine... I wasn't considering the GBRFL2 scoring, where he would not do well because of poor passing yards and a low completion percentage.  I was basing it on a standard performance scoring system.  I have him rated as the #9 overall NFL QB, and even lower on the fantasy rankings.


If you want to draft him and build a team around him, more power to you.  I won't be doing it.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 24th, 2004, 8:11pm

on 09/21/04 at 23:28:24, Philly wrote:
O-line certainly has a lot to do with that.  His O-line now is weak.  His O-line in 2002 was fairly solid.


You are SO wrong about this. I took the time to look up WHO exactly was on that 2002 OLINE of Vicks and they were very VERY average at BEST.
Their rushing average was 4.0 for Dunn and 3.9 fopr Duckett - The NFL's AVERAGE rushing yards per carry is approximately 4.1 yards throughout the least 3 years.

They also gave up 36 sacks. And thats with an athletic QB at hand who could escape some of the BEST pass rushers in the game. Thats extremely AVERAGE (maybe right above average but, you would espect that w/ the talent of Vick behind them) - hardly SOLID by any means given they had Vick.

Left Tackle B. Whitfeild is OLD, and losing power and is at the downside of his career, begins to wear down considerably as the season winds down,is an injury risk, and is a better football player than athlete. He is ranked in the bottom 3rd of the starting NFL tackles.
Someone whom I would hardly consider SOLID by your definition.

Right Tackle T.Weiner (his name says it all) was peretty RAW in 2002 and in fact will never be a dominant tackle and never spectacular. He is undersized, has poor lower body strength and is not known for his run blocking.
Hardly SOLID in your definition.

Left Guard T.Claridge is really a FRINGE player at his position that could be replaced in a whim. He has very little change of direction skills, is not a great athlete by any means, sucks in pass blockinmg, is injury prone, and will struggle mightly against faster type defensive linemen.

Right Guard R.Garza who started the season I couldn't even find squat of info on him. KForney who finished the season was a decent OLINE-man but has been quite injury prone in his NFL career and especially at the college level. He is NOT a GOOD run blocker to boot.

Center T.McClure is probably the best OLINE guy that had in 2002 and is etremely OVER-RATED. Very undersized, and lacks considerable power which is why he was moved to Center instead of his natural position , Guard.

This isn't the making of a SOLID OLINE as you would call it.

If your going to say something then, back it up w/ reseacrh , like I just did. ;)


Quote:
As far as me changing my tune?  Not happening brother... I still feel he is overrated (as a FF and NFL QB) and is NOT a superstar.


yup, he is a super star.



Quote:
I didn't come to you with this issue.  This isn't even your thread.  I just posted my opinion of Vick and you seemed to take great offense at it.  So be it.  When I called him a fraud it wasn't meant to be a slight to you, but if you want to carry his jock, that's fine.


Yes YOU did come to me w/ this issue you have against Vick. Not only till I posted that where were all the Nay-Sayers against Vick did you rear your misconstrued lil head.


Quote:
Lifetime stats: McNabb 57% completion rate (with WRs like Torrance Small, James Thrash, Na Brown, Todd Pinkston, Charles Johnson, etc.)
Vick: 53%


57% passing sucks. Sorry, I'm not even sure why'd you put that stat of McNabbit on here - to be considered a great QB, you must at LEAST have 60% regardless of your receivers (which is tpart of the argument you sided w/ Vick on - his receivers won't scare anyone - your debating your own wordds here - i'm not sure I even need to post - you can out-argure yourself! [smiley=laugh.gif]).



Quote:
The second Rivers was supposed to be Schaub.  Sorry for the mistake.  But anyway, most of the research I did (and I did a helluva lot of it - anyone who was here throughout the late winter and early spring can attest to that) indicated that Schaub had an NFL-caliber arm to go with outstanding size and accuracy.  They also said that he was a first day selection... none of them said career backup.


Yes, there were some of them who said he was no more than a career BUP QB. I did research as well (just look at my rookie draft in the Insane league, most of my players are starting!!!!)
Too bad, seems like you ddn't do enough reseacrh, better luck next year ;D


Quote:
Vick had a chance to get there too in 2002, but failed miserably against the Eagles who beat them down with a still-injured McNabb.


As in your argument against Vick and the Falcon's win -vs- GB, McNabbit had very little to do w/ the Eagle's Playoff win (at the VET mind you - YAWN!!!) it was all Philly defense - or would you care to estblish some of your great QB's stats during that game - just about disappointing.
Once again, do you really need me to counter your own rationales???? Shit, one minute your saying one thing against Vick that you also try and sneak in on FOR your QB,.........PLU-LEEEEEEEZE! ::)


Quote:
Interesting how you are not referring to Vick as a superstar anymore and talking more about his potential... looks like maybe you are changing your mind about things.


Look above silly Philly.
Realistically and logically speaking Vick has superstar potential just oooooozing from his pores.
However, MY belief (I am allowed to have one that is different from general concenous am I not? ho hum)..............................my opinon is that he IS a superstar!!!!! Get it now?


Quote:
OK, tell me why your brought up the Steelers game from 2002 in the first place?  Then tell me why you lied about him throwing for 400+ yards in a win, when it turns out he threw for 294 in a tie.  Then tell me why you accused me of ignoring his rushing TDs (yes, you used a plural), when I had already included the statistic and showed he had ONE (singular) rushing TD.  I'm sure you had a great point to make about that game.  Let's see if you can do it with the actual facts instead of fabricating your own statistics...   [smiley=caughtonthecan.gif]


Look, your taking it upon yourself to call this a lie rather than, a simple mistake in which it was. Thats premature accusations Philly.
Once again, I could call YOU the LIAR since you were the one who said that the Falcons had an aggressive/good defense BUT then, you go on to post that Pittsburg was able to pass for 400 yards against them.
Hardly an agreessive GOOD defense that gives up 400 yards passing.


Quote:
I've had opportunities to draft him and haven't done so.  I think he has poor weapons on offense and is an injury risk and don't need his inconsistency at the #1 QB position.


your loss would BEE my gain then :D
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 27th, 2004, 9:14am
Superstar (?.?.?) Mike Vick against the Arizona [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] Cardinals...

Passing: 10 of 20 for 115 yards. Zero TDs and 1 INT. Sacked 5 times.
Rushing: 9 for 68 yards. Zero TDs and 2 lost fumbles.  (And, if we break that down even further, it was 1 run for 58 yards and 8 runs for 10 yards.)

Wow... send this guy straight to the Hall of Fame!   ::)  [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif]
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by steelkings on Sep 28th, 2004, 7:58am
After all of that. Rebuttle after rebuttle. Killer has to be really pissed at Mike  [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif]Vick right now!
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 28th, 2004, 10:16am
He'll get to the hall of fame. And I'll start him every week this year (ahem-maybe TEE HEE BEE  ;D - Carr ain't lookin to bad now that I mentioned it).
Vick will bounce back. He needs a lot of play in this new offense. He didn't play much at all in the pre-season and so, it is just showing a little bit here and there.

By the way, The falcons won that game - intangibles babe-bee, VICKtorious Babe-bee!!! :D

But just in case Phill-a-weenah didn't notice - the Cardinals actually have QUITE a formadible defense this season.

Check out their stats if you don't beeLieve me and take into account that their offense aoin't helpin em a BIT!!!!
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Sep 28th, 2004, 10:55am

on 09/28/04 at 10:16:23, KillerKingSting wrote:
By the way, The falcons won that game - intangibles babe-bee, VICKtorious Babe-bee!!! :D
Intangibles like the Atlanta defense, Warrick Dunn, and Jay Feely...


Quote:
But just in case Phill-a-weenah didn't notice - the Cardinals actually have QUITE a formadible defense this season.

Check out their stats if you don't beeLieve me and take into account that their offense aoin't helpin em a BIT!!!!
Arizona Rush Defense: 32nd out of 32 teams (30th after two games).
Arizona Pass Defense: 12th out of 32 teams (they were 24th before they faced the weak-armed Vick).
Total Yards Against: 27th out of 32 teams (were 32nd before facing the inept passing attack of the Falcons).

OK, I checked out those stats... it tells me that the Cardinals are far from formidable... (do you actually look at the stats before you start throwing them against me?)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 28th, 2004, 5:42pm

on 09/28/04 at 10:55:03, Philly wrote:
Intangibles like the Atlanta defense, Warrick Dunn, and Jay Feely...


I suppose your going to tell me that its the sAME w/ Jax?
Leftwich brings that team, that team w/ a formadible DEFENSE, to its last second wins.
And Lefty is becoming a heck of a QB, but, you wouldn't want to shoulder any of the success on him according to your present argument? would you?



Quote:
Arizona Rush Defense: 32nd out of 32 teams (30th after two games).
Arizona Pass Defense: 12th out of 32 teams (they were 24th before they faced the weak-armed Vick).
Total Yards Against: 27th out of 32 teams (were 32nd before facing the inept passing attack of the Falcons).

OK, I checked out those stats... it tells me that the Cardinals are far from formidable... (do you actually look at the stats before you start throwing them against me?)


Stats Stats Stats. Is a QB pressure just as good as a sack? even though it isn't a well known and well shared stat?
Yes, in fact in some cases its better (INT!!!!).
The STAT you seem to be missing is that Arizona is a BEND BUT DONT BREAK DEFENSE asnd they are among some of the TOP teams in the NFL in RED ZONE SCORING ALLOWED!!!!!!
Gee, NE won their first superbowl w/ a bend but dont break defense.
But, I guess to you, thats a stat you'll completely ignore just to try and make a point which by the way, I just shot down miserably.
Fact is, Arizona has not given up that many points per game.
Next?
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Sep 30th, 2004, 11:01pm

on 09/28/04 at 17:42:05, KillerKingSting wrote:
I suppose your going to tell me that its the sAME w/ Jax?
Leftwich brings that team, that team w/ a formadible DEFENSE, to its last second wins.
And Lefty is becoming a heck of a QB, but, you wouldn't want to shoulder any of the success on him according to your present argument? would you?



Stats Stats Stats. Is a QB pressure just as good as a sack? even though it isn't a well known and well shared stat?
Yes, in fact in some cases its better (INT!!!!).
The STAT you seem to be missing is that Arizona is a BEND BUT DONT BREAK DEFENSE asnd they are among some of the TOP teams in the NFL in RED ZONE SCORING ALLOWED!!!!!!
Gee, NE won their first superbowl w/ a bend but dont break defense.
But, I guess to you, thats a stat you'll completely ignore just to try and make a point which by the way, I just shot down miserably.
Fact is, Arizona has not given up that many points per game.
Next?



Ahhhhhhh, just so that you don't think I am MAKING things up, here yah go Philly babe-bee. ;D

TEMPE, Ariz. -- The Arizona Cardinals are winless in three games, but they are among the league leaders in one category -- taking the ball away from the opponent.

Arizona has six fumble recoveries and four interceptions -- heading into Sunday's home game against the New Orleans Saints. That's tied with the New York Giants and Seattle Seahawks for most in the NFL.

A year ago, when they were 4-12, the Cardinals didn't get their 10th turnover until the 11th game of the season.

"I don't know whether it's luck or skill," linebacker James Darling said after Thursday's practice. "But whatever it is, we need more of it."

New coach Dennis Green and defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast are emphasizing speed and aggressiveness, a style they believe is a factor in the early turnover total.

"I think it figures in quite a bit," Pendergast said, "because we want to get as many guys swarming to the football as we can. Obviously, the more guys we have get to the ball, the more hits you're going to have from the backside. When the first guy misses, you've got a second or third guy there to clean him up, and that's where the turnovers really take place."

Green and Pendergast say they want a defense that takes the game to the opponent instead of reacting or using sheer power to shut down an opponent's offense.

"We have tried to be ball-hawking. We think we have those kinds of players," Green said. "Then we try to do a really good job of hitting, to hit guys and try to knock the ball off."

It's more than luck if a defense is designed to have many players running to the ball, according to Green.

"That's the idea," he said. "Everybody's running. You're chasing. You're trying to stay on your fight, get a lot of guys going in the direction of the ball. Then if the ball comes out, you're going to be in position to get it because you're hustling to it."

Arizona is plus-four in takeaways after finishing minus-13 a year ago. The Cardinals recovered three fumbles and intercepted a pass in last week's 6-3 loss at Atlanta.

The Cardinals rank last in the NFL in rushing defense, but thanks largely to the turnovers -- and tough defense inside the 20 -- Arizona has given up only 46 points through three games.

The takeaways are spread throughout the defense.

Safety Quentin Harris has an interception, fumble recovery and two forced fumbles. Safety Adrian Wilson has an interception and fumble recovery and Darling has an interception and forced fumble.

One cornerback, David Macklin, has an interception, and the other, Duane Starks, has a forced fumble and fumble recovery. Defensive ends Bertrand Berry and Peppi Zellner, and linebacker Karlos Dansby also have fumble recoveries.

"I think it has a lot to do with execution. If you don't quit on the play, then the play won't quit on you," Starks said. "If we can go out there and fly around, then we can knock some balls loose."

Starks, who earned a Super Bowl ring with the Baltimore Ravens, likes the attitude he sees around him.

"I definitely like the defense. I definitely like the schemes that we're running," he said. "I also like that the guys really believe that we can get it done. We're flying around and counting on one another to make the play."
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Oct 5th, 2004, 5:20pm
Yes, the Arizona defense is getting a lot of turnovers.  They are also giving up a lot of yards.

But back to the issue at hand... Vick is still a lousy FF QB.  Get back to me when he manages to throw for more than 200 yards.   ;)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 5th, 2004, 6:39pm

on 10/05/04 at 17:20:20, Philly wrote:
Yes, the Arizona defense is getting a lot of turnovers.  They are also giving up a lot of yards.


But they aren't giving up a lot of points whether, your ego will let you admit that or not - 6 points to the Falcons as you mentioned was Vick's fault (pertaining to his QBing talents) and now only 10 points to the high flying Ain'ts. I must admit, I am just Hunky Peechy that the Cards came through w/ a nice FF & NFL defense to make my truthful point only more substantial.

YEE HAW!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D (you may now assess my emotional state).


Quote:
But back to the issue at hand... Vick is still a lousy FF QB.  Get back to me when he manages to throw for more than 200 yards.   ;)


He doesn't need to throw for more than 200 yards, his running yards more than makes up for it. Even fantasy leagues give more points for rushing stats than passing stats.
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by Philly on Oct 6th, 2004, 1:47pm

on 10/05/04 at 18:39:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
He doesn't need to throw for more than 200 yards, his running yards more than makes up for it. Even fantasy leagues give more points for rushing stats than passing stats.


Sorry, you're right.  I didn't mention those 35 rushing yards that accompanied his 148 passing yards last weak (oops, Freudian slip there... I meant to type "week").  I also forgot to mention that he didn't score any TDs either.  So he was worth, what, 8-10 points in most fantasy leagues?  (1 point per 20 or 25 pass yards, 1 point per 10 rush yards.)

I'd better get rid of Peyton Manning and trade for Vick right now!   ::)
Title: Re: start michael vick?
Post by geojon on Oct 7th, 2004, 9:57am
got vick v. detroit
warner v. dallas
brooks v. TB

Going with Vick.
This is the week:
100 yds rushing, 1td;
250 yds passing, 2 tds.

Yee hah!!!


Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved.