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

        the Gridiron >> the Red Zone >>  Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
        
(Message started by: Philly on Oct 11th, 2004, 7:19am)
Title: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 11th, 2004, 7:19am
His latest stats speak volumes...

Passing: 18 of 29 for 196, 0 TDs, 1 INT
Rushing: 5 for 29, 0 TDs, 3 Fumbles (2 lost)
(In my money league that would total 6 FF points - and that's generous with only one point lost per turnover)

His team lost against a weak Detroit defense. He was unable to do anything to help his team. He has completely devalued Peerless Price and Alge Crumpler.

I think it's time to see what Matt Schaub can do.  ;)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by geojon on Oct 11th, 2004, 12:42pm
Agree, in this offense, Vick has no value. I ran him out there this week and if it wasn't for A. Gates great day, I would have lost for sure. Now going A. Brooks all the way.

g
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 11th, 2004, 2:43pm
There are still some people [smiley=dunce.gif] out there who are enamored with Vick (they probably just see his Nike commercial and not his actual games)... so he may be good trade bait still.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by CommodoreKeith on Oct 11th, 2004, 3:39pm
I totally agree with you. He is way overrated
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 11th, 2004, 3:46pm
Philly, you had posted that Vick never had a 300 yard passing game, and then, went on to say that I was a liar for saying that he did indeed pass for 400 yards aganist Pitt in 2002,.
Well maybe I was mistaken on the 400 passing game against pit but, if I am a liar for that then, your a liar for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game cuz,
in 2002, against Det., he passed for over 300 yards.

He needs receivers - thats the first thing.
McNabb ain't 4-0 this year w/out T.O. babe-bee and his lifetime cmp% has been AVERAGE before the T.O. era.

Vick has MORE talent than McNabb and also, is learning a new offense that is w/out playmakers like T.O. to throw to.

Vick has MEGA-TALENT, both on the ground and through the air as he even has a stronger arm than McNabb (your BEE-Loved OVER-RATED QB) so, YES, is he worth something in keeper/dynasty leagues,.............absoluteBEE he is.

Now, I fault the coaches for not taking advantage of that talent to it's fullest degree............get a WR tht can spread the field vertically, and you ain't on this thread blowing smoke. :D

By the way, anyone who says he is overrated is forgetting that the falcons are a cellar team w/out him and a playoff team w/ him in the lineup-FACT.

And secondly, football is a TEAM sport,...............get him some WRs! And then, we'll talk.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 11th, 2004, 4:29pm

on 10/11/04 at 15:46:23, KillerKingSting wrote:
Philly, you had posted that Vick never had a 300 yard passing game, and then, went on to say that I was a liar for saying that he did indeed pass for 400 yards aganist Pitt in 2002,.
Well maybe I was mistaken on the 400 passing game against pit but, if I am a liar for that then, your a liar for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game cuz,
in 2002, against Det., he passed for over 300 yards.
That's some spin you're putting on things there.  If you had bothered to read the original post you refer to (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=55;action=display;num=1095567027;start=0 - the 15th post in that thread) then you would see I said he had only one 300 yard passing game in his career.  So tell me who's doing the lying here?


Quote:
He needs receivers - thats the first thing.
McNabb ain't 4-0 this year w/out T.O. babe-bee and his lifetime cmp% has been AVERAGE before the T.O. era.

Vick has MORE talent than McNabb and also, is learning a new offense that is w/out playmakers like T.O. to throw to.

Vick has MEGA-TALENT, both on the ground and through the air as he even has a stronger arm than McNabb (your BEE-Loved OVER-RATED QB) so, YES, is he worth something in keeper/dynasty leagues,.............absoluteBEE he is.
I bet if I ask 10 people who they would rather have as a FF QB right now, all 10 would choose the "over-rated" Donovan McNabb than the "mega-talent" Michael Vick.  But this thread has nothing to do with McNabb (who nearly everyone would agree IS a viable FF QB).


Quote:
Now, I fault the coaches for not taking advantage of that talent to it's fullest degree............get a WR tht can spread the field vertically, and you ain't on this thread blowing smoke. :D
Michael Jenkins, Dez White, and Peerless Price all have the speed to stretch the field vertically. The fact that they don't is another argument entirely and really just enforces my original assertion.


Quote:
By the way, anyone who says he is overrated is forgetting that the falcons are a cellar team w/out him and a playoff team w/ him in the lineup-FACT.

And secondly, football is a TEAM sport,...............get him some WRs! And then, we'll talk.
Please read the title of this thread.  I am saying that Vick is not a viable FF QB.  If I have Peyton Manning as a QB and he throws for 300 yards and 3 TDs I could care less whether he leads his NFL team to a win or not.  Fantasy football is not about NFL wins and losses.  And I understand that football is a team sport which is why I say that Vick has devalued Peerless Price and Alge Crumpler.  I'd be willing to bet that the team (QB, TE, and WR positions) would have better fantasy numbers with Matt Schaub at QB than Michael Vick.  The Falcons might not win as many games, but who really cares what the Falcons do?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 11th, 2004, 4:38pm
If I could have any QB to lead my fantasy team to a victory, I'd choose Peyton Manning. Vick would not even be in my top 20.

If I could have any QB to lead my NFL team to the Superbowl, I'd pick Tom Brady.

If I was looking for a QB to lead my fantasy team and my NFL team, I'd choose McNabb.

Does that make any sense?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 11th, 2004, 4:40pm

on 10/11/04 at 16:38:44, BarnabyWilde wrote:
If I could have any QB to lead my fantasy team to a victory, I'd choose Peyton Manning. Vick would not even be in my top 20.

If I could have any QB to lead my NFL team to the Superbowl, I'd pick Tom Brady.

If I was looking for a QB to lead my fantasy team and my NFL team, I'd choose McNabb.

Does that make any sense?


I agree with you completely, although Daunte Culpepper is certainly making a case to replace Manning and McNabb in your analysis.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 11th, 2004, 4:43pm
That fool C-pep fumbles too much. If he can control that, I'd agree with you.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 11th, 2004, 7:48pm

on 10/11/04 at 16:29:09, Philly wrote:
That's some spin you're putting on things there.  If you had bothered to read the original post you refer to (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=55;action=display;num=1095567027;start=0 - the 15th post in that thread) then you would see I said he had only one 300 yard passing game in his career.  So tell me who's doing the lying here?


Actually, you are. First you came in and said he was a fraud, now your tune has changed all together to specifically critique his fantasy numbers. Your tune changed because you don't want to look like a guy that doesn't know his FF players when Vick DOES break out cuz, I have a feeling, you know eventually that he will.

Otherwise, why not stick w/ your original blast on him of being a fraud?


Quote:
I bet if I ask 10 people who they would rather have as a FF QB right now, all 10 would choose the "over-rated" Donovan McNabb than the "mega-talent" Michael Vick.  But this thread has nothing to do with McNabb (who nearly everyone would agree IS a viable FF QB).


Yup, Over-Rated McNabb WITH TERREL OWENS TO THROW TO.

Lets get ALL the info out there shall we.


Quote:
Michael Jenkins, Dez White, and Peerless Price all have the speed to stretch the field vertically. The fact that they don't is another argument entirely and really just enforces my original assertion.


It enforces NOTHING. Complimentary players affect other players such as QBs BECAUSE this is a TEAM SPORT. And that in and of itself AFFECTS FANTASY NUMBERS - once again, look at McNabb with T.O. and WITHOUT T.O.



Quote:
Please read the title of this thread.  I am saying that Vick is not a viable FF QB.  If I have Peyton Manning as a QB and he throws for 300 yards and 3 TDs I could care less whether he leads his NFL team to a win or not.  Fantasy football is not about NFL wins and losses.  And I understand that football is a team sport which is why I say that Vick has devalued Peerless Price and Alge Crumpler.  I'd be willing to bet that the team (QB, TE, and WR positions) would have better fantasy numbers with Matt Schaub at QB than Michael Vick.  The Falcons might not win as many games, but who really cares what the Falcons do?


Wrong. FF is somewhat about wins and losses. The better a NFL team does, usually it also refelcts back onto their FF numbers as well. not always but usually. If you'd like me to post Peyton Manning's (you used him as an expample did you not?) numbers when his team went to the AFC championship -vs- when they didn't, I would be more than happy to.
If you'd like me to post Duante C-Pep's FF numbers when he went to the NFC championship -vs- when his team didn't make the playoffs, I'd be more than happy to.
If you'd like me to post Gannon's FF numbers of when his team went to the superbowl in contrast to when he didn't go, I'd be more than happy to.

If you'd like me to go on and on and present MORE examples of how NFL team success directly affects FF numbers , I'd be more than happy to :D

Lets take an even more unusual example of what I am saying so that, you don't come back with a crappy example of ONE player whose FF numbers were better when his team didn't go to the playoffs -vs- when they did.

Lets take an IDP player - LB - in which IDPs are much more difficult to assess a FF connection to a profitable NFL connection (wins & Losses),
Derrick Brooks, the all-pro LB of the BUCS had his BEST FF YEAR when the BUCS BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THE RAIDERS (sorry Callie, no offense meant)-(and the hopeless and Terrell Owenless EAGLES) in the superbowl.

BUCS had NFL success which DIRECTLY RELATED BACK TO Simeon Rice's success, Warren Sapp's success, and Derrick Brooks BEST FF year. Thats BEST FF YEAR in case you aren't getting this.
As well as Brad Johnson's good FF year and Pittmans.

In fact, why don't we post Keyshawn Johnson's FF numbers LAST year when he didn't make the post season -vs- the year he went to the bowl.

Now if you'd like to BET that SCHAUB would have as GREAT (even better in your opinion right?) as FF numbers throughout a WHOLE SEASON (minus 2 games) than Vick did in 2002, then your on. Whats the bet? :-*

Now, if the Falcons aren't winning as many games w/ Schaub at the helm then, their IDPs wouldn't be as profitable either (Kerney's sacks would be waaaaaaaaay down from what they are now, as well as Bradys, as well as MOST of the IDPs on that team including Bryon Scott-DB) so, just because YOU want CONSTRICT YOUR FOCUS on ONE SIDE of the ball doesn't mean that your making anything but a subjective and incomplete analysis of a seemingly one-sided, moot point. :D

As far as Duante C-Pep goes, he is obviously money in the bank.

Further more, i think your assessment of FF QBs isn't nearly as good as mine. Just look at this past week when you told someone to sit CARR who absoluetly BLEW UP w/ MEGA FF (we are talking FF aren't we? ;D) NUMBERS!!!!!

In contrast to that most horrid advice [smiley=jawdroppin.gif], I told that same gridironer to play CARR.
In fact, didn't you reccomend Collins & Harrington?
[smiley=laugh.gif]

Even Roeth, a rookie, beat out BOTH of those QBs FF numbers (we are talking FF numbers aren't we ;D) and he happened to be on the LIST of QBs that gridironer offered for his QB start.

How is it that I or ANYONE can believe your bias assessment of Vick's skills and FF potential when in fact, you aren't even able to pick a rookie QB that would beat out Harrington against - so you say - Atlanta's OVER-RATED Defense (by the way, Roy Williams as you mention to TORCH the Falcon's 2ndary, didn't do that either). I think you need to redeem yourself first before you can actually add any validity to your next post by picking the RIGHT QB to start in an FF game. ;D

So the fact is you reccomended NOT starting CARR who happened to be the BEST option at that time. This all directly relates back to this thread and your assessment of Vick's FF potential.
Lets not forget, the COACHES changed the offense that VICK was most successful at - therefore, give him some time and he'll come right around.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by s_laflesh on Oct 12th, 2004, 1:21am
While Mike Vick will eventually be a very good fantasy quarterback, I do not feel that he is right now.  Sure, with his legs he can always have the huge game we love in fantasy leagues, but his passing is just too inconsistent.  With Vick, you are looking at most games being 125-200 yards passing with maybe 1TD and 2 INTs.  Vick also tends to fumble a lot.  There are many fantasy quarterbacks that can put up numbers better then this on a consistent basis.  Until Vick can improve his consistency I do not rate him very highly.

Vick will also not be very viable in most of our leagues right now due to the fact that his receivers are just not that good.  Peerless Price came over with much hoopla, but it is beginning to look like he needs a star like Moulds across from him for him to excell.  When in the lead role, he cant handle the tougher coverage.  Finneran is a decent possession receiver, but again, nothing special.  And Dez White and Jenkins are not developed enough yet to make a difference.  Vicks most reliable receiver is Alge Crumpler, but even he tends to vanish for long stretches in games.  

So I guess my whole ramble is basically saying that Vick is a phenominal athlete who can win any game in real life, but in fantasy terms, he's just not that good.  Hopefully he can improve.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 2:46am

on 10/12/04 at 01:21:50, s_laflesh wrote:
While Mike Vick will eventually be a very good fantasy quarterback, I do not feel that he is right now.


I can't argue w/ that. At least you recognize his potenital. I really feel, as I have said before that, this is a new system and once he gets a hold of it, he'll be fine. The year he wasn't injured, he exploded. (using Insane Gang's scoring system which contains a lot of the basic formats around the FF community).


 
Quote:
Sure, with his legs he can always have the huge game we love in fantasy leagues, but his passing is just too inconsistent.  With Vick, you are looking at most games being 125-200 yards passing with maybe 1TD and 2 INTs.  Vick also tends to fumble a lot.  There are many fantasy quarterbacks that can put up numbers better then this on a consistent basis.  Until Vick can improve his consistency I do not rate him very highly.


In a deep keeper or dynasty league his VALUE though, should be realized. As of right now, I can not argue that his FF numbers aren't getting it done.


Quote:
Vick will also not be very viable in most of our leagues right now due to the fact that his receivers are just not that good.  Peerless Price came over with much hoopla, but it is beginning to look like he needs a star like Moulds across from him for him to excell.  When in the lead role, he cant handle the tougher coverage.  Finneran is a decent possession receiver, but again, nothing special.  And Dez White and Jenkins are not developed enough yet to make a difference.  Vicks most reliable receiver is Alge Crumpler, but even he tends to vanish for long stretches in games.


Thank you ole great FF god for sending me someone who finally tells the truth of the matter without blaming everything on Vick's lack of FF production.   [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]


Quote:
So I guess my whole ramble is basically saying that Vick is a phenominal athlete who can win any game in real life, but in fantasy terms, he's just not that good.  Hopefully he can improve.


McNair was once critiqued for his lack of passing numbers. Even though he could run the ball and manage games , his premature assessed stigma was that, he was a scrambling QB that couldn't get it done through the air.
Patience patience, lets not forget the past, and allow for phenominal athletes such as VickTorious [smiley=pumped.gif] to develop properly :D

Thanks for your fair analysis laflesh!
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sexydexy on Oct 12th, 2004, 5:02am
Vick is a 4 year veteran now.  When is his "potential" going to be realized?

Peyton Manning put up numbers his rookie years but had a lot of picks.  His second year on, he was gold.

McNabb put up good numbers in 2002 before his injury with crappy receivers.  He was good FF wise before TO.

Michael Vick is a good NFL player because he adds an extra element to defensive planning.  Because they have to account for his tremendous skills, they put lots of effort towards stopping him.

Either way, he can avoid being on my fantasy teams for anything less than a back up.  
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 6:09am

on 10/12/04 at 05:02:28, sexydexy wrote:
Vick is a 4 year veteran now.  When is his "potential" going to be realized?


Vick realized his potential in 2002, where were you then? In Insane Gang Scoring system, he was the #2-3 best scoring QB there was. And did it w/ basically the SAME team that went 5-11(?) in 2003 w/out Vick at the helm.


Quote:
Peyton Manning put up numbers his rookie years but had a lot of picks.  His second year on, he was gold.


Peyton has Marvin, enough said. Peyton, in his college career was more prepared for the NFL style of play than Vick. There is a difference in how they were brought along as well. Peyton has a RICH NFL Bloodline that follows him in that his father was a ProBowl QB that tutored him from day 1 as an upcoming QB.

Lets take everything into consideration before we slam the Vick babe-bee!!!!


Quote:
McNabb put up good numbers in 2002 before his injury with crappy receivers.  He was good FF wise before TO.


So was Vick in 2002 w/out a defense that MCNabb always had.


Quote:
Michael Vick is a good NFL player because he adds an extra element to defensive planning.  Because they have to account for his tremendous skills, they put lots of effort towards stopping him.[quote]

;D and he was a tremendous FF QB in 2002  ;D

[quote]Either way, he can avoid being on my fantasy teams for anything less than a back up.  


I understand your position but, to each his own, and he will stay on my roster and in time, like Mcnair,, like McNabb (scrambling QBs),  will break out.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by s_laflesh on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:46am
Two other things I was thinking about that really hurt Vick's value:

In the new west coast offense that they have put in, Vick just doesnt run as much.  When you take away that, he is losing a big part of his game.  That is where is he able to excel because 2 years ago he put up running back numbers.  The loss of running offense is due in large part to 2 things, the first being the re-emergence of Warrick Dunn, and the second being Vick's injury history.  They dont want him running as much and taking a chance of getting hurt.  Even in Vick's good year, he missed several games due to separated shoulders.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 8:41am
He will adjust once given time. Sheesh! I would love to have you guys in my Insane league. Dropsie on Vickie babe-bee and KINGIE ALA STINGIE BEE pickin him up as the next waiver flavor as my QB savior (nurser-bee rhyme brought to you by the Bumble Beast that will feast on the least and that means you sonny boy!!! BWA-HAhahwhahehetetehahwHOOHOOHOOhahwhwhw).

By the way, in 2002 he missed 2 games - thats a COUPLE of games not SEVERAL - SEVERAL is nationally known as a common number for 3 or more ;D

TEE HEE BEE babe-bee!
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by captainpurple on Oct 12th, 2004, 9:48am

on 10/12/04 at 08:41:56, KillerKingSting wrote:
He will adjust once given time. Sheesh!


OK, as  a Vick owner, I've watched you guys go back and forth the last couple weeks.   But this statement sinks you KKS, IMO.  given time!!   >:(     given time!!!????   [smiley=fumin.gif]


GIVEN TIME!????!!!  [smiley=furious.gif]


How much longer am I supposed to take losses because this stiff just needs to be "given time"!?  

He started off the year with mediocre 7 & 14 pt performances.  Not good, but at least I'm in the game.  Then follows that up with super-human-sure-to-go-to-the-HOF -1, 3 & -2 pt dominating spectacles of QB magic.   ZERO PTS in 3 $%#^ing weeks!   I lost by 15, 9 & 5 in those weeks.   None of those weeks was a buzzsaw, I lost simply because Vick sucks!  

You can argue all you want about what his value is as an athlete or even an NFL QB, as there is a lot more to that than just fantasy stats; however, you simply CANNOT argue that he's still a viable fantasy QB.

The title of this thread is perfect.  


Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 12th, 2004, 9:58am
Here's the deal.  I presented an argument earlier and used some facts to back it up.  I said Vick only had one 300 yard passing game in his ENTIRE NFL CAREER!  You called me a liar and said he had more than 400 yards in a win against the Steelers in 2002.  It turned out that you were incorrect.  Then you came into this thread and called me a liar again for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game.  I'm glad you finally did some homework and found his stats from 2002 that show his single 300 yard game, but your hypothesis was incorrect.  I had already given him credit for that game.

Now you want to compare him to McNabb, but you say it isn't a fair comparison because McNabb has TO.  Well, McNabb never had TO before this year.  Look at the last 10 games or so of the 2003 season (where McNabb was throwing to Stinkston and Trash) and tell me that he wasn't a stud FF QB.  Look at the 2000 season (his first as a full-time starter) and he accounted for 27 TDs, 3300 passing yards, and 600 rushing yards.  Who was his supporting cast then?  It wasn't TO or Peerless Price or Warrick Dunn... it was Darnell Autry at RB and Torrance Small and Charles Johnson at WR.  Stop using Atlanta's supporting cast as the reason he sucks right now.  A great QB like Vick should be able to do it on his own and make the players around him better.  He doesn't.

Don't throw the Carr v. Harrington decision in my face.  I was wrong about that one.  I felt that Harrington was going to have a big game (others did too) and that Carr might still be hobbling a bit from an injury the week before.  I was wrong there.  You neglected to mention the other threads where my recommendations were dead on.  You're trying to devalue my opinion because I predicted one matchup incorrectly while inflating your own expertise because you got that matchup right.  It's a ridiculous path to take, as I'm sure anyone would tell you.

When I look at Vick, I'm looking at the whole picture.  And that picture shows me that Vick does not warrant a #1 FF QB position.  If I had Vick on my team, I'd be doing whatever I could to trade him because his 150 passing yards, 0 TDs, and 2 turnovers a game just won't win many games for my fantasy team.

Will Vick ever be a consistent FF QB?  I don't know.  I know he isn't right now.  Would he be better if he had LaDainian Tomlinson in the backfield and Randy Moss and Terrell Owens as wideouts?  I'm sure he would, but let's deal with the situation as it is.  Let's not call a duck anything but a duck.

Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB (unless you get extra points for turnovers and low pass-yardage totals).   ;)

I'd be willing to bet that Matt Schaub could run the offense better and produce better fantasy numbers for the QB, WR, and TE positions if he was given the starting nod.  However, he won't be unless Vick gets hurt, so there's no use making a bet.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:41am

on 10/12/04 at 09:48:01, captainpurple wrote:
OK, as  a Vick owner, I've watched you guys go back and forth the last couple weeks.   But this statement sinks you KKS, IMO.  given time!!   >:(     given time!!!????   [smiley=fumin.gif]


GIVEN TIME!????!!!  [smiley=furious.gif]


How much longer am I supposed to take losses because this stiff just needs to be "given time"!?  

He started off the year with mediocre 7 & 14 pt performances.  Not good, but at least I'm in the game.  Then follows that up with super-human-sure-to-go-to-the-HOF -1, 3 & -2 pt dominating spectacles of QB magic.   ZERO PTS in 3 $%#^ing weeks!   I lost by 15, 9 & 5 in those weeks.   None of those weeks was a buzzsaw, I lost simply because Vick sucks!  

You can argue all you want about what his value is as an athlete or even an NFL QB, as there is a lot more to that than just fantasy stats; however, you simply CANNOT argue that he's still a viable fantasy QB.

The title of this thread is perfect.  


Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.



Look, my opinion of Vick is purely keeper and Dynasty related right now. Before perhaps, I was very high on him doing something RIGHT NOWish.
But I always remained my interest and opinion of Vick as related to a DEEP KEEPER OR DYNASTY LEAGUE.
If your losing because you've played him (like I have) and you want to BLAME solely HIM for doing so then, sorry but, I'm not buying that AT ALL as I am 5-1 and I have played him all 5 weeks!
To be fair my league is different, it does consist of 21 starters as well as a 2-QB set.

If your NOT in a keeper (deep) OR a dynasty league then, fine, I wouldn't blame you a BIT if you dropped him right now. BUT I STILL MAINTAIN HE WILL MAKE A COMEBACK THIS YEAR.

PERIOD.

Yes TIME. He didn't play in the preseason, his coaching staff has been completely worked over, his OFFENSE has completely CHANGED and your going to tell me that you didn't have enough foresight to PERHAPS foresee something like this - and yet you want to BLAME it on him?????

Nah, that BS babe-bee.

The TITLE of this thread was a spawn off the original thread in which was an advice post and PHILLY came in and remarked that VICK was a FRAUD.

He CHANGED that TUNE IMMEDIATELY when I called him on it - and thats that.

From here on out, it was just pure fun for me, but, if your going to BLAME anyone for your LOSSES, look first at WHY YOU decided to play him while all the while ignoring all the intangible and physical changes that he has been presented with.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by captainpurple on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:55am

on 10/12/04 at 11:41:02, KillerKingSting wrote:
... if your going to BLAME anyone for your LOSSES, look first at WHY YOU decided to play him while all the while ignoring all the intangible and physical changes that he has been presented with.
 This is worse than fighting with my wife!   Back her into a corner, confront her with it, and she takes my argument and throws it in my face!

You are saying I should be accountable for starting Vick?  In other words, I should've known better?   Yet you've been the most ardent supporter of his eventual resurgence!?   How can you argue on one front that Vick is a start who deserves to start and then argue anyone who starts him should've known he wouldn't be that great?  

Never mind, I see Philly has already gone down this road, I'll leave the torch for him.    [smiley=frustrated.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 12:03pm

on 10/12/04 at 09:58:04, Philly wrote:
Here's the deal.  I presented an argument earlier and used some facts to back it up.


When at first???? when you ORIGINALLY came onto to the ORIGINAL Vick advice thread and called him a FRAUD???? Thats facts??? PLU-LEEEEEZE! ::)


Quote:
I said Vick only had one 300 yard passing game in his ENTIRE NFL CAREER!  You called me a liar and said he had more than 400 yards in a win against the Steelers in 2002.  It turned out that you were incorrect.  Then you came into this thread and called me a liar again for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game.  I'm glad you finally did some homework and found his stats from 2002 that show his single 300 yard game, but your hypothesis was incorrect.  I had already given him credit for that game.


Fair enough, and I've already corrected myself on that and admitted my mistake. Is this Back to the future or what?
Fact is, you were arguing FF stats and when someone gets DOUBLE (if not more in some leagues) the POINTS for rushing yards (over 800 I believe in 2002) than they do for passing yards then, you'd figure he had around a 36 to 3700 passing season (if not more if leragues only give 1 pt per 25 yards passing) if you combine his rushing stats from 2002.
Add in his rushing TDs (which ALSO MOST BASIC leagues give DOUBLE the points - or close to it - than a passing TD) and you have a QB that has thrown for at LEAST 3700 yards, and passed for a ratio of approx. 32 TDs while all the while only throwing 8 INTs that year.

So what again, was your so called FACT about how terrible of a FF QB he was in that year?


Quote:
Now you want to compare him to McNabb, but you say it isn't a fair comparison because McNabb has TO.  Well, McNabb never had TO before this year.  Look at the last 10 games or so of the 2003 season (where McNabb was throwing to Stinkston and Trash) and tell me that he wasn't a stud FF QB.  Look at the 2000 season (his first as a full-time starter) and he accounted for 27 TDs, 3300 passing yards, and 600 rushing yards.  Who was his supporting cast then?  It wasn't TO or Peerless Price or Warrick Dunn... it was Darnell Autry at RB and Torrance Small and Charles Johnson at WR.  Stop using Atlanta's supporting cast as the reason he sucks right now.  A great QB like Vick should be able to do it on his own and make the players around him better.  He doesn't.


MCNabb was INJURED and SUCKED BADLY after that tenth game WHICH was a IMPORTANT part of your ORIGINAL REACH for an argument about Vick back on the original discussion-Vick-Thread. Now its OK when McNabb is injured? but not Vick???

He doesn't make the players around him BETTER????????

Whats thier RECORD with him as a starter and WITHOUT him as a starter? Thats about as CLOSE to a FACT that you'll ever come across Philster. Start talking sesne!!!! And if you'd like to relate it to FF numbers then QUIT IGNORING my every comment and RESPOND to my every comment LIKE I do YOURS.

The FF IDPs are MUCH BETTER with HIM in the lineup. PERIOD. Same cast as last year - check the STATS for yourslelf.

Now I have to question why it is you do NOT answer every one of my quotes as I do yours. If I'm wrong then fine, I'll go with that, admit that, but at least I'll face that.
Can you offer me the same? If so, please begin to do so.


Quote:
Don't throw the Carr v. Harrington decision in my face.  I was wrong about that one.  I felt that Harrington was going to have a big game (others did too) and that Carr might still be hobbling a bit from an injury the week before.  I was wrong there.  You neglected to mention the other threads where my recommendations were dead on.  You're trying to devalue my opinion because I predicted one matchup incorrectly while inflating your own expertise because you got that matchup right.  It's a ridiculous path to take, as I'm sure anyone would tell you.


Sure I agree, I was REACHING for a point, just like you do with MANY of your comments. And actually, I was just kidding around - you gettin sensitive or something? I thought you never get rattled?


Quote:
When I look at Vick, I'm looking at the whole picture.  And that picture shows me that Vick does not warrant a #1 FF QB position.  If I had Vick on my team, I'd be doing whatever I could to trade him because his 150 passing yards, 0 TDs, and 2 turnovers a game just won't win many games for my fantasy team.


No, your NOT looking at the whole picture IMO.


Quote:
Will Vick ever be a consistent FF QB?  I don't know.  I know he isn't right now.  Would he be better if he had LaDainian Tomlinson in the backfield and Randy Moss and Terrell Owens as wideouts?  I'm sure he would, but let's deal with the situation as it is.  Let's not call a duck anything but a duck.


I said nothing about a Duck. You;ve taken 4 games that he has played in this year to slam him outright as a FRAUD. All I am doing is telling you he isn't. Like it or not, I am not going away and neither is Vick - he'll get there this year. I agree that the great athletes will overcome controversy and I expect him to do the same - IF his coaching staff will allow him to be HIM.


Quote:
Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB (unless you get extra points for turnovers and low pass-yardage totals).   ;)


Hmmmm, isn't FARVE known for throwing INTs? Did HE get points for those? DID I see you call HIM a FRAUD? I am assuming that this is your idea of a joke. Har Dee Har Barf! :P


Quote:
I'd be willing to bet that Matt Schaub could run the offense better and produce better fantasy numbers for the QB, WR, and TE positions if he was given the starting nod.  However, he won't be unless Vick gets hurt, so there's no use making a bet.


Oh, I am sure ONE day you will get that chance to see him start a season at QB and at THST time, we will then compare his numbers to Vick's in 2002 so, make your bet right here and right now, you keep mentioning it so, whats up?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 12th, 2004, 12:07pm

on 10/12/04 at 11:55:41, captainpurple wrote:
 This is worse than fighting with my wife!   Back her into a corner, confront her with it, and she takes my argument and throws it in my face!

You are saying I should be accountable for starting Vick?  In other words, I should've known better?   Yet you've been the most ardent supporter of his eventual resurgence!?   How can you argue on one front that Vick is a start who deserves to start and then argue anyone who starts him should've known he wouldn't be that great?  

Never mind, I see Philly has already gone down this road, I'll leave the torch for him.    [smiley=frustrated.gif]



Ok fine, the way you feel is ON you. Not me.
But all I am saying is that - are you to tell me that Offseason coaching changes, Offseason, Offensive style changes, NO preseason TIME is NOT something to consider in your FF ANALYSIS for starting VICK all this time?

You'd rather just BLAME it on ME because I am an advocate of his talent?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 12th, 2004, 1:55pm

on 10/12/04 at 12:03:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
When at first???? when you ORIGINALLY came onto to the ORIGINAL Vick advice thread and called him a FRAUD???? Thats facts??? PLU-LEEEEEZE! ::)
No, the fact that I called him a fraud is an opinion.  But I backed my opinion up with a number of facts which can be verified... not statistics I just made up off the top of my head to support my argument.




Quote:
Fair enough, and I've already corrected myself on that and admitted my mistake. Is this Back to the future or what?
You corrected yourself on the original mistake, but you didn't address the fact that the first words out of your mouth in this thread were to call me a liar again for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game.  If you keep falsely accusing me of saying things I didn't, then it just weakens your position.  Your Debating 101 lesson for the day.   [smiley=graduate.gif]



Quote:
Fact is, you were arguing FF stats and when someone gets DOUBLE (if not more in some leagues) the POINTS for rushing yards (over 800 I believe in 2002) than they do for passing yards then, you'd figure he had around a 36 to 3700 passing season (if not more if leragues only give 1 pt per 25 yards passing) if you combine his rushing stats from 2002.
He didn't have over 800 rushing yards in 2002, but it was close enough so I won't point out the fact that you didn't bother to check those stats before presenting them either.


Quote:
MCNabb was INJURED and SUCKED BADLY after that tenth game WHICH was a IMPORTANT part of your ORIGINAL REACH for an argument about Vick back on the original discussion-Vick-Thread. Now its OK when McNabb is injured? but not Vick???
No, McNabb was perfectly healthy at the end of the 2003 season.  He battled through an injured thumb at the beginning of the 2003 season when his stats were poor.  Then he turned things around in about week 6 or 7 and had a great finish to the year (NFL-wise and Fantasy-wise).


Quote:
He doesn't make the players around him BETTER????????

Whats thier RECORD with him as a starter and WITHOUT him as a starter? Thats about as CLOSE to a FACT that you'll ever come across Philster. Start talking sesne!!!! And if you'd like to relate it to FF numbers then QUIT IGNORING my every comment and RESPOND to my every comment LIKE I do YOURS.
Their record with him last week as a starter was 0-1.   ;D  Anyway, yes, the team does win more with him than without, but look at his replacements... Doug Johnson?  Kurt Kittner?  How could he possibly do worse than them?  (And I don't respond to every comment of yours because you go off on too many different tangents to try to take the argument away from the fact that Vick is not a viable FF starter right now.)


Quote:
The FF IDPs are MUCH BETTER with HIM in the lineup. PERIOD. Same cast as last year - check the STATS for yourslelf.
I'll take your word for it.  I don't have the IDP background and don't have the time to check all those stats (not that you did either).  Anyway, I'm speaking of Vick specifically not being a viable FF starter, not Patrick Kerney or Keith Brooking.


Quote:
Now I have to question why it is you do NOT answer every one of my quotes as I do yours. If I'm wrong then fine, I'll go with that, admit that, but at least I'll face that.
Can you offer me the same? If so, please begin to do so.
I'm not going to answer all of them... just the ones I feel are relevant to the argument or the ones I feel inclined to comment on.



Quote:
Sure I agree, I was REACHING for a point, just like you do with MANY of your comments. And actually, I was just kidding around - you gettin sensitive or something? I thought you never get rattled?
Nope... I'm just having fun arguing a point I believe strongly in.  I'm still not resorting to multiple exclamation points or anything.  [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]


Quote:
I said nothing about a Duck. You;ve taken 4 games that he has played in this year to slam him outright as a FRAUD. All I am doing is telling you he isn't. Like it or not, I am not going away and neither is Vick - he'll get there this year. I agree that the great athletes will overcome controversy and I expect him to do the same - IF his coaching staff will allow him to be HIM.
When I called him a fraud, I was referring to the fact that he is so overrated as a FF QB because he is an amazing athlete who has the ability to throw the ball the length of the field and run faster than anyone else on the field.  But the fact is that he is underachieving for his fantasy owners.  Maybe it's the coaches, maybe it's his WRs, maybe it's his O-line, maybe it's his commission on the Nike commercials... whatever it is, it is causing his fantasy owners to sit him or suffer through poor fantasy outputs.



Quote:
Hmmmm, isn't FARVE known for throwing INTs? Did HE get points for those? DID I see you call HIM a FRAUD? I am assuming that this is your idea of a joke. Har Dee Har Barf! :P
Favre threw 3 INTs last night!  Yes, he throws a lot of them.  But how many yards did he throw for to offset those negative points?  How many TDs did he throw for?  You're not really going to try to argue that Vick is a better FF QB than Favre, are you?



Quote:
Oh, I am sure ONE day you will get that chance to see him start a season at QB and at THST time, we will then compare his numbers to Vick's in 2002 so, make your bet right here and right now, you keep mentioning it so, whats up?
I'll take Matt Schaub's first five starts for Atlanta (also his first five in the NFL, period) and compare them to Michael Vick's first five starts of the 2004 season (which is his 4th year in the league).  We'll use a standard scoring system (1/25 pass, 1/10 rush, 6/TD, -2/INTorFUM) and see who scores better.  I'll bet $20 it is Schaub.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by captainpurple on Oct 12th, 2004, 2:00pm

on 10/12/04 at 12:07:58, KillerKingSting wrote:
You'd rather just BLAME it on ME because I am an advocate of his talent?

No, please don't mistake my Vick frustrations with personal feelings.   I'm upset with Vick, and with the argument that he's still a viable FF QB.   I don't agree that he is and choose to argue the point with you, but I certainly don't blame you for his performance, nor harbor any personal feelings one way or another because of it.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sexydexy on Oct 13th, 2004, 1:09am
My personal feelings on Michael Vick are that he has a nice afro.  Also, he looks good in Falcons white and red.  

If Michael Vick and I went on Blind Date, I'd probably go on a second date with him.  

That's how much I absolutely LOVE VICK!  

How about that?!

Also, Chris Brown is a better back than Walter Payton and is the best Brown since Bobby Brown, pre Whitney.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 13th, 2004, 6:20am

on 10/12/04 at 13:55:06, Philly wrote:
No, the fact that I called him a fraud is an opinion.  But I backed my opinion up with a number of facts which can be verified... not statistics I just made up off the top of my head to support my argument.


The assumption that you are reffering to - thats is - you are backing your OPINION up w/ facts - is another opinion in and of itself.

Call a Duck a Duck, remember? [smiley=laugh.gif]




Quote:
You corrected yourself on the original mistake, but you didn't address the fact that the first words out of your mouth in this thread were to call me a liar again for saying he never had a 300 yard passing game.  If you keep falsely accusing me of saying things I didn't, then it just weakens your position.  Your Debating 101 lesson for the day.   [smiley=graduate.gif]


I'm sorry for calling you a liar,..........i'll have to use more creative words next time to make my point (see my frist response to your above comment as to WHY I would use such names [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]).

fabricator, fibber,false teeth breath,misrepresntation creation, misleader, deceiving Whopper maker, fake forgering fibrillator, phony Philly, impossible imposterous improbabilitator, synthetic poppycock, pseodo-silly-Philly willy, innaccurate, untue, unreal and just plain WRONGO there KONGO bear.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh [smiley=angel.gif]



Quote:
He didn't have over 800 rushing yards in 2002, but it was close enough so I won't point out the fact that you didn't bother to check those stats before presenting them either.
[smiley=tired.gif]



Quote:
No, McNabb was perfectly healthy at the end of the 2003 season.  He battled through an injured thumb at the beginning of the 2003 season when his stats were poor.  Then he turned things around in about week 6 or 7 and had a great finish to the year (NFL-wise and Fantasy-wise).


Poor lil boo boo on McNabby boy's thumby wumby [smiley=whistle.gif]

Let me know when you are going to present something interesting in rebutal here [smiley=waitinforu.gif]


Quote:
Their record with him last week as a starter was 0-1.   ;D  Anyway, yes, the team does win more with him than without, but look at his replacements... Doug Johnson?  Kurt Kittner?  How could he possibly do worse than them?  (And I don't respond to every comment of yours because you go off on too many different tangents to try to take the argument away from the fact that Vick is not a viable FF starter right now.)


He took his team to the PLAYOFFS and won in Lambeau field - I'm still waiting. My tangents are a RESPONSE to your EVERY response!!!! My total and complete dismantling of your so called FACTS which you love to constrictly pin point only certain areas RATHER THAN the whoole PICTURE!

Now quit making excuses and answer me response for response. Really, its OK if you can't come back with an interesting answer..................but to totally ignore my respnses only leads ME to believe that you manipulate your responses only to make your seemingly uninteresting points and OPINIONs that more unbelievable.



Quote:
I'll take your word for it.  I don't have the IDP background and don't have the time to check all those stats (not that you did either).  Anyway, I'm speaking of Vick specifically not being a viable FF starter, not Patrick Kerney or Keith Brooking.


I don't have to check those stats, they are ingrained in my Insane MemBrane of Fame Babe-Bee, BEELieve that

So wait a minute here, you slam me for NOT looking up stats yet, you are bnow coming back to me and saying your doing the same thing?
Nope, wrong, miscalculator-fibbrilator-Sham-Whooper-Maker, ...........Me isn't buying that one - nope not at all,.....


Quote:
I'm not going to answer all of them... just the ones I feel are relevant to the argument or the ones I feel inclined to comment on.


Read above for the reason WHY you really don't answer them. Your presentation of arespectable point would BEE destroyed by my superior analysis of true FF and NFL talents!!!! TEE HEE BEE! :D



Quote:
Nope... I'm just having fun arguing a point I believe strongly in.  I'm still not resorting to multiple exclamation points or anything.  [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]


Ha ha, good one babe-bee, you got me there

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D


Quote:
When I called him a fraud, I was referring to the fact that he is so overrated as a FF QB because he is an amazing athlete who has the ability to throw the ball the length of the field and run faster than anyone else on the field.  But the fact is that he is underachieving for his fantasy owners.  Maybe it's the coaches, maybe it's his WRs, maybe it's his O-line, maybe it's his commission on the Nike commercials... whatever it is, it is causing his fantasy owners to sit him or suffer through poor fantasy outputs.


Ahhhh, now isn't this a DIFFERENT Explanation as to why you originally expalined he was a fraud?

But alas, good point your making here! Though, for this year that is.............. not 2002 and NOT for the WHOLE 2004 season either - that remains to be seen. ;)



Quote:
Favre threw 3 INTs last night!  Yes, he throws a lot of them.  But how many yards did he throw for to offset those negative points?  How many TDs did he throw for?  You're not really going to try to argue that Vick is a better FF QB than Favre, are you?


Ok, there are SOME FF leagues (ahem!!!!!!) that would penalize the offensive players for their turnovers more so than others. Thats the WAY I BEELieve it should BEE.



Quote:
I'll take Matt Schaub's first five starts for Atlanta (also his first five in the NFL, period) and compare them to Michael Vick's first five starts of the 2004 season (which is his 4th year in the league).  We'll use a standard scoring system (1/25 pass, 1/10 rush, 6/TD, -2/INTorFUM) and see who scores better.  I'll bet $20 it is Schaub.


I am LAUGHING at the fact that you are dropping to the level of using PRESEASON stats.
No, BET that SCHAUB, when ever, if EVER he gets to play a near a whole season (minus 2-3 games say, shal we?)  (Mr. Forever backup QB), that he DOES NOT beat out Vick's FIRST start of a a near whole season (minus 2-3 games say, shall we?) and of course, we'll use the VickTorious 2002 season of STRICTLY VICKLY Babe-bee and thats a 20.00$ bet I'll take you up on.

However, in all sincereity, when I WIN, because I WILL WIN this bet, then, I'll take yah to dinner, my treat, at Vick's new restuarant - good food i hear, Skewered McShaub-la-Bobs, McNabbit Crabbit BooBoo thumb-crumbs smothered in Barbecued Buccaneer PlayOff LOSS Sauce [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif], Silly Philly False Teeth breath mints, and  Fudged Fact-O-Cracks served w/ Whipped Whopper Topper OOOOhhhh what a story you can tell-Shells.. [smiley=wiseman.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by captainpurple on Oct 13th, 2004, 9:13am

on 10/13/04 at 01:09:56, sexydexy wrote:
My personal feelings on Michael Vick are that he has a nice afro.  Also, he looks good in Falcons white and red.  

If Michael Vick and I went on Blind Date, I'd probably go on a second date with him.  

That's how much I absolutely LOVE VICK!  

How about that?!

Also, Chris Brown is a better back than Walter Payton and is the best Brown since Bobby Brown, pre Whitney.


;D   [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]  [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] [smiley=sinister.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=wave.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 13th, 2004, 10:34am
OK... to make you happy, I will respond to EVERY single inane point you make in this thread, so you don't think I'm trying to manipulate the arguments I want to address and avoiding others...




on 10/13/04 at 06:20:41, KillerKingSting wrote:
The assumption that you are reffering to - thats is - you are backing your OPINION up w/ facts - is another opinion in and of itself.

Call a Duck a Duck, remember? [smiley=laugh.gif]
I call him a fraud - it's an opinion.  I back up my opinion by producing (legitimate, not fabricated) statistics.  You have yet to show that any of my statistics are incorrect and that will continue to be the case.




Quote:
I'm sorry for calling you a liar,..........i'll have to use more creative words next time to make my point (see my frist response to your above comment as to WHY I would use such names [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]).

fabricator, fibber,false teeth breath,misrepresntation creation, misleader, deceiving Whopper maker, fake forgering fibrillator, phony Philly, impossible imposterous improbabilitator, synthetic poppycock, pseodo-silly-Philly willy, innaccurate, untue, unreal and just plain WRONGO there KONGO bear.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh [smiley=angel.gif]
The only person who is making up statistics here in order to mislead the masses is you.  I'll leave it at that.






Quote:
Poor lil boo boo on McNabby boy's thumby wumby [smiley=whistle.gif]

Let me know when you are going to present something interesting in rebutal here [smiley=waitinforu.gif]
Interesting how you completely avoided the issue here just to make some silly comment that added nothing to the argument, but I'm addressing it nonetheless.  (This is one of the responses that I probably would have skipped.)



Quote:
He took his team to the PLAYOFFS and won in Lambeau field - I'm still waiting. My tangents are a RESPONSE to your EVERY response!!!! My total and complete dismantling of your so called FACTS which you love to constrictly pin point only certain areas RATHER THAN the whoole PICTURE!
Everyone wins in Lambeau now. It doesn't seem like such an impressive feat anymore, does it.  Heck, even Rex Grossman can win in Lambeau. Do you remember that Vick then took his team (in the playoffs following the 2002 season) into Veterans Stadium (lacking all the mystique and allure of the Frozen Tundra) and flopped?


Quote:
Now quit making excuses and answer me response for response. Really, its OK if you can't come back with an interesting answer..................but to totally ignore my respnses only leads ME to believe that you manipulate your responses only to make your seemingly uninteresting points and OPINIONs that more unbelievable.
Maybe my responses aren't as interesting as yours.  But I choose not to rhyme and introduce words that exist nowhere but in your own mind.  I figure that you are doing all of these verbal gymnastics to attempt to hide the fact that you cannot prove that Michael Vick is still a viable fantasy football QB.




Quote:
I don't have to check those stats, they are ingrained in my Insane MemBrane of Fame Babe-Bee, BEELieve that

So wait a minute here, you slam me for NOT looking up stats yet, you are bnow coming back to me and saying your doing the same thing?
Nope, wrong, miscalculator-fibbrilator-Sham-Whooper-Maker, ...........Me isn't buying that one - nope not at all,.....
No, I am saying that I am not going to check those stats.  I don't argue stats without checking them first (which you have done on a number of occasions now).  I just choose not to call you on the carpet with the IDP stats because I haven't looked at them and don't feel like arguing IDP points when they are irrelevant to the point of this thread.



Quote:
Read above for the reason WHY you really don't answer them. Your presentation of arespectable point would BEE destroyed by my superior analysis of true FF and NFL talents!!!! TEE HEE BEE! :D
I'm answering all of your points, tit-for-tat, and I think most people here agree with my assessment of Vick as a fraud of a FF QB rather than your superhuman fantasy machine view.



Quote:
Ha ha, good one babe-bee, you got me there

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Again, no point in me addressing this, but if I left it out you'd start to whine again.   ::)



Quote:
Ahhhh, now isn't this a DIFFERENT Explanation as to why you originally expalined he was a fraud?

But alas, good point your making here! Though, for this year that is.............. not 2002 and NOT for the WHOLE 2004 season either - that remains to be seen. ;)
One part of my original expanation of Vick being a fraud was the fact that he is oft-injured.  He has survived 5 NFL games this season so far (as many as he played in 2003).  His history indicates that he is an injury risk and there is no denying that.  It is a fact.  I offer irrefutable statistics that show this and all you can do is say that any player can get injured.




Quote:
Ok, there are SOME FF leagues (ahem!!!!!!) that would penalize the offensive players for their turnovers more so than others. Thats the WAY I BEELieve it should BEE.
Which is exactly why Vick is not a viable FF QB!  Thank you for making my argument so succinctly! Vick had 3 turnovers and no TDs this past week.  In these leagues that score it the way it "should bee", Vick would probably have negative fantasy numbers on the week.



Quote:
I am LAUGHING at the fact that you are dropping to the level of using PRESEASON stats.
No, BET that SCHAUB, when ever, if EVER he gets to play a near a whole season (minus 2-3 games say, shal we?)  (Mr. Forever backup QB), that he DOES NOT beat out Vick's FIRST start of a a near whole season (minus 2-3 games say, shall we?) and of course, we'll use the VickTorious 2002 season of STRICTLY VICKLY Babe-bee and thats a 20.00$ bet I'll take you up on.

However, in all sincereity, when I WIN, because I WILL WIN this bet, then, I'll take yah to dinner, my treat, at Vick's new restuarant - good food i hear, Skewered McShaub-la-Bobs, McNabbit Crabbit BooBoo thumb-crumbs smothered in Barbecued Buccaneer PlayOff LOSS Sauce [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif], Silly Philly False Teeth breath mints, and  Fudged Fact-O-Cracks served w/ Whipped Whopper Topper OOOOhhhh what a story you can tell-Shells.. [smiley=wiseman.gif]
I'm sorry... You misunderstood me.  I wasn't implying that we would use pre-season stats or games.  I meant that when Schaub finally gets a chance to start in 5 NFL regular season games, we'll compare his stats in those 5 games to the first 5 that Vick played in the 2004 season.

Of course you have a big advantage in this wager because Schaub's next 5 NFL starts will be the FIRST NFL starts in his career.  At least I gave you and Vick until his fourth NFL season to make the comparison.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 13th, 2004, 9:30pm

[smiley=tired.gif]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Thats my WHOLE response to your ever-so boring,constricted, can't see the big picture (I'll PROVE that here), biased, OPINIONS of your latest post.
In other words, I would have put that same yawning smiley-ette on every response to your responses which in turn were to my responses which you had been mostly ignoring for your own profitable popularity here on the Grid.

Let me sum this up for you since, your not able to understand and realize and recognize and post that recognization as a WHOLE picture, here on the grid, right here and now, and also, Captain Burple Slurps ;D, regarding your last post, sorry I haven't been able to get back to it but, nothing personal taken on my part Bud-Bee, I'm just having fun and at the same time, able to SCHOOL Philster here who has tunnel vision which unfortunately, for the great fans of the gridiron, doesn't relate the BIG PICTURE in the NFL as a WHOLE phenomenom so as to be able to educate of people here WHAT the REAL DEAL is in order for their knowledge of the NFL & FF season to hopefullly become more profitable as a result.

That is obviously NOT Philly's goal but nonetheless fear not!!!!, I am here to spread the news, in case no one noticed, that is entirely my goal and you'll see just what I am talking about below.

First of all, Vick has more points than both Matt Hasselbeck and Trent Green. Where is there FRAUDULENT "PHILL-O-SOFT-ITCAL" analysis from our dear and everso misleading Silly Philly boy?
Wasn't HasselBack regarded as one of the top ten QBs? And how about Trent Green, to the superbowl he was bound - right? With gawdy-like FF paassing numbers last year?

But no, lets rather, like Philly, just give you 1/8th of the story. Lets not share with others THE BIG NFL-FANTASY picture here so that we can actually help others out (I am suspecting this possible MISS on information may BEE related to Philster's lack of FF success this year thereby, not wanting to give his superior opponents anymore of an edge).

Lets NOT stop there - I want you all to KNOW the FULL picture not just 1/16th of it.

Weren't  F.Taylor and Barlow drafted somewhere around the 9th-11th backs taken?
ONE combined 100-yard game between them.

Philly???? Not getting the BIG PICTURE yet??? No porblemo you saliva-dripping gob of Flemo, theres more based upon my FULL RESEARCH OF FACTS!

Ahman Green and Clinton Portis drafted anywhere from 1st to 4th back taken - right?
Whats their ranking NOW?

Barlow and Taylor are 20 and 21 in most formats.

Lets not forget about Travis Henry either.

Santanna Moss, L.Coles & T.Holt??????? are they living up to expectations? If not should we call them FRAUDS as well - only fair, were doing it to Vick, aren't we?

Now after reading this why isn't PHILLY harping on these other studs? and their respective fall into FRAUDULISM as he would I'm sure (unless he is to announce himself a hippacrite) do so because in point, their FF careers as compared to last season's hasn't put up the numbers we drafted these players for - right?

The BETTER and MORE HELPFUL POST to BEE titled here in order to HELP others out would be the LEAGUE FALL from FF grace of ALL these players rather than, Philly's inability to seperate himself from a QB that he obviously has a vendetta against - therefore screwing the gridiron public right outta their potential knowledge base of what is the REAL DEAL OVERALL.

Now, I the Bumble BEE of Glee,
with a Stinger bigger than your (Philly) Dinger,
wearing black & yellow stripes without all the Pseudo-Philly-half-pictured hype,
the Bee of Gridron Glory with the Divine rhymes in contrast to Philly's waste of time whines
on the Fantasy Crimes
of only one quarterback
as apposed to many players that have shown their numerical slack,
I bring you the truth, nothing but the truth
not some uncooth,
constricted line found on a bathroom stallwall booth, whose points continue to be moot,
let ME the BEE show you the ROOT
of the league wide problem and as for Philly's response, you all really shouldn't give a HOOT,
unless of course, your not looking for the FULL and absoluetly nothing but the FUll , unaltered, unbiased, league-wide BumBle Bee Insect-a-spected TRUTH.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by DUKE0313 on Oct 13th, 2004, 10:57pm
Just so everyone knows...KKS put Vick on the trading block today. He wants some kind of extravagant package deal for him (won't get it), but he's on the block nonetheless! I just think it's funny! ::)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by MordecaiCourage on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:17pm
He never was!!!!! Since when has a single season equated to all time viability?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 14th, 2004, 6:09am

on 10/13/04 at 23:17:22, MordecaiCourage wrote:
He never was!!!!! Since when has a single season equated to all time viability?


Thats an entirely different argument all together. If your suggesting that players who have one good FF year aren't going to be regarded as a higher draft pick the following season then, your worng. THAT happens ALL the time.

Lets stay with the BIG PICTURE here , which NO ONE seems to be able to acknowledge............I find that haunting.

Please read my above post to see what I am referring to. ::)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:00am
KKS, you keep bringing up all these different names... Fred Taylor, Ahman Green, Torry Holt, etc., etc...  The reason I haven't discussed them is because the thread was not about them.  I've been trying to stick to the argument at hand - Michael Vick - without going on so many varied tangents to make the argument something different altogether.  There was one thread asking about Ahman Green, and my recommendation was to try to trade him now.  I don't believe Green is a fraud because I also know he has more than one season of fantasy success.  I ripped Ahman prior to the 2003 season and vowed not to take him because he was an injury risk and couldn't hold onto the ball.  He made me eat my words following the 2003 season.  Vick, on the other hand has only done it for one season, and even then he was remarkably inconsistent.  Now he's finally healthy and he is stinking up the joint.  I don't care whether it's his supporting cast, his offensive system, or the breakfast cereal he's eating. None of that matters to me if he is hurting my fantasy team.  (Fortunately, I was smart enough to stay away from him - while others took him as early as the second and third rounds - and I don't have him on any of my fantasy teams.)

But if the only way you'll see that he is a fraud is through poetic means, I'll be more than happy to oblige.  This is completely off the top of my head so forgive the lack of meter.



"An Ode to a Fraud"

If only for once you could see the facts;
Look at the INTs, the fumbles, and sacks.
Ignore all the hype and unproven potential
And let go of one season that was unconsequential.
You'd see that there's no place for Vick on a roster
Of fantasy achievers, the ones who can foster
Three hundred yards passing or touchdowns galore,
I'd like to see him throw three or even once, four!
Yet all he can muster is 150 yards passing
And no TD tosses which leads to harassing
From experts like Philly and others on the board
But you keep insisting (while the rest of us snored)
That Vick is amazing and worthy of praising,
But his rep I'll be razing and I'll continue this hazing
Until you admit he should be riding the pine--
Negative fantasy points should be the first sign.



Thank you, and have a nice day.   :)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:43am
Philly, great poem!! Loved it. Your obviously better at rhyming than you are at presenting the WHOLE picture WHICH, by the way, SHOULD be the title of this thread.

Vick's unproductive FF season thus far is due to MANY reasons. And though, we see 2nd string fullbacks like Rueben Droughns rack up 193 yards rushing against a tired jacksonville run D, 3rd string Wrs like B.Stokley making headlines, its still a VERY LONG season and Vick owners should be rewarded here soon as Atlanta's Passing game is going to get better.

Despite not throwing for many yards agauinst Detroit, Vick made SOLID decisions in his progressions & didn't throw but one errant INT. Impressive since really, detriot exploited a new found weakness of the Falcons in that their OLINE isn't all THAT and kept pressure on Vick all day long.
And the Lion's DLINE ain't all THAT either so, you MUST LOOK at the whole picture.

That picture being that the west coast offense takes TIME to learn - its the most difficult of all offenses to get a grasp on. You should know this being a McNabbit fan. That coupled w/ the fact that VICKtorious himself has been outta football for a year. Didn't play in preseason and had his whole coaching staff gutted as well as being told NOT to use HIS STRENGTH as a player - that being his legs - makes his situation tough to overcome in a FEW SHORT WEEKS.

Problem is that not only have you changed your tune to fantasy regarding Vick's fraudulism (originally you were critiquing his ability to play as an NFL QB as well but soon, thereafter, CHANGED your stance - like a little girl who didn't know which shade of lipstick to wear to her girlscout's meeting) but you have also failed to realize that VICK will make a comeback THIS year.
And in KEEPER and DYNASTY leagues, HE IS and will again PROVE your constricted onesided half truth view on his FF value - dead wrong.

Gregg Knapp has HELD VICK back for now. I hate to see when he begins to let him loose and HOPE that whenever he does, your playing against the FF team that takes a chance and decides to play Vick.

I'll tell you what, I'll play VICK again this week in the Insane Gang AND I say, he has a decent if not SOLID week. (you used that word before Philly didn't you - solid??? as an uneducated guess on the talent of Atlanta's OLINE in 2002 in which you provided ZERO statistical facts for as well as NO research whatsoever into your opinion presented)

But really, picking on a player who has been injured for a year, had his coaching staff gutted, his offensive scheme completely changed and CHANGED into one of the more difficult schemes to learn; his QB position changed to which doesn't feature his talents (which the falcon's ignorant coaching staff will SOON learn that - that AIN'T going to get the job done), an offensive line that is at BEST an average one (see the detriot game),..................its like your back in high school again, as the big fat senior Bully, picking on all the freshman class-mates in order to make yourself look like an intellectual FF information provider - nah!

Vick will BEE back this year. And he once again will be a VIABLE FF QB.

In fact, he'll start doing that THIS WEEK.

Care to so NO to that?

Put your FF expertise where your mouth is - right here and now, this week's game.

I am. I'm playing him this week, what better proof that would say to my loyalty and belief in what I am saying to all gridironers.

Lets see you do the same. Lets see you say that VICK will NOT be a VIABLE FF QB this week.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 14th, 2004, 12:48pm

on 10/14/04 at 10:43:43, KillerKingSting wrote:
Philly, great poem!! Loved it. Your obviously better at rhyming than you are at presenting the WHOLE picture WHICH, by the way, SHOULD be the title of this thread.

You want to change the title of the thread
Because you know Vick's FF prowess is dead.
But the title is set and it's not changing
To suit your tangents which are too far-ranging.
When you add up Vick's FF points and get negative two,
It shows that the thread title is adequately true.


Quote:
Vick's unproductive FF season thus far is due to MANY reasons. And though, we see 2nd string fullbacks like Rueben Droughns rack up 193 yards rushing against a tired jacksonville run D, 3rd string Wrs like B.Stokley making headlines, its still a VERY LONG season and Vick owners should be rewarded here soon as Atlanta's Passing game is going to get better.

Reuben Droughns and Brandon Stokley?
Seriously, are you trying to joke, Bee?
We've seen no proof that Vick will be good
And his numbers don't indicate that he should.


Quote:
Despite not throwing for many yards agauinst Detroit, Vick made SOLID decisions in his progressions & didn't throw but one errant INT. Impressive since really, detriot exploited a new found weakness of the Falcons in that their OLINE isn't all THAT and kept pressure on Vick all day long.
And the Lion's DLINE ain't all THAT either so, you MUST LOOK at the whole picture.

The WHOLE picture is meaningless to the Vick
Owner whose FF numbers must be really sick.


Quote:
That picture being that the west coast offense takes TIME to learn - its the most difficult of all offenses to get a grasp on. You should know this being a McNabbit fan. That coupled w/ the fact that VICKtorious himself has been outta football for a year. Didn't play in preseason and had his whole coaching staff gutted as well as being told NOT to use HIS STRENGTH as a player - that being his legs - makes his situation tough to overcome in a FEW SHORT WEEKS.

McNabb hardly ever runs the ball.
His rushing numbers are usually small.
But he produced right from the start
And proved the WCO isn't all that hard.


Quote:
Problem is that not only have you changed your tune to fantasy regarding Vick's fraudulism (originally you were critiquing his ability to play as an NFL QB as well but soon, thereafter, CHANGED your stance - like a little girl who didn't know which shade of lipstick to wear to her girlscout's meeting) but you have also failed to realize that VICK will make a comeback THIS year.
And in KEEPER and DYNASTY leagues, HE IS and will again PROVE your constricted onesided half truth view on his FF value - dead wrong.

The Falcons are winning because of Dunn
But arguing against Vick has proved to be fun.
As this is a fantasy board I've narrowed my view
To FF production and you should too.


Quote:
Gregg Knapp has HELD VICK back for now. I hate to see when he begins to let him loose and HOPE that whenever he does, your playing against the FF team that takes a chance and decides to play Vick.

You talk in "what could be's", but ignore what's true.
Vick's FF numbers are bad and his owners are blue.



Quote:
I'll tell you what, I'll play VICK again this week in the Insane Gang AND I say, he has a decent if not SOLID week. (you used that word before Philly didn't you - solid??? as an uneducated guess on the talent of Atlanta's OLINE in 2002 in which you provided ZERO statistical facts for as well as NO research whatsoever into your opinion presented)

You're going to play Vick, but you're trying to trade
This same player who can't make the grade?


Quote:
But really, picking on a player who has been injured for a year, had his coaching staff gutted, his offensive scheme completely changed and CHANGED into one of the more difficult schemes to learn; his QB position changed to which doesn't feature his talents (which the falcon's ignorant coaching staff will SOON learn that - that AIN'T going to get the job done), an offensive line that is at BEST an average one (see the detriot game),..................its like your back in high school again, as the big fat senior Bully, picking on all the freshman class-mates in order to make yourself look like an intellectual FF information provider - nah!

I'm not picking on Vick and I have no real beef
Against him as a player or a person, good grief!
All I'm saying, and let's make it clear now:
Vick is not a viable FF QB, no how!


Quote:
Vick will BEE back this year. And he once again will be a VIABLE FF QB.

In fact, he'll start doing that THIS WEEK.

Care to so NO to that?

Put your FF expertise where your mouth is - right here and now, this week's game.

I am. I'm playing him this week, what better proof that would say to my loyalty and belief in what I am saying to all gridironers.

Lets see you do the same. Lets see you say that VICK will NOT be a VIABLE FF QB this week.

The Chargers pass defense is among the leagues worst.
He'd better throw for 300 yards, first.
Then I want to see two touchdowns or three
Through the air against the weak D of SD.
No more of these fumbles or even INTs.
Let's see a great game from Vick, not Brees.
Unfortunately, my belief, and I'll state it right here,
Is that Vick won't be FF top ten against all his peers.
He'll be no better than average, and that's not enough
For a player about whom you've said all this great stuff.
So when the points are tallied and his name's not tops,
Your ludicrous defense of this fraud player stops.
You'll apologize to me and also captainpurple,
I'm ending this poem 'cuz I can't rhyme with purple.  ;)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by bgsgfan on Oct 14th, 2004, 1:00pm
[smiley=cheers.gif]

More, more, more!

Even though I am in KKS's camp with regards to Vick's potential, I am loving the rhyming arguments presented by Philly!

Great, great, great stuff!
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by captainpurple on Oct 14th, 2004, 1:06pm

on 10/13/04 at 22:57:26, DUKE0313 wrote:
Just so everyone knows...KKS put Vick on the trading block today. He wants some kind of extravagant package deal for him (won't get it), but he's on the block nonetheless! I just think it's funny! ::)


Vick has hit the WW in my other 2 leagues.   I'm the only Vick owner in any of my leagues who still has him.   I'd lay  [smiley=twocents.gif]  he's going to clear and be an FA tomorrow.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:59pm

on 10/13/04 at 22:57:26, DUKE0313 wrote:
Just so everyone knows...KKS put Vick on the trading block today. He wants some kind of extravagant package deal for him (won't get it), but he's on the block nonetheless! I just think it's funny! ::)


What an idget you are. I put ALL FIVE of my QBS on the trading block NOT JUST VICK.
And IF someone WANTED VICK< I said they'd have to pay a HEFTY price.

Another Philly-Fungi who can't present the whole picture. Its a communicable disease but, it only seems to affect FF owners whose FF teams SUCK this year, just like Philly [smiley=laugh.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by DUKE0313 on Oct 14th, 2004, 6:29pm
Now, now...tell the truth Billy-Bee. Not ALL your QB's were on the block. You offered Vick (peee-yew), Carr (not reliable, yet), Leftwich (now, there's an offense) and Roethlisberger (jury's still way out on him). Oh, sorry...I forgot Ramsay (benchsitter). Where was C-Pep???? He would be included in ALL your QB's, right?
Tell you what Stinger, you keep Vick and I'll give you Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandarich, AND Tim Couch for C-Pep! Heck, that's TWO QB's and an OL to protect them!  You seem to have an affinity for "superstars" who NEVER live up to the hype. So, whadda ya say, deal??? ;)
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 14th, 2004, 8:30pm

on 10/14/04 at 13:06:50, captainpurple wrote:
Vick has hit the WW in my other 2 leagues.   I'm the only Vick owner in any of my leagues who still has him.   I'd lay  [smiley=twocents.gif]  he's going to clear and be an FA tomorrow.


Well, you must be in a re-draft league or LOW keeper league.
To each his own but, I wouldn't waste my time on either of those types of leagues.
If they don't have IDPs OR Deep Keepers then, they ain't worth my time hence, the reason why you shouldn't have drafted Vick - he'll need some time to overcome all the hurdles he has been presented with.
And he'll do it this year.

To bgsg , I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the rhyme time waste of time lines that Pseudo-taking it in the pooky-hole-Philly-NoFacts is presenting but, honestly, he has done NOTHING to warrant a repsonse from me lately AT ALL.

I presented countless cases of NFL wide scenarios and he has nothing to say but, the title of this thread is Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.

Well that isn't even true. Viable = surviving and developing and thats EXACTLY what he is doing. He is developing into his new offense.

Now Viable FF QB = NOT the top 10 - most leagues round the internet are 12 team leagues. Thats 12 FF QBs to start.
Then your bye weeks mostly include another 4 teams on BYE which means you need to have another 4 QBs to start = 16 VIABLE FF QBs.

And I'm not even going to bring up the fact of 2-set QB starts in some leagues.

Philly has been wrongly harping on Vick's latest non-productive games and LAST WEEK was jhis LOWEST FF ranking amongst QBs and he was - in general - ranked 16th across the board.

Now, I will respond to anyone else that has anything in rebutal to say about this but the fact is, until Philly can bring something IMPORTANT to the table on this thread then, he doesn't deserve my time taken nor my ever-so-superior FF knowledge of the NFL that he is obviously lacking.

By the way, I just saw a thread in which he TRIED to tell someone WHICH QB to start of the 3 , and it was quite amusing. He was hesitant to really go out on a limb and definitively say this or that QB.

Ever since his banged-up call on NOT starting CARR last week - and then, - the ball of doom - thats me-  relating THAT back to this thread in which, he isn't able to logically and rightfully give ANY foresite into a QBs FF value (since he can't call a pick on a QB - and believe me, it was an easy call) then, his analytical advice giving powers are now in a state of shock and therefore, undecisive at best. [smiley=awwgee.gif]

Sum it up ,

Hes rattled. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:42pm
KKS is to Vick, as Bouve was to Ricky.  ::)

You are not going to win an arguement against someone who does not see things your way.

If KKS thinks Vick is the second coming of Jesus, then there is nothing, nothing anyone can say to change his opinion. Let Vick's play do that for him.

[smiley=Imwithstupid.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 15th, 2004, 12:31am

on 10/14/04 at 22:42:46, BarnabyWilde wrote:
KKS is to Vick, as Bouve was to Ricky.  ::)

You are not going to win an arguement against someone who does not see things your way.

If KKS thinks Vick is the second coming of Jesus, then there is nothing, nothing anyone can say to change his opinion. Let Vick's play do that for him.

[smiley=Imwithstupid.gif]


Nope not true. In fact, if i were jewish, then, comparing him to the 2nd coming of jesus would not mean too much now would it?

Try and leave religion out of Vick's viable FF value , shall we? [smiley=clown.gif]

Whats next, you gonna say I think he is the next president of the USA?

I believe that Vick is a great QB in the making AND if given the SAME offensive scheme AND same go ahead to play the position like he knows how to play it, he'd be racking up the FF points already.

(Offensive coordinator Gregg Knapp will soon learn though, it may come to some sort of compromise WHICH should HELP Vick in the long run to become an even BETTER QB - both fantasy and NFL - in years to come).

Glad ***I*** could clear what ***I*** think about Vick's true and Vicktorious Powers to BEE are!
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by bgsgfan on Oct 15th, 2004, 12:35am

on 10/14/04 at 22:42:46, BarnabyWilde wrote:
KKS is to Vick, as Bouve was to Ricky.  ::)


The year Bouve went out on a limb with Ricky was his first year with Miami. Bouve was right. Say what you will about Bouve, he took an unpopular stand, backed up his opinion with multiple reasons, and ended up being right.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 15th, 2004, 12:40am
I am a big Vick fan. The college team my wife and I root for is Virginia Tech. I watched practically every college game he started. Can he do great things? Absolutely, with both his legs, and arm. Has he shown enough of that consistently in the NFL to justify him being a "great" fantasy football player? No.

Do I want you to be correct in your analysis that Vick will someday (soon, in your opinion) be a great QB? Of course I do, but I don't see how you can justifiable say that Vick is already great, because he's not. There is no debating that, unless you mix your medication on a nightly basis, which I think is quite possible in your case, given that strange "BEE" language you speak in.  ;)

Am I done arguing the point that Vick is not great yet? Yes, because the facts speak for themselves, and there are limited stats to the contrary.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by bgsgfan on Oct 15th, 2004, 1:20am
Here are some interesting stats. In 2002, Vick started 15 games - the only year he started more than 5 games. Using the CBFLs scoring system, which is relatively standard, he scored an average of 21.5 points per game for those 15 starts.

OK, here is the interesting part: for the first five games of the season Vick started four of them and averaged 17.2 FF points per game. During the last 11 games of the season Vick averaged 23 FF ppg. That correlates to a 34% increase.

Statistics can be misleading, however I believe this points to Vick's ability to learn, adapt, and improve. I also believe that the WCO offers a very high upside if and when Vick begins to grasp it.

Another thing to consider is Atlanta's defensive and rushing dominance in most games this season. In all the games, including the loss last week, the Falcon's did not need to rely on Vick. The very nature of the NFL suggests that this will change and there will be games where more offensive output is needed. I do not follow the Falcon's that closely, but I would guess they put the brakes on during several games and spent much of the second half grinding out the clock on the ground.

Could I be wrong? Yes. I was wrong about Kordell. However, I believe Vick has better passing and mental skills than Kordell. I see Vick turning things around, and I see him doing it this season.

Buy low, sell high.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sexydexy on Oct 15th, 2004, 8:00am
Michael Vick...

Good NFL QB because defenses have to go the extra mile to defend him.

Bad FF QB because the defenses scheme around him.

End of story.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 15th, 2004, 9:45am

on 10/14/04 at 15:59:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
Another Philly-Fungi who can't present the whole picture. Its a communicable disease but, it only seems to affect FF owners whose FF teams SUCK this year, just like Philly [smiley=laugh.gif]


I have 5 FF teams (one is a Yahoo public league, so it doesn't really count), and 3 of them are doing very well... the other 2 suck beyond belief.  So I'm still ahead of the game.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 15th, 2004, 10:01am
I don't care whether Vick does well or not.  I am completely neutral towards all of the Falcons.

I think that Vick is an adequate NFL QB.  His record indicates this.  His versatility makes it more difficult for a defense to defend against him.  Yes, he can make that important first down run on a 3rd and 6 at an important juncture of the game.

I also realize that he had one decent FF season, 2002, when he played 15 of the 16 regular season games.  But that brings me back to one of my original points, he doesn't stay healthy enough to justify a high draft pick (in my mind).  He's one of those players that I feel I would get burned by if I drafted him.  (Also why I don't draft Warrick Dunn, Michael Bennett, and a host of other players).

But the fact remains that he is not a viable FF QB right now.

Here are the FF QB rankings for week 5 from my money league (on SI.com)...  Vick is certainly not #16 there.  (This is a fairly standard performance scoring: 1/10 rush, 1/25 pass, 6/TD, -1/INT or FL)...  Craig Nall was a better scorer than Vick last week!

Culpepper, Daunte (MIN)  52
Bulger, Marc (STL)  37
Carr, David (HOU)  36
Rattay, Tim (SF)  34
Leftwich, Byron (JAC)  27
McCown, Josh (ARI)  27
Favre, Brett (GB)  24
Manning, Peyton (IND)  24
McNair, Steve (TEN)  23
Hasselbeck, Matt (SEA)  22
Roethlisberger, Ben (PIT)  21
Brees, Drew (SD)  20
Pennington, Chad (NYJ)  19
Plummer, Jake (DEN)  19
Bledsoe, Drew (BUF)  18
Delhomme, Jake (CAR)  18
Garcia, Jeff (CLE)  17
Brooks, Aaron (NO)  16
Brady, Tom (NE)  14
Fiedler, Jay (MIA)  14
Warner, Kurt (NYG)  14
Griese, Brian (TB)  13
Collins, Kerry (OAK)  12
Harrington, Joey (DET)  11
Testaverde, Vinny (DAL)  10
Nall, Craig (GB)  8
Brunell, Mark (WAS)  7
Vick, Michael (ATL)   6
Simms, Chris (TB)  1
Boller, Kyle (BAL)  0

Will Vick improve his numbers over the next 11 games?  I would certainly hope so, he couldn't get much worse.  Will he be as valuable as C-Pep, Peyton, McNabb (all guys who could be considered in the upper echelon of FF QBs)?  I seriously doubt it.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 16th, 2004, 9:21am

on 10/15/04 at 10:01:24, Philly wrote:
I don't care whether Vick does well or not.  I am completely neutral towards all of the Falcons.

I think that Vick is an adequate NFL QB.  His record indicates this.  His versatility makes it more difficult for a defense to defend against him.  Yes, he can make that important first down run on a 3rd and 6 at an important juncture of the game.

I also realize that he had one decent FF season, 2002, when he played 15 of the 16 regular season games.  But that brings me back to one of my original points, he doesn't stay healthy enough to justify a high draft pick (in my mind).  He's one of those players that I feel I would get burned by if I drafted him.  (Also why I don't draft Warrick Dunn, Michael Bennett, and a host of other players).

But the fact remains that he is not a viable FF QB right now.

Here are the FF QB rankings for week 5 from my money league (on SI.com)...  Vick is certainly not #16 there.  (This is a fairly standard performance scoring: 1/10 rush, 1/25 pass, 6/TD, -1/INT or FL)...  Craig Nall was a better scorer than Vick last week!

Culpepper, Daunte (MIN)  52
Bulger, Marc (STL)  37
Carr, David (HOU)  36
Rattay, Tim (SF)  34
Leftwich, Byron (JAC)  27
McCown, Josh (ARI)  27
Favre, Brett (GB)  24
Manning, Peyton (IND)  24
McNair, Steve (TEN)  23
Hasselbeck, Matt (SEA)  22
Roethlisberger, Ben (PIT)  21
Brees, Drew (SD)  20
Pennington, Chad (NYJ)  19
Plummer, Jake (DEN)  19
Bledsoe, Drew (BUF)  18
Delhomme, Jake (CAR)  18
Garcia, Jeff (CLE)  17
Brooks, Aaron (NO)  16
Brady, Tom (NE)  14
Fiedler, Jay (MIA)  14
Warner, Kurt (NYG)  14
Griese, Brian (TB)  13
Collins, Kerry (OAK)  12
Harrington, Joey (DET)  11
Testaverde, Vinny (DAL)  10
Nall, Craig (GB)  8
Brunell, Mark (WAS)  7
Vick, Michael (ATL)   6
Simms, Chris (TB)  1
Boller, Kyle (BAL)  0

Will Vick improve his numbers over the next 11 games?  I would certainly hope so, he couldn't get much worse.  Will he be as valuable as C-Pep, Peyton, McNabb (all guys who could be considered in the upper echelon of FF QBs)?  I seriously doubt it.


Sorry dude, but providing QB stats from ONE wenb site is not even close to what I did - NO COMPARISON - as m stats were provided from about 6 different web sites that included ESPN and NFL - bigger names than SI babe-bee.

Take a back seat Philster!

I've got something VERY interesting up my sleeve, soon enough!

MUhahwhahwhwhwhwhwhw,

I'm MAD I tell you!!! MAD!!!CRAZY!!!!!! I'm a LOON! [smiley=gonecrazy.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 16th, 2004, 9:49pm

on 10/16/04 at 09:21:37, KillerKingSting wrote:
Sorry dude, but providing QB stats from ONE wenb site is not even close to what I did - NO COMPARISON - as m stats were provided from about 6 different web sites that included ESPN and NFL - bigger names than SI babe-bee.


Interesting how I actually provided numbers from my league, but you say you compared 6 different sites and say he did no worse than 16th, but don't provide any numbers to back up your claim.  I know you've made up numbers to support your (baseless) points in the past, so until I see the real numbers, I'm not taking them as legit.  And, regardless of your opinions, SI.com is one of the more respected sites out there.  It's not some homegrown FF service that has a half-dozen leagues on it.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sameoldsameold on Oct 16th, 2004, 10:13pm
we done here yet? *yawn*
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 17th, 2004, 8:26pm
I doubt it.  Vick actually had a decent day, so I'm sure that KKS will come in here and proclaim Vick "best ever" or something ludicrous like that because of one solid day.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 17th, 2004, 8:46pm
I have an idea...why don't you both give it a rest? Neither one of you are going to win the agruement with the other.  

I am sure Vick will one day be a great quarterback in the fantasy sense of the word. But, you are probably right, the Stinger isn't going to let up after Vick's performance this week.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 17th, 2004, 11:21pm

on 10/17/04 at 20:26:37, Philly wrote:
I doubt it.  Vick actually had a decent day, so I'm sure that KKS will come in here and proclaim Vick "best ever" or something ludicrous like that because of one solid day.


Oh give me a break w/ the ludicrous stuff.
And both, BarnaBEE and Philster I love yah both man but, cut me some slack. I didn't EVEN come on here and say anything UNTIL I read both of these responses.

Philly you went on here and trashed Vick up and down.
YOU took that approach, not me.
And YOU also came on here and said, NOT a top 10 QB this week.
If your going to say that, and then, he makes the top 10 QB of the week, - and you try and shift focus from his peformance by mixing it in with WHAT YOU THINK I am going to say then,fine, whatever - I'll let Vick's performance - as I did this week - do the talking while all the while, your mouth runs and runs into nothingness - because after you said what you said this week about Vick - thats all you have - NOTHING.

He was top 10 in the Insane league.
I PLAYED HIM as I said I would.
He didn't only have ONE good game, he had a GREAT 2002 year, his FIRST year to START.
Now, I'm sure, if he had a bad week, you'd be on here ripping him again. I'm positive of that.

He made the grade this week when you said he wouldn't and theres nothing you can do about that.

If you choose NOT to recognize that you were wrong about what you said, if you choose NOT to come on here and fess up w/ some dignity, then, ok, - now I know what I am dealing with.

To make clear my stance on Vick = he is a QB with loads of upside and fantastic potential and has been entered into 2  totally different offensive styles of football, different coaches, in which he needs to be given time to adjust to before he makes his mark AGAIN as he did in 2002.

Had he come out of college playing the west coast then, he'd already be the superstar that I foresee him to be - the super star that he was in 2002 and he WILL reach that status again, given time.

He was the #2 QB in the Insane league in 2002 - thats elite status for ANY position.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 18th, 2004, 9:58am
Here are the fantasy stats for QBs for week 6 from my SI.com money league...

Culpepper, Daunte (MIN)  SteelArmy 48
Garcia, Jeff (CLE)  Free Agent  37
Leftwich, Byron (JAC)  Shock & Awe  34
Vick, Michael (ATL)  Rob's Fumble  28
Green, Trent (KC)  Island All Stars  25
Plummer, Jake (DEN)  Island All Stars 25
Brooks, Aaron (NO)  Amish Levitra 22
Favre, Brett (GB)  Shock & Awe 22
Roethlisberger, Ben (PIT)  Cute Baby Panda Bears 19
Rattay, Tim (SF)  REDSKINS GROUPIE 17
Testaverde, Vinny (DAL)  One of These Days  16
Hasselbeck, Matt (SEA)  One of These Days 15
Bledsoe, Drew (BUF)  Rob's Fumble  14
Brees, Drew (SD)  Joey C's Wiseguys 14
Carr, David (HOU)  Shock & Awe 14
Brady, Tom (NE)  The Usual Suspects 13
McNair, Steve (TEN)  Cute Baby Panda Bears 13
Delhomme, Jake (CAR)  One of These Days  12
Fiedler, Jay (MIA)  Free Agent  11
Harrington, Joey (DET)  Amish Levitra 10
Palmer, Carson (CIN)  Free Agent  10
Brunell, Mark (WAS)  REDSKINS GROUPIE  9
Pennington, Chad (NYJ)  Trenton Zen Cavemen 9
McNabb, Donovan (PHI)  Black & Tans  7
Collins, Kerry (OAK)  Black & Tans 4
Quinn, Jonathan (CHI)  Free Agent  4

So, pending the MNF game tonight, Vick will be the 4th-6th best fantasy QB for the week.  I'll acknowledge that he did much better than I expected.  I'll admit that I said I thought he would not be top ten this week and would be average at best.  He did much better... 3 TDs, adequate passing yards, only one turnover.  And, I'll go ahead and say I expect him to do as well next week against a soft KC defense.  But I doubt he'll keep these numbers up.  He's got the likes of Denver and Tampa Bay on the schedule soon and they don't give up the passing yards like SD and KC do.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 18th, 2004, 10:13am
Cute Baby Panda Bears?  :o
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 18th, 2004, 1:12pm

on 10/18/04 at 10:13:01, BarnabyWilde wrote:
Cute Baby Panda Bears?  :o


I forgot to take the team names out... oh well...

Actually "Cute Baby Panda Bears" is a guy I work with.  The original name for his team was "Vaginal Secretions", but one of the owners anonymously commented to our commish that he thought the name was inappropriate and was worried that his kids would see it if they got on the computer.  He was a good sport and changed it to something a little less offensive.

[smiley=beaver.gif] [smiley=drip.gif] [smiley=eatme.gif] ... [smiley=newbie.gif] [smiley=bear.gif]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 29th, 2004, 8:29am
Matt Schaub (2-4-9 passing) replaced a healthy Vick in the fourth quarter
when the game was 49-10.  He threw four passes in his first series, and
Atlanta failed to make a first down.

Philly's GREAT savior for Atlanta ::).

Didn't do SQUAT in a game when he had the chance to take his team down the field against a defense whose OFFENSE was already up by 39 points and had some of their back up defensive players in the lineup.

If Atlanta gets smart, they play a VICK-COAST Offense and lets Mr. Vicktorious, the awesome athlete/QB that he is - play his own game and slash through the FF stat board week in and week out.

Matt Schaub, who Philly WRONGFULLY boasted to be a better fit for the falcon west coast offense is NOT the answer the the Falcon's problems.

VICK is.

Let him PLAY HIS Game.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 29th, 2004, 9:42am

on 10/29/04 at 08:29:42, KillerKingSting wrote:
Matt Schaub, who Philly WRONGFULLY boasted to be a better fit for the falcon west coast offense is NOT the answer the the Falcon's problems.


Wow... I'm surprised he didn't lead his team to a come from behind win after throwing a whole 4 passes!

I can't believe that Schaub only completed 50% of his passes.  That's terrible.  They probably should have left Vick in because I'm sure Mr. Future HOFer was doing so much better.  Oh wait, no he wasn't.  He went 7 for 21, so that's only 33%.  (Wow... those are Kyle Boller-like numbers!)  I thought Vick was going to start grasping this WCO and start to excel?  Maybe it was just a really tough defense that the Falcons faced.  That must be it.  The Kansas City Chefs.  Great googly-moogly! The best defense in the NFL, right?  Hmm... no, that's not it either.

Oh, I know.  Vick sucks.  OK, finally, something that makes sense.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 29th, 2004, 9:46am

on 10/29/04 at 09:42:13, Philly wrote:
Wow... I'm surprised he didn't lead his team to a come from behind win after throwing a whole 4 passes!

I can't believe that Schaub only completed 50% of his passes.  That's terrible.  They probably should have left Vick in because I'm sure Mr. Future HOFer was doing so much better.  Oh wait, no he wasn't.  He went 7 for 21, so that's only 33%.  (Wow... those are Kyle Boller-like numbers!)  I thought Vick was going to start grasping this WCO and start to excel?  Maybe it was just a really tough defense that the Falcons faced.  That must be it.  The Kansas City Chefs.  Great googly-moogly! The best defense in the NFL, right?  Hmm... no, that's not it either.

Oh, I know.  Vick sucks.  OK, finally, something that makes sense.


What a STUPID answer.
Vick doesn't suck. The Falcons suck. The Falcon's coaches suck for trying to CHANGE him and NOT show-casing his talents.

4 passes against second stringers. And NO 1st downs. Schaub AIN'T the answer. Your wrong and Schuab PROVED you were wrong.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 29th, 2004, 9:57am
I gave Vick FAR more than four passes to prove his mettle.  I would hope that Schaub would get the same courtesy.

As for developing a system that fits a QB, I'm all for it.  But there are football minds far greater than yours and mine making those calls.  When the Eagles brought McNabb in to be their WCO QB, I thought it was a terrible idea.  McNabb was the antithesis of a WCO QB.  He was a scrambler with a big arm who needed to be in something more akin to the St. Louis/Kansas City type of offense.  And, for a few years, I was validated.  When McNabb scrambled, things went well.  When he tried to throw the short slants he'd be off target.

Now, he's still in a WCO and the team is 6-0.  I've changed my thinking.  McNabb rarely runs any more.  Now he throws those short passes to backs, TEs, and WRs.  With these, he is able to set up the homerun ball.  McNabb can be a WCO QB.  I guess those coaches knew what they were doing.  Greg Knapp and Jim Mora, Jr. have been in the business for a long time.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now too.

Maybe they'd be better off with Schaub at QB and Vick at RB?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 29th, 2004, 10:09am
Sorry BUT, a lot of NFL analysts are saying the SAME thing I am saying bud-bee.
I'm not just making this stuff up.
And they happen to be of NFL caliber knowledge and talent.
As for "far more greater kinds than you or I" comment goes.
So what? Where is the QB proof of that?
Comparing this situation to McNabbs doesn't validate anything.
Schuab proved that he isn't the QB for that offense so, thats out.
Vick is a QB so that idea is out.
Next suggestion?
Vick-Coast Offense.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Oct 29th, 2004, 11:17am

on 10/29/04 at 10:09:18, KillerKingSting wrote:
Schuab proved that he isn't the QB for that offense so, thats out.

Schaub has not proved anything yet.  He has not had an opportunity to prove anything yet.  Wow... aren't you one to rush to judgment?
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 29th, 2004, 11:22am
Ok, I have to step in here, for I have heard enough of KKS's B.S.

One series? You are basing your pathetic arguement on ONE SERIES??? For you to sit there and say the Matt Schaub is not a good fit for the Falcon's WC Offense makes you sound like someone who knows very little about fantasy football.

54 for 86 for 655 yards, 6tds, 2 ints, 99.7 QB rating. Those were Schaub's numbers in the preseason. So, I think it is safe to argue (although I am talking to you, the voice of unreason here) that Matt can run the West Coast offense.

Look, I respect you and your opinion of Vick, but you are starting to look stupid here. I'd give it a rest.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 29th, 2004, 5:48pm
If I know nothing about football then, don't listen to me.
Your basing your PATHETIC numbers on PRESEASON games.

Nuff said.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by BarnabyWilde on Oct 29th, 2004, 8:14pm
Better preseason than 4 regular season plays.

And you finally said something I agree on in your first sentence.



on 10/29/04 at 17:48:09, KillerKingSting wrote:
If I know nothing about football then, don't listen to me.
Your basing your PATHETIC numbers on PRESEASON games.

Nuff said.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 30th, 2004, 9:06am

on 10/29/04 at 20:14:21, BarnabyWilde wrote:
Better preseason than 4 regular season plays.

And you finally said something I agree on in your first sentence.


Preseason games = 2nd to 3rd string to players who no longer have an NFL jobs - type of competition. [smiley=laugh.gif]

Preseason games = vanilla type of offensive & defensive sdhemes that a HIGH SCHOOL QB could read had he studied the playbook an hour before the game started.

Frankly, they are NO comparison to an NFL game. Yes I know only 4 passes were thrown.

But there are plenty of back up QBs that come into the game in garbage time and drive their team for at LEAST ONE FIRST DOWN on their very 1st drive. Especially against a "oogly moogly" tough defesne - right Philly?

Schaub was one that did NOT.

I'm not talking TDs here - just a little itty bitty 1st down. Thats all. My whole rebutal is based on Philly's GUESSTIMATE that Schaub would come in and do a better job at QB than Vick could do.

If HE can predict something like that - without ANY NFL EXPERIENCE whatsoever (minus your ever-so-preciuos preseason games) then, why am I not able to predict that HE wouldn't be able to handle the JOB off of a 4 pass game?

Yes, IMO they are both ridiculous assessments BUT, thats what I am faced with in this duel of "reaches" so, I play along at times.

A jolt of reality here BARN, your opinion of my FF evaluation talents affect me .............................HOW? : Really, you think I give a rat's sack on that?

If your tired of what you referrred to as my B.S. (be a gent and spell that out for us why don't cha!) then you won't have to endure it again. ;)

I'll stick to my league and only my league from here on out. I wouldn't want to rain on your nice little set up; have a different opinion; a loyalty to a player that I think has talent and really, I should just anyone bash him by calling him a fraud.

Thats integrity for yah!

Although you nor anyone else probably could care less but, I'm not mad at all - actually relieved as I feel as if I am burning rubber on a dead end street. Discussing a QB who obviously has talent - who has been discrimatively picked on although, there are MANY players who can be considered BUSTS from their previous seasons,.......Certainly Matt Hasselback comes to mind (what??? ranked 5th perhaps in a QB draft this year????).....................I just feel this whole thing is a mindless joke and I have wasted a huge amount of time relating to you and Philly on this subject.

End of my story.

Post again to make yourself feel better or rather so that, you can rally with whoever gives 2 cents but, I certainly won't waste another dime of my time reading it.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by StegRock on Oct 30th, 2004, 2:33pm
[offtopic]WOW!  A LOT of energy here.  I would love to see more of it diffused throughout the forum or perhaps refined into a team report.  KKS, both your Dolphins and the Falcons, about whom you have a lot of thoughts (regarding Vick and Duckett), are both still open, which becomes an even more poignant point as you all will see soon enough as per the recent post I made on "the Sidelines (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58)" on the "Sponsoring" thread.  ...  Anyway, carry on, but let's not get carried away.  I want/would like to see you and the rest of the "Insane [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] Gang" minions more present on the main boards.  Let's keep it above the fray and continue to let that Gridiron spirit we've worked so hard and patiently on to engender here shine through to our guests and, moreover, prospectives.[/offtopic]
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sameoldsameold on Oct 30th, 2004, 5:49pm
i would like to point out drew brees had a great preseason and it followed him on to the field....i think preseason means alot more then your giving credit for...and jus for the record i like vick and im gonna listen to steve young....it is gonna take vick a while to grasp the offense...but as of right now he is not a viable FF qb......when he grasps it...he will be a force to reckon with...
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 31st, 2004, 1:25am

on 10/30/04 at 17:49:33, sameoldsameold wrote:
i would like to point out drew brees had a great preseason and it followed him on to the field....i think preseason means alot more then your giving credit for...and jus for the record i like vick and im gonna listen to steve young....it is gonna take vick a while to grasp the offense...but as of right now he is not a viable FF qb......when he grasps it...he will be a force to reckon with...


There are instances and examples of some who do well in preseason games and carry that into their NFL careers.

Matt Hasselback comes to mind as a player who did well in preseason and has carried it over into this NFL success.

Albeit THIS year so far isn't a great example of Matt's talents - it doesn't mean that I am going to come onto the grid and post that he is a fraud and then, follow that post w/ him not being a viable FF QB - which last week - he wasn't at all. In fact this year, he could be considered a bust by many FF standards as to where he was originally slated to hit the draft boards.

However, preseason games are what they are - and they are NOT Regular Season football games. PERIOD.

And as many examples of players that do well in preseason and turn it on in regular season as well - i'm SURE there is another example just opposite of that - that being - players that do well in preseason and don't carry it into their NFL careers.

I really don't see your point. Are you saying that every player who has a couple of "nice" preseason games are automatic NFL caliber starting studs in regular season play?

If you've read my last post carefully - which I don't think you did - you will see that I said BOTH analysis of a 4 pass regular season game and a "nice" preseason by a ROOKIE QB - neither one of those "reaching" examples mean very much until they - the players - can prove otherwise.

How many times have you picked up a player on the WW just because he had a couple of decent to great games?

But only to have this guy NEVER to show up again all season long?????

If a player can have a couple of great games in a REGULAR season setting where the competition and schemes are so much more greater than what is shown in preseason - and that SAME player is never heard of again or rather - becomes a fringe/bench player in FF - then, what does preseason analysis have on that?

A couple of GREAT games against lesser caliber players?

I'm fully aware of preseason and it's worth as to what a player can turn out to be.

You should know that well Justin since, I bragged on Sean Taylor's performance in the Insane league all preseason long.

I'm giving preseason it's full due BUT that doesn't mean I am going to agree that EVERY player who has a couple of nice preseason games will be able to turn that into NFL regular season success.

I think Schaub PERHAPS one day can become a decent starting west coast QB. But I don't think that he'll ever be as great as Vick. And even using the term "west coast" - .............there are about 1000 different versions of the 'today's" west coast offense so, when commenting on a player who is nothing but an UNPROVEN ROOKIE and giving him the "nod" that he would do better in a west coast offense (so unspecific as to what type of offense will really be played) than would VICK,  is 2 things : #1 an opinion that has very little to go on but a college performance and a couple of NICE preseason games; #2 a total disrespect for Vick's talents and potential and ability to learn a whole new way to play QB.

Once again, are you saying that EVERY player who has a couple of "nice " preseason games are automatic NFL starters?

By the way, I do think Schaub has talent. But in no way shape or form am I picking him over Vick.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 31st, 2004, 1:34am

on 10/30/04 at 14:33:50, StegRock wrote:
[offtopic]WOW!  A LOT of energy here.  I would love to see more of it diffused throughout the forum or perhaps refined into a team report.  KKS, both your Dolphins and the Falcons, about whom you have a lot of thoughts (regarding Vick and Duckett), are both still open, which becomes an even more poignant point as you all will see soon enough as per the recent post I made on "the Sidelines (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=58)" on the "Sponsoring" thread.  ...  Anyway, carry on, but let's not get carried away.  I want/would like to see you and the rest of the "Insane [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] Gang" minions more present on the main boards.  Let's keep it above the fray and continue to let that Gridiron spirit we've worked so hard and patiently on to engender here shine through to our guests and, moreover, prospectives.[/offtopic]


Ok, you got it Steg! No problem and thanks for taking the time out to post as I know your time as of recent has become very valuable.

I'll try to stick to more valuable information regarding FF rather than, my selfish view on a player that I covet.

Thanks again for your input and I couldn't agree more!
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by sameoldsameold on Oct 31st, 2004, 6:10am
thanks killer but i am jus pointing out that matt hasnt had a chance in a regular season game because vick is the man and jus because it is preseason doesnt make them good or bad jus shows the talent they have...for instance....accuracy from preseason game is same as a regular season game.....running speed....stuff like that....being good in preseason does not make you a good or bad...i jus think you are discrediting a player that hasnt had a chance....and yes his 4 passes and preseason games prove nothing....but they also disprove nothing....and yes i would rather have vick....but that does not mean schaub is a scrub or a stud....
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Oct 31st, 2004, 2:41pm

on 10/31/04 at 06:10:22, sameoldsameold wrote:
thanks killer but i am jus pointing out that matt hasnt had a chance in a regular season game because vick is the man and jus because it is preseason doesnt make them good or bad jus shows the talent they have...for instance....accuracy from preseason game is same as a regular season game.....running speed....stuff like that....being good in preseason does not make you a good or bad...i jus think you are discrediting a player that hasnt had a chance....and yes his 4 passes and preseason games prove nothing....but they also disprove nothing....and yes i would rather have vick....but that does not mean schaub is a scrub or a stud....


Yur welcome sameold but the argument here that i am taking up is that matt schaub would not be a better qb in the falcons offense than vick would be.....even though he had a nice preseason,.......no preseason accuracy doesn't necessarily equate to regular season accuracy nor is game speed the same in preseason as regular season.........i am only discreditting his talent to take over vick as the falcons qb as you said and now understand that preseason games do not necessarily equate to regular season games.......so far schaub has shown me nothing........vick has shown me a 5-2 record.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by Philly on Nov 1st, 2004, 9:29am
Vick had a great game against a very good defense (one I thought would have played much better coming off an embarrassing loss against the Bengals).  I'll give him credit where credit is due.  He was amazing yesterday--made good decisions and protected the ball.

18-24 for 252 yards and 2 TDs.  12 carries for 115 yards.

Now let's see if he can consistently put up those types of numbers.
Title: Re: Michael Vick is no longer a viable FF QB.
Post by KillerKingSting on Nov 2nd, 2004, 9:10am
Thanks Philster! Your a pro for recognizing Vick's great game.

First time EVER that a QB threw for 250+ and ran for 100+ in one game! ;D

ITS STRICTLY VICKLY BABE-BEE!!!!!

And on that note, I have to give some credit to the coaching staff. They FINALLY called some more bootlegs and QB options which allowed the Notorious Vicktorious (oh hes so glorious! [smiley=trophy.gif]) to mix it up a bit and use his athleticism though, not OVERuse it.

My analysis of his continued success is that, he will take some lumps this year as he continues to learn that offense. but near the end of the season and perhaps, sooner, he will grasp what is going on and take off.

So, is he a viable FF QB? Maybe some weeks and maybe not some weeks BUT, sooner rather than later, you'll BEE sorry not to have him on your team.

In dynasty he is a must keep. In keepers he is a must keep. And in redraft, I'd pick him up now.
In leagues that start 2 QBs, he should BEE on your rosterage!


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