Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Vick flying under the radar


FishFreak
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's a hell of a lot easier to stop a proficient rushing attack (even when the QB is involved) than a solid balanced attack.

 

 

Tell that to the 31 NFL teams that have allowed the Falcons 'one-dimensional' offense to lead the league in rushing the last 2 consecutive years. We all know that Vick can't pass, so why is it so difficult to stop the run? Hmm... maybe it's not that easy after all.

 

Vick gets the ball on every snap, he's the one that's supposed to complete passes, and he's typically second on the team in rushing yds each season. Whose fault is it then? I didn't even bring up the fact that Vick has only averaged 20.6 TDs (rushing and passing) in his three full seasons. That's worse than Jake Plummer's last three years in Denver (average of 22.0).

 

 

That must mean that Chicago's success was a complete reflection of Kyle Orton's ability?

Trent Dilfer single-handedly won a Super Bowl for the Ravens?

Archie Manning didn't win a whole lot of games... what does that say about him?

 

Yeah, Michael Vick touches the ball on every offensive play, but that doesn't even nearly make him responsible for every little thing that the offense does, positive and negative. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with an offensive line with mediocre pass blocking skills. Maybe it has something to do with Jim Mora installing a completely new offense 3 years into Vick's short career. Or maybe the team's production was hindered just a little bit by the rookie receivers Vick has had to target over the last 2 years. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a QB is completely at fault when anything goes wrong on the offense.

 

Vick may be elusive and may put up some great Sports Center highlights, but he's far from the unstoppable offensive force that some homers tout him as.

 

 

Yeah... he's mortal. He gets stuffed by some good defenses, and even some mediocre defenses on occasion. But how many other 'elite' QBs got shut down by Chicago's defense last year? To have the #1 defense in the NFL, the Bucs must have made a mockery out of some other pretty good signal callers along the way.

 

I never once said Vick was unstoppable. Nobody is unstoppable in the NFL. Peyton Manning has shown that time and time again. I'm just countering your argument that defenses have been 'stopping Vick' (which apparently means 'holding the Falcons to the middle 3rd of total offense') for years.

 

Perhaps that was just my impression after watching him getting clobbered time after time by Derek Brooks and John Lynhc. My bad. :D

 

 

John Lynch and Derrick Brooks hit Vick really hard? Seriously? That's how you came to the conclusion that the Bucs dominated Vick? Lynch and Brooks have made careers out of clobbering a lot of people. Getting tackled and getting 'stopped' are not the same thing. Stopping Michael Vick and beating the Falcons are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to the 31 NFL teams that have allowed the Falcons 'one-dimensional' offense to lead the league in rushing the last 2 consecutive years. We all know that Vick can't pass, so why is it so difficult to stop the run? Hmm... maybe it's not that easy after all.

That must mean that Chicago's success was a complete reflection of Kyle Orton's ability?

Trent Dilfer single-handedly won a Super Bowl for the Ravens?

Archie Manning didn't win a whole lot of games... what does that say about him?

 

Yeah, Michael Vick touches the ball on every offensive play, but that doesn't even nearly make him responsible for every little thing that the offense does, positive and negative. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with an offensive line with mediocre pass blocking skills. Maybe it has something to do with Jim Mora installing a completely new offense 3 years into Vick's short career. Or maybe the team's production was hindered just a little bit by the rookie receivers Vick has had to target over the last 2 years. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a QB is completely at fault when anything goes wrong on the offense.

Yeah... he's mortal. He gets stuffed by some good defenses, and even some mediocre defenses on occasion. But how many other 'elite' QBs got shut down by Chicago's defense last year? To have the #1 defense in the NFL, the Bucs must have made a mockery out of some other pretty good signal callers along the way.

 

I never once said Vick was unstoppable. Nobody is unstoppable in the NFL. Peyton Manning has shown that time and time again. I'm just countering your argument that defenses have been 'stopping Vick' (which apparently means 'holding the Falcons to the middle 3rd of total offense') for years.

John Lynch and Derrick Brooks hit Vick really hard? Seriously? That's how you came to the conclusion that the Bucs dominated Vick? Lynch and Brooks have made careers out of clobbering a lot of people. Getting tackled and getting 'stopped' are not the same thing. Stopping Michael Vick and beating the Falcons are not the same thing.

 

 

you know. i really have to agree with you here. As much as I hate ATL and DESPISE Vick, I try to have a neutral outlook on all things football, except when I'm watching a Panther game, and you made some pretty good points.

I do not beleive Vick is the answer to ATL's questions. I don't believe he will take them to the superbowl, but not because a scrambler can't do it. It's because he just doesn't have the accuracy for that important tandem as a playmaker at the QB position. If he gets it though, he'll be as close to unstoppable as they come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know. i really have to agree with you here. As much as I hate ATL and DESPISE Vick, I try to have a neutral outlook on all things football, except when I'm watching a Panther game, and you made some pretty good points.

I do not beleive Vick is the answer to ATL's questions. I don't believe he will take them to the superbowl, but not because a scrambler can't do it. It's because he just doesn't have the accuracy for that important tandem as a playmaker at the QB position. If he gets it though, he'll be as close to unstoppable as they come.

 

 

After writing all that :D it's about time SOMEBODY agreed with me... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yah well...don't let it go to your head. I still see ATL going 9-7 this year :D

 

 

That especially sucks for the Falcons, considering the 6-0 division record they'll have... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so we all know Vick can run with the rock. At his current pace, he could rush for 1,200+ yards if by some miracle he stayed healthy for 16 games. I think he gets banged up a bit and starts cooling off with his rushing probably finishing with 800-900 yards if he really has the freedom in the offense to do what he wants. The question then becomes, if/when defenses take away the run and force him to pass, can he become a 3,000 yard passer? I agree he is inaccurate with his throws but his passing totals are really due to how few attempts he has per game. If defenses crowd the line of scrimmage and force him to pass to his receivers do you guys think Michael Jenkins is a capable 1,000 yard receiver? What about Roddy White? The kid has done zip this year but I think he has some talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so we all know Vick can run with the rock. At his current pace, he could rush for 1,200+ yards if by some miracle he stayed healthy for 16 games. I think he gets banged up a bit and starts cooling off with his rushing probably finishing with 800-900 yards if he really has the freedom in the offense to do what he wants. The question then becomes, if/when defenses take away the run and force him to pass, can he become a 3,000 yard passer? I agree he is inaccurate with his throws but his passing totals are really due to how few attempts he has per game. If defenses crowd the line of scrimmage and force him to pass to his receivers do you guys think Michael Jenkins is a capable 1,000 yard receiver? What about Roddy White? The kid has done zip this year but I think he has some talent.

 

 

 

Michael Vick's passing stats in 2002: 2936 yards, 16 TDs, 8 INTs

 

So, to answer your question, no, Vick will never ever be able to pass for 3,000 yards. But look how close he can get!

 

After two weeks of watching the games, it's looking like Roddy White, despite all his offseason hype, is still going to need another year. He shows flashes of his talent, but he is still very raw. Right now, he's just a deep threat who will get some catches and TDs, but will also drop a good number of passes.

 

Jenkins, I think, is the most capable of becoming a 1,000 yard receiver. However, Jenkins having the talent to be a 1,000 receiver doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Vick can get him the ball enough for him to get those yards. The closest Vick has ever come to having a 1,000 yard receiver was Brian Finneran in 2002 and Peerless Price in 2003, both with 838 yards.

 

IF Vick threw for 3,000 yards, right now I feel like he would be spreading the ball out too much for any one receiver to get 1,000 of them. When he's scrambling around in the backfield, he's not looking for his #1 receiver, or his go-to guy. He's just looking for anybody who's open (or not open)to throw the ball to (or near).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it's a hell of a lot easier to stop a proficient rushing attack (even when the QB is involved) than a solid balanced attack. If the opposite were true, NFL offensive coordinators would run the option and guys like Jake Plummer and Randall Cunningham would be HOFers.

Vick gets the ball on every snap, he's the one that's supposed to complete passes, and he's typically second on the team in rushing yds each season. Whose fault is it then? I didn't even bring up the fact that Vick has only averaged 20.6 TDs (rushing and passing) in his three full seasons. That's worse than Jake Plummer's last three years in Denver (average of 22.0).

 

If you have a proficient rushing attack it will typically open up holes in the passing game; thus, creating the opportunity for having a balanced rush/pass offense. I agree with Kerwin8 on this one, the Falcons have a pretty unique situation with their offense because of the rushing threat Vick has every single play. If Vick continues to show that he's worked on his timing and accuracy with his throws, and their defense keeps up the tempo that have at the moment, this is a pretty dangerous team. This is a young team that continues to grow every year, and the level of play they've shown us this year is pretty amazing. Although, we have only seen two solid weeks of play so a lot can change in the next month or two. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I love you man, but some of things you're saying in this thread are just a little over the top.

ATL's defense is better than CHI's.

I'm as big a Falcon homer as anyone on these boards, but there's no way the Falcons D is on par with the Bears. Close maybe, but not yet.

I'm saying that it's a hell of a lot easier to stop a proficient rushing attack (even when the QB is involved) than a solid balanced attack.

Since it's the Falcons who have had the NFL's #1 rushing offense for two years in a row now and are blowing up again this year, while a host of other teams with a "solid balanced attack" have not been the #1 ranked rushing team for the last two years and are nowhere close to Atlanta's rushing output this year, you would obviously be wrong in saying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to the 31 NFL teams that have allowed the Falcons 'one-dimensional' offense to lead the league in rushing the last 2 consecutive years. We all know that Vick can't pass, so why is it so difficult to stop the run? Hmm... maybe it's not that easy after all.

 

Having a league-leading rushing attack means jack squat if your passing game can't make big plays downfield when necessary and your QB is an INT and fumbling machine. ATL's offense has never ranked in the Top 10 in points scored since Vick has been in town, despite the stellar running game.

 

That must mean that Chicago's success was a complete reflection of Kyle Orton's ability?

 

You would characterize Chicago's offense under Orton as a "success" last season? I don't know what team you were watching....

 

Trent Dilfer single-handedly won a Super Bowl for the Ravens?

 

So, the Ravens wouldn't have won with, say, Jake Plummer or some other mediocre QB behind center with THAT defense? Or are you trying to argue that Trent Dilfer is somehow comparable to Vick?

 

Archie Manning didn't win a whole lot of games... what does that say about him?

 

When did I ever claim that Archie Manning was a prolific passer? The one thing that I can say about these two is that Vick played on much better teams than Archie.

 

Yeah, Michael Vick touches the ball on every offensive play, but that doesn't even nearly make him responsible for every little thing that the offense does, positive and negative. Perhaps it has a little bit to do with an offensive line with mediocre pass blocking skills. Maybe it has something to do with Jim Mora installing a completely new offense 3 years into Vick's short career. Or maybe the team's production was hindered just a little bit by the rookie receivers Vick has had to target over the last 2 years. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that a QB is completely at fault when anything goes wrong on the offense.

 

Oh, no. Poor Ron Mexico had to learn a new offense. :D He's in his freaking SIXTH season in the pros! McNabb was a prolific passer AND scrambler in his SECOND year in the league, and he did it with even less talent at WR and a much weaker running game. Oh, and he had Andy Reid's complex, pass-heavy offense down by then.

 

I'm just countering your argument that defenses have been 'stopping Vick' (which apparently means 'holding the Falcons to the middle 3rd of total offense') for years... Stopping Michael Vick and beating the Falcons are not the same thing.

 

The Falcons offense has been ranked 12th, 20th, and 14th in points scored when Vick has played a full season. Vick has never thrown for 3,000 yds, has a career completion percentage of 54.1, and a TD:INT ratio of 1.35. Opposing defenses sure as hell have stopped Vick through the air. And despite what Vick/Dunn/Duckett have done on the ground, it hasn't translated into an "elite" high-scoring offense. So, yes, opposing defenses have "stopped" the Falcons offense as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as big a Falcon homer as anyone on these boards, but there's no way the Falcons D is on par with the Bears. Close maybe, but not yet.

 

I think that they are this year, given their recent additions...

 

Hall/Webser and Milloy/Cooker > Tillman/Vasher and Brown/Harris

 

Brooking/Hartwell/Boley < Urlacher/Briggs/Hillenmeyer

 

Jackson/Coleman > Scott/Harris

 

Abraham/Kerney ~ Ogunleye/Brown

 

I'd give the Falcons the slight edge.

 

Since it's the Falcons who have had the NFL's #1 rushing offense for two years in a row now and are blowing up again this year, while a host of other teams with a "solid balanced attack" have not been the #1 ranked rushing team for the last two years and are nowhere close to Atlanta's rushing output this year, you would obviously be wrong in saying that.

 

Warning! Small sample size! :D

 

Despite being prolific on the ground, the Falcons passing game is terrible. I don't know of anybody who would take ATL's offense over CIN, SEA, NYG, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it's the Falcons who have had the NFL's #1 rushing offense for two years in a row now and are blowing up again this year, while a host of other teams with a "solid balanced attack" have not been the #1 ranked rushing team for the last two years and are nowhere close to Atlanta's rushing output this year, you would obviously be wrong in saying that.

 

Warning! Small sample size! :D

 

:D No matter how you slice it, 34 games and counting, IS NOT a small sample size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D No matter how you slice it, 34 games and counting, IS NOT a small sample size.

 

 

The Falcons do a great job of running the ball. Nobody's arguing against that. But their offense is LESS EFFECTIVE than others that can run AND pass the ball proficiently. I'll take the Seahawks or Bengals offense over Atlanta's any day.

Edited by Bill Swerski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Falcons do a great job of running the ball. Nobody's arguing against that. But their offense is LESS EFFECTIVE than others than can run AND pass the ball proficiently. I'll take the Seahawks or Bengals offense over Atlanta's any day.

 

While for the most part I would agree with you, to me, the two most dominant Superbowl winners over the past 20 odd years, were the Ravens & '85 Bears. Neither of those teams can be confused with having a "solid balanaced attack".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if/when defenses take away the run and force him to pass, can he become a 3,000 yard passer...his passing totals are really due to how few attempts he has per game.

 

No, his passing totals are due to his poor yds/att -

 

'02 - 7.0

'04 - 7.2

'05 - 6.2

 

Those are his FULL seasons; in part time in '01 and the last 5 games in '03 his #s were FAR worse, and his career yds/att # is 6.7. Generally your better QBs are going to be at 7 and above. He CAN hit that number but apparently not very consistently. He also throws a HIGH number of ints, considering his relavitively low number of attempts.

 

What I'm curious to see is if Mora and Knapp have a long view of the situation - ideally, the plan IS to run until someone stops them and then have well-honed plan B to put into action to counter that adjustment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While for the most part I would agree with you, to me, the two most dominant Superbowl winners over the past 20 odd years, were the Ravens & '85 Bears. Neither of those teams can be confused with having a "solid balanaced attack".

 

:D 'Most dominant defenses, maybe. PLENTY of other teams have come along that I'd rank as dominant as the Ravens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, here I was making a point about how undervalued Vick was as a FANTASY QB this year (and trying to brag about grabbing him on a couple of teams), and YOU guys had to go and make this the trite "Vick is overrated" thread. :D

 

He's great - it's like getting a 3rd RB + 1/2 a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D 'Most dominant defenses, maybe. PLENTY of other teams have come along that I'd rank as dominant as the Ravens.

 

:D

Chavez,

I said TO ME, those are the two teams, that have put on two of the most DOMINANT SUPERBOWLS that I've ever seen.

 

Now that I really think about it, the Steve Young led 49er's pasting of the Chargers, (won a TON of money on that game) is another.

 

Those would be my Top 3 Superbowl dominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While for the most part I would agree with you, to me, the two most dominant Superbowl winners over the past 20 odd years, were the Ravens & '85 Bears. Neither of those teams can be confused with having a "solid balanaced attack".

 

 

Um, you forgot about the the '98 Broncos, the '96 Packers, and the '94 49ers, and the '92/'93 Cowboys, to name a just few. Also remember that the late, geat Walter Payton got stuffed by the Pats in SB 20 and McMahon ended up throwing for over 250 yds.

 

I agree that strong defense and a strong running game are the way to build a champion. However, you're always better off with a balanced attack on offense. FWIW, the Bears and Ravens never repeated, while more balanced offenses like the 49ers, Cowboys, and Broncos did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tampa Bay's defense sucks THIS YEAR. But they sure didn't back from '02-'05 when they made Vick their girl dog twice a year.

The Steelers' offense was NOT one-dimensional last season. Roethlisberger is a very competent passer, as he very clearly demonstrated in their first three playoff games.

 

Defending Vick/Dunn is A LOT easier than defending Manning/Barber/Burress or Palmer/R. Johnson/C. Johnson. You can stack the box with 8 defenders and contain both Vick and Dunn. You can't stack the box and defend both the run and a proficient passing game.

 

 

The great teams can "run" when everyone expects you to "run" and tries to defend it.

 

Well two "supposedly" great Defenses (they are good, but not against ATL this year) down and many to go...

 

You can't say CAR and TB weren't prepared for the run...Rhonde Barber said they were as ready to take Vick out as in years past, but couldn't stop ALL of them this year...

 

simplification of the offense...don't confuse Vick...and he won't beat himself...who ever said the option does not work in the NFL...until know...

 

Two great defenses down...many to go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information