seminoles Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Boy he still isn't playing but has multi threads devoted to him. I figured someone who didn't matter in the NFL wouldn't be talked about this much. This is very ignorant since you're assuming that the amount of threads a player has should represent how good of a player they are?? Or how important they were to their sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 (edited) This is very ignorant since you're assuming that the amount of threads a player has should represent how good of a player they are?? Or how important they were to their sport? That shows how much of an impact and popular/unpopular he was. I'm sure he will be remembered(if he never plays again) a lot longer than many other players. Edited May 9, 2008 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 I'm sure he will be remembered(if he never plays again) a lot longer than many other players. For all the wrong reasons. That's quite a legacy to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 For all the wrong reasons. That's quite a legacy to leave. +1 It's as close a "How NOT To" manual as there is in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 +1 It's as close a "How NOT To" manual as there is in life. Rae Carruth may be a co honoree. "killing animals or people are definite no-no's" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 whatever guy, figure it out. I believe I have Vick figured out ... your the one with the blinders on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted May 11, 2008 Share Posted May 11, 2008 I am not sure why I am going to engage in a conversation about an irrelevant inmate but here goes. If Vick had a stud O line and great Wrs would that negate the fact that he was not an accurate passer and still was quick to tuck the ball under and run ? McNabb earlier in his career was a terrific running qb but he can also drop back and throw if need be . I dont think Vick would flourish in a drop back roll even if he got the wrs you say he needed. I actually think it would have exposed him for the mediocre passing qb he really was. Even Rice/Largent and Randy Moss cant do much with ground balls Whomp I'm saying that the guy had absolutely no talent besides Crumpler. McNabb also had a much better line that he could actually stand behind and that defense was also dominant, which probably made it easier that he didn't have to carry the whole team. And maybe those receivers would've actually been able to do their jobs. I fail to understand what his ability to run a 4.25 has to do with in inability to read defenses or throw the ball. Doesn't the fact that you are citing his ability to run fast when discussing his ability to be a QB support my argument that he was a sub-par QB? No it's saying that with his speed he was able to expand the position instead of being limited to a drop back passer, in which role the Falcons probably would've never won over 3 games in a season even if Peyton or Brady or Romo was sitting back there, getting killed In closing, the fact that we have never seen an athlete like Mike Vick play quarterback does not mean that an athletic quarterback cannot win. If Mike Vick lost more games than he won and never made it to the playoffs or won any in the playoffs, your argument would hold water. Just because he could not get the least talented team in the NFL to win a Super Bowl, alone does not mean that he is not a winner. I have never in my life seen a team that was so bad that somehow won so many games. You have to give Vick tons of credit for that, regardless. +1 You are insane if you truely believe that Vick could have replaced Dilfer and still take that team to a championship ... would not have happened. Why? Because Vick had a .660 winning percentage with no support his whole career? God that is sig worthy stuff right there and if Roddy was dropping stuff and now he is catching it you have to ask yourself why? Could it be that due to Vick's "erraticness" had a negative effect on WRs concentration? Well you have to start slow with Blitz. I explained it earlier, but basically I always thought that the addition of Petrino and that Cincy WR coach were going to be huge additions for our offense. Though most of the offense remained useless Roddy made huge strides this year. I am sure I will get crucified for asking this question.. Broncos - does your love for Vick have anything to do with him being a black QB? Haha. No I just love how the guy plays. btw I'm not black.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 (edited) No it's saying that with his speed he was able to expand the position instead of being limited to a drop back passer, in which role the Falcons probably would've never won over 3 games in a season even if Peyton or Brady or Romo was sitting back there, getting killed Have no fear he would never have "been limited to a drop back passer" as he lacked that skill altogether. For some strange reason you believe his ability to run fast compensated for his inability to read defenses and his inability to pass the ball. Why? Because Vick had a .660 winning percentage with no support his whole career? In the worst division in football. Let's review Vick's winning record 2001 he started 2 games, Atlanta's record: 7-9, did not make the playoffs 2002 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 9-6-1, 1-1 in the playoffs 2003 he started 4 games, Atlanta's record: 5-11, did not make the playoffs 2004 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 11-5, 1-1 in the playoffs 2005 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 8-8, did not make the playoffs 2006 he started 16 games, Atlanta's record: 7-9, did not make the playoffs I only see two years in there where Atlanta's record was above 500 with Vick as the starting QB, both years that Atlanta went to the playoffs and lost in the 2nd round. I also notice that he was on a downward turn in the last two years of his career at Atlanta. And that is what you want to hang your hat on? Really? Edited May 12, 2008 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Can you name a player that Mike Vick played with that wasn't Warrick Dunn, Patrick Kerney or the often hurt Brookings? I'm sure you can but it takes you a while. Mike Vick did more with less than any QB I have ever seen before. Still, that is a heck of a winning percentage for any QB, let alone one with no help whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Can you name a player that Mike Vick played with that wasn't Warrick Dunn, Patrick Kerney or the often hurt Brookings? I'm sure you can but it takes you a while. Mike Vick did more with less than any QB I have ever seen before. Still, that is a heck of a winning percentage for any QB, let alone one with no help whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Can you name a player that Mike Vick played with that wasn't Warrick Dunn, Patrick Kerney or the often hurt Brookings? I'm sure you can but it takes you a while. Mike Vick did more with less than any QB I have ever seen before. Still, that is a heck of a winning percentage for any QB, let alone one with no help whatsoever. Kind of hard for the players around Vick to excel when Vick can't and won't throw them the ball. And on those rare occassions where Vick did choose to throw the ball and was able to get it in the general vicinity of the intended receiver he often used Crumpler. It took me all of 2 seconds to come up with that name. McNabb has only ever had a WR once and he has done more with the lack of talent around him then Vick ever dreamed of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Have no fear he would never have "been limited to a drop back passer" as he lacked that skill altogether. For some strange reason you believe his ability to run fast compensated for his inability to read defenses and his inability to pass the ball. In the worst division in football. Let's review Vick's winning record 2001 he started 2 games, Atlanta's record: 7-9, did not make the playoffs 2002 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 9-6-1, 1-1 in the playoffs 2003 he started 4 games, Atlanta's record: 5-11, did not make the playoffs 2004 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 11-5, 1-1 in the playoffs 2005 he started 15 games, Atlanta's record: 8-8, did not make the playoffs 2006 he started 16 games, Atlanta's record: 7-9, did not make the playoffs 2007 he started 0 games, Atlanta's record: 4-12, did not make the playoffs I only see two years in there where Atlanta's record was above 500 with Vick as the starting QB, both years that Atlanta went to the playoffs and lost in the 2nd round. I also notice that he was on a downward turn in the last two years of his career at Atlanta. And that is what you want to hang your hat on? Really? That's not Vick's winning percentage it's the winning percentage of the Falcons. His last season in ATL - 2474 yards, 20 TDs, 13 INTs. Not bad at all when you're quarterbacking the worst offense and team in the league. Yeah and the best WR Vick had during his time in ATL was probably Finneran in his days. Blitz the team was absolutely terrible, I would know I followed them since 2002. Vick was the main thing that kept fans buying tickets and the only thing winning games. And in regard to the NFC South they're not the strongest division but in the 5 years from 02 to 06 they had two teams in the NFC Championship and two in the Superbowl, Tampa won it in 02 in arguably Vick's best year before he broke his leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Did you really just compare the talent of the Falcons to that of the Eagles?? Honestly? WOW~!!! That may well have been your most ridiculous point of all of them. I can name at least 30 players McNabb played with just off the top of my head. I can only count Vick's teammates with my fingers. Dude, we know Vick can't throw the ball...none of us have argued otherwise. You don't need to keep pounding that down our throat. Again, wins and losses are much more important than completion percentage and TD passe. Is that pretty much your argument? Vick can't throw? We get it. Can he be a difference maker without being an accurate passer? The answer is without a doubt yes. He proved it. The one year he didn't start the team lost 11 games. Did he win a super bowl? No. Then again, there have only been a handful of QB's in this era that have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Did you really just compare the talent of the Falcons to that of the Eagles?? Honestly? WOW~!!! That may well have been your most ridiculous point of all of them. I can name at least 30 players McNabb played with just off the top of my head. I can only count Vick's teammates with my fingers. Dude, we know Vick can't throw the ball...none of us have argued otherwise. You don't need to keep pounding that down our throat. Again, wins and losses are much more important than completion percentage and TD passe. Is that pretty much your argument? Vick can't throw? We get it. Can he be a difference maker without being an accurate passer? The answer is without a doubt yes. He proved it. The one year he didn't start the team lost 11 games. Did he win a super bowl? No. Then again, there have only been a handful of QB's in this era that have. Now I agree with the Eagles thing as I've already stated that Philly was much more talented especially that D which was lights out back in the day. However, I'm saying that Vick could've become a 3,000 maybe 3,500 yard passer if he was surrounded with some talent. The line was atrocious the entire time he was in ATL and actually got progressively worse with Mora there, as well as Knapp who was probably the worst OC I've ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Now I agree with the Eagles thing as I've already stated that Philly was much more talented especially that D which was lights out back in the day. However, I'm saying that Vick could've become a 3,000 maybe 3,500 yard passer if he was surrounded with some talent. The line was atrocious the entire time he was in ATL and actually got progressively worse with Mora there, as well as Knapp who was probably the worst OC I've ever seen. He just may have hit 3,000 once or twice, but that would definitely be the cap. There isn't a receiver in football that could have a good season with Mike Vick as his QB. He is the most inaccurate QB I have ever seen. It is even more painful in person. I had the privelege of standing on the sidelines for a few of his games. Two balls went flying past my head, neither came within fifteen yards of the intended receiver. He air-mailed several, threw a few into the dirt, and totally ducked a couple that came off of his hand sideways. He did appear to be getting a little better as a passer, but he had quite a ways to go before I could envision big numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Did you really just compare the talent of the Falcons to that of the Eagles?? Honestly? WOW~!!! That may well have been your most ridiculous point of all of them. I can name at least 30 players McNabb played with just off the top of my head. I can only count Vick's teammates with my fingers. Dude, we know Vick can't throw the ball...none of us have argued otherwise. You don't need to keep pounding that down our throat. Again, wins and losses are much more important than completion percentage and TD passe. Is that pretty much your argument? Vick can't throw? We get it. Can he be a difference maker without being an accurate passer? The answer is without a doubt yes. He proved it. The one year he didn't start the team lost 11 games. Did he win a super bowl? No. Then again, there have only been a handful of QB's in this era that have. If you are the QB and you can't throw the ball or read defenses the absolute BEST you could ever hope for is one win in the playoffs ... which is exactly what the Falcons under Vick were able to do. If you QB can't be a QB then your team is to one-dimensional. One-dimensional teams can be successful against sub-par teams but not against the top teams, like those that have advanced to the second round of the playoffs. Vick was .500 in the playoffs where winning percentage counts the most. He just may have hit 3,000 once or twice, but that would definitely be the cap. There isn't a receiver in football that could have a good season with Mike Vick as his QB. He is the most inaccurate QB I have ever seen. It is even more painful in person. I had the privelege of standing on the sidelines for a few of his games. Two balls went flying past my head, neither came within fifteen yards of the intended receiver. He air-mailed several, threw a few into the dirt, and totally ducked a couple that came off of his hand sideways. He did appear to be getting a little better as a passer, but he had quite a ways to go before I could envision big numbers. On this we agree ... Vick sucked as a QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 That's not Vick's winning percentage it's the winning percentage of the Falcons. His last season in ATL - 2474 yards, 20 TDs, 13 INTs. Not bad at all when you're quarterbacking the worst offense and team in the league. Yeah and the best WR Vick had during his time in ATL was probably Finneran in his days. Blitz the team was absolutely terrible, I would know I followed them since 2002. Vick was the main thing that kept fans buying tickets and the only thing winning games. And in regard to the NFC South they're not the strongest division but in the 5 years from 02 to 06 they had two teams in the NFC Championship and two in the Superbowl, Tampa won it in 02 in arguably Vick's best year before he broke his leg. You are really telling me you are happy with 8-8 and 7-9 seasons because the next season they had a 4-12 record without Vick Did it ever occur to you that the offense that Atlanta built trying to compensate for Vick's inadequacies could not be run by a journeyman QB that couldn't run the ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 How do you know that a one-dimensional team can't be successsful? Did the Ravens not win the Super Bowl? There is no sample size to choose from. You saying that running teams can't win the super bowl is a guess at best. We have no idea. You can't base your whole argument off of one team at one time. You have sucessfully killed this thread with your wealth of football wisdom. Good day gents, no use arguing with fools that absolutely refuse to open their eyes and figure it out. Close minded thinking takes you far in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) How do you know that a one-dimensional team can't be successsful? Did the Ravens not win the Super Bowl? There is no sample size to choose from. You saying that running teams can't win the super bowl is a guess at best. We have no idea. You can't base your whole argument off of one team at one time. You have sucessfully killed this thread with your wealth of football wisdom. Good day gents, no use arguing with fools that absolutely refuse to open their eyes and figure it out. Close minded thinking takes you far in life. Baltimore was a bit more than one-dimensional. The had possibly one of the best defenses to ever take the field. Teams simply couldn't score on Baltimore that year. Now you throw in a pretty damn decent game and just enough mistake free passing by Dilfer and you have a winning combination. Baltimore's offense could win games by grinding it out on the ground, mixing in just enough passes to keep the defense honest and scoring 10'ish points. Then the defense prevented the other team from doing anything. Good offense, great defense does not = one dimensional. Try again. Edited May 13, 2008 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 Are you serious!?!? I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about offenses here. Sorry, a one-dimensional offense. The Falcons pass more than the Ravens did. I love people that take the smallest idea out of a group of ten and attack that idea, while being completely oblivious to the obvious main points. You can twist these ideas any way you freakin want to bro, you're just treading water man. Say something with substance, don't just wait for somebody to say a word wrong and then pounce, trying to act like you have a rational thought. Bring more than this crap to the table. I am not one for calling names over the internet but this the most retarded thread I have been in yet, and there have been some doozies. I didn't know that somebody could be on these boards for so long and still just not get it at all. We are going backwards here. I feel ten again. I got news for you bro, the game is going towards players like Michael Vick, because despite the fact that they aren't accurate, they flat out win. Even Tarvaris Jackson freakin wins. Twenty years from now, your beloved statue pocket passer will be an absolute dinosaur. This is not a game for the narrow minded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 (edited) Are you serious!?!? I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about offenses here. Sorry, a one-dimensional offense. The Falcons pass more than the Ravens did. I love people that take the smallest idea out of a group of ten and attack that idea, while being completely oblivious to the obvious main points. You can twist these ideas any way you freakin want to bro, you're just treading water man. Say something with substance, don't just wait for somebody to say a word wrong and then pounce, trying to act like you have a rational thought. Bring more than this crap to the table. I am not one for calling names over the internet but this the most retarded thread I have been in yet, and there have been some doozies. I didn't know that somebody could be on these boards for so long and still just not get it at all. We are going backwards here. I feel ten again. I got news for you bro, the game is going towards players like Michael Vick, because despite the fact that they aren't accurate, they flat out win. Even Tarvaris Jackson freakin wins. Twenty years from now, your beloved statue pocket passer will be an absolute dinosaur. This is not a game for the narrow minded. The game is moving toward QBs that can't read defenses and can't pass the ball I can't believe you actually said that. That has to be the most ludicrous thing you have ever said. And as to Vick "flat out winning" in his 4 seasons as the starter for Atlanta the Falcons finished with a winning record only twice, and both of those years they washed out in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Vick's last two years as the starter his team finished at or below .500. And this is the guy you think all the NFL GMs want for their QB. And as to the one-dimensional thing ... Dilfer could pass when he needed to, Vick could not, PERIOD. And yes when you try to use that Baltimore team as an example you have to talk about their defense because it was so stiffling that the Baltimore offense did not need to be anything more than adequate. Edited May 13, 2008 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 GMs and coaches will make Tim Tebow and Jake Locker the first QBs taken when they decide to come out. This is not because they can read defenses or are accurate passers, but rather will be based almost entirely on their times in the 40. Maybe you should go ask the GMs. They may be able to explain it in terms you can understand, since I obviously cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 GMs and coaches will make Tim Tebow and Jake Locker the first QBs taken when they decide to come out. This is not because they can read defenses or are accurate passers, but rather will be based almost entirely on their times in the 40. Maybe you should go ask the GMs. They may be able to explain it in terms you can understand, since I obviously cannot. Yeah right .... when GMs are looking for QBs they are looking at their times in the 40 QBs are drafted based on how GMs perceive their ability to learn to operate in an NFL offense. Ever hear the name Crouch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chappy Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) Ever hear the name Crouch? Wasn't he the guy throwing some great passing to the incoming rookie WR class this year during workouts? Maybe he was misunderstood or just wasnt given the little TLC he needed. Edited May 14, 2008 by Chappy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 He just may have hit 3,000 once or twice, but that would definitely be the cap. There isn't a receiver in football that could have a good season with Mike Vick as his QB. He is the most inaccurate QB I have ever seen. It is even more painful in person. I had the privelege of standing on the sidelines for a few of his games. Two balls went flying past my head, neither came within fifteen yards of the intended receiver. He air-mailed several, threw a few into the dirt, and totally ducked a couple that came off of his hand sideways. He did appear to be getting a little better as a passer, but he had quite a ways to go before I could envision big numbers. And there isn't a QB in football who could've stood behind that line with those receivers and have much confidence moving the ball through the air. You are really telling me you are happy with 8-8 and 7-9 seasons because the next season they had a 4-12 record without Vick Did it ever occur to you that the offense that Atlanta built trying to compensate for Vick's inadequacies could not be run by a journeyman QB that couldn't run the ball? No but the team was absolutely abysmal without him. And the offense wasn't built for Vick. You don't think Petrino changed the offense when Vick was indicted? Maybe when he was suspended like a month and a half before the season started? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.