WaterMan Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 is like LT but at the QB position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 What in the hell are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 is like LT but at the QB position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I see a huge difference. LT is a RB, therefore his job title states that he must run for a paycheck Vick is a QB, he runs because he sucksass at passing. He should not be getting a paycheck for being a QB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The Falcons best rb is playing qb. And their best qb is on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 is like LT but at the QB position. There is absolutely nothing true about this statement. You are implying either: Vick is as good at LT at his respective position (obviously there is no truth to that, Vick isn't even top 5 in the NFC as far as QBs go) Vick is as good at running back as LT (once again, no truth to this whatsoever) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 How 'bout this statement: Waterman is an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I think LT is as good of a passer as Vick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I think LT is as good of a passer as Vick. Now that may just be a true statement..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I think LT is as good of a passer as Vick. I disagree, LT has shown he has much more touch on his passes than Vick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Not that I wanted to get sucked into this, but what is everyone's problem with Vick. I don't like this overused term, but there are so many "haters" at the huddle. He wins. Period. Can anyone refute that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Not that I wanted to get sucked into this, but what is everyone's problem with Vick. I don't like this overused term, but there are so many "haters" at the huddle. He wins. Period. Can anyone refute that? Playoffs last year? Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) The problem isn't that he wins, which IS the bottom line in many senses, but that he has been shoved down our throats as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and for all his stunning athletic ability, he is probably one of the worst passing QBs in the league, a fact which makes the Falcons one-dimensional. EDIT: also, the fact that his "lovers" seem to be blind to his failings as a passer. One of the big red flags is his low comp %; I've been told that "it takes time to master the WCO" - Vick is in his 3rd year, his 1st year he had a career-best 56% and 7.2 yds/comp - numbers which have crept downward as he supposedly "mastered" the WCO. OTHER WCO QBs in their 1st couple years in the system - Montana - 56% rookie yr, 64% 2nd; Jeff Kemp - 59.5%, 7.8 ypc; Jeff Garcia - 60%; Virgil Carter - 51.2% in 1970, 62% in 1971; Favre - 62.1%; McNabb - 49% his rookie year, 58% career - and McNabb has the knock of being a relatively inaccurate passer. Vick doesn't suck, he's just flawed; the fact that Mora and Knapp appear to have given up on him EVER being a competent passer indicates that - and that's fine, as long as he's successful. If the NFL figures out how to shut him down (the Saints' gameplane worked pretty well), he'll be a footnote. Edited October 4, 2006 by Chavez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) Playoffs last year? Didn't think so. that's your big hangup with Vick? Geez. I thought there was something ligitimate...... I guess McNabb sucks also. Edited October 4, 2006 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip_Side Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) that's your big hangup with Vick? Geez. I thought there was something ligitimate...... I guess McNabb sucks also. I don't have anything against Vick. You said he wins games, but if he wins games why did they not make the playoffs last year? Put Shaub in there and I think he could have the same record if not better, in all seriousness. Edited October 4, 2006 by Flip_Side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) I don't have anything against Vick. You said he wins games, but if he wins games why did they not make the playoffs last year? He's very good, but he's not GOD. Not all the blame, nor all the credit should ever go to one person. The Falcons were really, really, plagued with the injury bug in the 2nd half of last season. They started out 6-2, and then went 2-6 because of injuries. They had to play a lot of rookies on defense, which, coincidentally is paying off for them this year. All those "rooks" got a lot of reps, and so substituting on "D" has created not as much of a drop off this year. Edited October 4, 2006 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 How 'bout this statement: Waterman is an idiot. Vick is god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 All I'm saying is he wins. It might not be statistically pretty, and he might not be an old school prototypical QB, but none can say he doesn't win games. Sportscolumn.com: "in games since 2001 that Michael Vick has started, the team is 30-13-1 with three postseason bids. Compare that to Tom Brady (50-21), Peyton Manning (47-22), or Donovan McNabb (52-20) over the same span and you'll see that the four QBs are not so dissimilar. In fact, Vick's winning percentage (.697) is better than Peyton's (.681) and just below the NFL's golden boy Brady and the Super Bowl champion Patriots (.704)." Yet all I hear is just how bad he is. People need to think outside-the-box, break the mold of what is and is not a good QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) The problem isn't that he wins, which IS the bottom line in many senses, but that he has been shoved down our throats as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and for all his stunning athletic ability, he is probably one of the worst passing QBs in the league, a fact which makes the Falcons one-dimensional. EDIT: also, the fact that his "lovers" seem to be blind to his failings as a passer. One of the big red flags is his low comp %; I've been told that "it takes time to master the WCO" - Vick is in his 3rd year, his 1st year he had a career-best 56% and 7.2 yds/comp - numbers which have crept downward as he supposedly "mastered" the WCO. OTHER WCO QBs in their 1st couple years in the system - Montana - 56% rookie yr, 64% 2nd; Jeff Kemp - 59.5%, 7.8 ypc; Jeff Garcia - 60%; Virgil Carter - 51.2% in 1970, 62% in 1971; Favre - 62.1%; McNabb - 49% his rookie year, 58% career - and McNabb has the knock of being a relatively inaccurate passer. Vick doesn't suck, he's just flawed; the fact that Mora and Knapp appear to have given up on him EVER being a competent passer indicates that - and that's fine, as long as he's successful. If the NFL figures out how to shut him down (the Saints' gameplane worked pretty well), he'll be a footnote. Sorry there, Chavez. I happen to accidentally skip over your response. Caught it this time. I happen to think you are a very good contributor to the huddle and have agreed with alot of your comments. Trust me, I'm not a "lover" of Vick, and agree that he is flawed in the passing game. I don't however, feel he is forced down our throats as much or more than any other QB's. Farve, Manning, McNabb, just to name a few, seem to be topics of discussion as much. Edited October 4, 2006 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
URLACHERisGOD Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Not that I wanted to get sucked into this, but what is everyone's problem with Vick. I don't like this overused term, but there are so many "haters" at the huddle. He wins. Period. Can anyone refute that? Aren't the Falcons 3-1? If you're going to use the "he wins" argument to validate Vick as a QB then one would also have to assume that Kyle Orton is also a viable QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The Falcons best rb is playing qb.this made me think...has there ever been a starting quarterback that moved over to a starting RB position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 is like LT but at the QB position. Quality stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) I don't however, feel he is forced down our throats as much or more than any other QB's. Farve, Manning, McNabb, just to name a few, seem to be topics of discussion as much. Yeah, but then Favre, Manning, & McNabb actually complete some passes during the course of a game. Vick is a spectacular athlete, no doubt. In fact, he is the actual version of a football player that Reggie Bush is purported to be. Unfortunately, he has chosen to play a position that has a job description of distributing the football to other players on the team - and quite frankly he's pretty piss poor at that. That the media relentlessly fawns over his every breath is sickening for a player who is so bad at performing his job-related duties on the field, and is what nauseates many, including me. Edited October 4, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke 1982 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 that's your big hangup with Vick? Geez. I thought there was something ligitimate...... I guess McNabb sucks also. So who would you rather have as your QB...Vick or McNabb? If your answer is Vick. Please turn in your computer, you will have lost all credibilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) All I'm saying is he wins. It might not be statistically pretty, and he might not be an old school prototypical QB, but none can say he doesn't win games. Sportscolumn.com: "in games since 2001 that Michael Vick has started, the team is 30-13-1 with three postseason bids. Compare that to Tom Brady (50-21), Peyton Manning (47-22), or Donovan McNabb (52-20) over the same span and you'll see that the four QBs are not so dissimilar. In fact, Vick's winning percentage (.697) is better than Peyton's (.681) and just below the NFL's golden boy Brady and the Super Bowl champion Patriots (.704)." Yet all I hear is just how bad he is. People need to think outside-the-box, break the mold of what is and is not a good QB. Yep, Vick's winning percentage is right up there (but not quite on par) with Plummer's 34-13 since Plummer joined the Broncos. Vick, Brady, Manning, McNabb, Plummer - it's a plethora of superb QB talent. Edited October 4, 2006 by Bronco Billy 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.