<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'> Is he not part of the reason? Is he not a major asset to that offense? You can't deny that. Whether it be with his legs like it usually is or his arm which is not as often he is a major weapon on that offense. I still didn't get a answer to this question. What is so wrong with the fact that Mike Vick is more of a threat with his legs rather than his arm? What's so bad about that as long as the team is winning.. Now I no he's not the only reason... but they're shouldn't be any denying that he's a major asset to that offense.</div> His ability to scramble is negated by the number of sacks he takes trying to scramble, instead of throwing ball away. I am not saying it is a non-asset, it helps some, not a lot, but some. If he could throw ball as well as the good QBs out there, his mobility woudl be HUGE asset.</div> ok.. I can accept your opinion on that. I don't see how you can't consider him a huge asset to that team though. He clearly is . Much like Brain Urlacher is a big part of the Bears defense. Mike Vick is a big part of the Falcons offense. Both teams are having sucess. To me that is all that matters..</div> Agreed winning is all that matters to team. The question is, could they win more with pocket passer
Now I would agree that if Atlanta starts to fall to an 8-8 or worse team for consecutive years with Vick as the QB then a change is a big need. As of now there not and as of now my view we continue to stay the same. I don't agree with the assessment that they would be better off with a pocket passer. Every year only ONE team wins the Super Bowl. If Atlanta doesn't win the Super Bowl and they have to change QB's because of it well shouldn't every team who loses the Super Bowl consider a change at the QB then. Only one team wins the Super Bowl. There is no proof changing to a pocket passer in Atlanta wouldn't make them better right away. My opinion on a lot of this is??. Most older men seem to have more dislike towards the scrambling QB because they don't want too see the origins of the game lost forever. They rather see the traditional pocket passing QB. Dale I think is more outspoken about it because he wants too see more Dan Marino's than Randall Cunningham?s. Like it or not the game is changing year in and year out and we as fans are just going have to adjust. Every year you see more of the running type of QB in the league and I'm fine with that as long as they are winning. More of the younger people like too see the flashier type of players. They like too see QB's take off and run because it's more exciting to the game. The game is evolving I think some people just need to learn to accept it or their going to get lost in the dust. More and more dual threat QB?s are turning up. Get use to it. Vince Young is next to have his critics.
If Atlanta doesn't win the Superbowl, they absolutely do not have to change QBs. They need to keep Vick. That doesn't mean he is elite. Even if Falcons are 8-8 for a couple years, I don't know how you can say you have to change your QB. That would either imply that you are wrong now, or that Vick suddenly got worse for no apparent reason. You guys are also taking this winning is the only thing that matters too far. Its the only thing that matters to the team, but it has nothing to do with evaluating the QB (necessarily). Otherwise, Orton is a great QB now too. As an older guy, I guess , I would have to say that I enjoy a good offense more than a good defense. I like to play a good 10-7 game, but I don't like to watch it as much as a 31-28 game. So, I like the excitement too. If McNabb can continue to grow as a QB, he is a dual threat when he is healthy. I don't see that dual threat yet from Vick. So, a good mobile passer is ideal. Why not have both? However, here is why more people prefer a pocket passer over a non-passing mobile QB though. If you are playing the Colts, and want to shut down their running game, you potentially open up Manning. If you want to shut down Manning, you open up James. If you are successful in loading up against Atlanta running, you take out Dunn and Vick and you open up ??????? If Chicago's D falters in a game, the team is in trouble. Until that happens, Orton appears to be just fine. If the Falcons team strengths over the last year or two fails (Defense, running game?), is Vick going to step up and win it on his arm. He was forced to do it in the games you mentioned. He put up decent looking numbers, but they were 2-2 against teams with a combined record of 19-29. What the Falcons need is to control the game and keep it close. Maybe with a little luck, Vick can win it with his home run-threat running ability. If the Falcons find that they are 17 points down, they are going to need more than Vick's current abilities.
the game might be changing year to year, but every Super Bowl has been won by a team with a pocket passer....every Super Bowl participant has been QB'd by a pocket passer.....even the mobile QBs that have taken thier teams to the Super Bowl, did so after becoming primarily pocket passers that used thier wheels sparringly.....these are the facts....if Vick ever learns to run that offense from the pocket, he will be an asset to that team, until he does, they would be better off with Matt Schaub....btw, there are 22 QBs with a better rating that the fabulous Mike Vick, among them: Bledsoe, Simms, Carr, Bress(who he was traded for), Dilfer....not exactly a whos-who of Pro Bowl rosters....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I still didn't get a answer to this question. What is so wrong with the fact that Mike Vick is more of a threat with his legs rather than his arm?</div> It's all about correct usage of your "weapon". A nuclear missle could fall on you and kill you perhaps, but it will be much more devistating traveling through the air and exploding on impact as it was made to do. The QB position necessitates passing. Running in addition is a bonus, but you need to prove that you can actually carry out the passing part too. If Vick could do both well, he would be lethal. Unfortuately right now all he has proven is that RBs can wear single digit numbers on their jerseys. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I would have to say that I enjoy a good offense more than a good defense. I like to play a good 10-7 game, but I don't like to watch it as much as a 31-28 game.</div> Yeah. What Cowboy said. I hope we have one of those this week. (With the Chiefs on the 31 end, of course. )
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bleedblk&gld)</div><div class='quotemain'>Vick usually doesn't throw well against rival teams</div> Or in football games....
[quote name='porky88'][quote name='BearsFan1'][quote name='porky88']November passer rating for Mike Vick 102.6 @ Miami 228 yards passing 108.9 Green Bay 209 yards passing 99.2 Tampa 309 yards passing 86.6 @ Detroit 146 yards passing 7 touchdowns and 1 INT So 4 out of last 5 games were good passing performances. So I'm not sure how 2 out of his last 4 games weren't good. All you guys complain that he doesn't put up STATS. Well when he was putting up STATS you all were as quiet a mouse on this board about Mike Vick. Too bad the Falcons were 2-2 in November. If I were a Falcon fan I rather see the Mike Vick who can take off and run than the Mike Vick who sits in the pocket. He's more of a weapon on the move. What's so wrong with that???[/quote] I dont know why you listed Miami game? That wasnt one of last 4. Detroit, 146 yrds passing and 86.6 rating = not good. 39.1 rating vs carolina NOT EVEN DECENT. last 4 games actual totals 6 tds 3 ints. If you are going to post game logs for last 4 games, you might want to post ACTUAL last 4 games instead of picking the best 4 game stretch for your argument[/quote] lol I wasn't trying to post the game logs for the last four games. If you read my post you would of noticed I said he played good which he did in 4 out of the last 5 games. That's #5. That's one more than 4... Read my post next time please. All of it if you want to make this a legit argument. My point is that Vick had a SOLID November and no one was saying anything about it because he was doing good. When he is doing bad you and dale a lot don't seem to let up. I just find that really funny... Also I'm looking for an answer too this question I posted in my last post but since you didn't read all of it you wouldn't know what it is now would you. I'm still waiting to hear a answer to that question.[/quote] Someone falls for porky's trickery, again _____________ IMO there are QB's with much worse arms than Mike Vick -- like Mike McMahon. When the Seahawks defense faced him they (the 'Hawks defense) scored half the points in the game.
I think the media and everyone is being too hard on Vick. He should just go back to do what he always does. Run the ball! When he runs the ball, there's a higher chance of them to win. I'd rather have a QB that wins games and forget about the media. And he is a special type of QB so I'll give him that. He should be a "Slash" and line up as a reciever if he wants to. Play running back or quarterback as long as he leads the team to victories.
Porky is wrong when he says that I don't like running quarterbacks. The TRUTH is that I hate quarterbacks who can't throw the football. I have no problem with Randall Cunningham, Steve Young, Donte Culpepper or any other running QB when they have clearly proven that they can throw as well as run the football. It comes down to simple math. I would rather have a QB that throws for 3,500 yards and 30 touchdowns than a QB that throws for 2,000 yards, runs for 500 yards and has 15 touchdowns running and throwing. If Michael Vick's rushing yardage made up the difference for his lack of passing yardage then I would say that Vickolytes might have an argument to make. Thanks to injury to guys like Culpepper and Roethlisberger and to having a few good games, Michael Vick has leaped all the way to 23 in passing yardage. If you add his rushing yardage into his passing yardage, which I'm not doing for any other QB, then he only moves up two spots to number 21. Michael Vick would be right behind the injured Marc Bulger. I will assume that Michael Vick can overtake Bulger, then he will be chasing Gus Frerotte and Trent Dilfer. When media whores and Vickolytes call Vick "the most dangerous weapon in the NFL," I want to leave the room, so I don't have to smell that steaming pile of crap. The INDISPUTABLE truth is that Michael Vick's PRODUCTION places him in the BOTTOM 3rd of the NFL. If people could take their eyes off hype-filled highlight reels and take a look at the numbers, they might realize the truth. The Falcons are winning despite Michael Vick. Michael Vick isn't even the best runner on the Falcons. Warrick Dunn is the forth leading rusher in the NFL, but no one gives him any credit. Do I worry about running QBs who can't throw being the future of the NFL? No way. Michael Vick may make highlight films exciting to watch, but Tom Brady has been bringing home the championship trophies. Who is the odds on favorite to bring home the trophy this year? The Colts led by Peyton Manning. Kordell Stewart didn't change the way the game is played, so I'm not worried about Michael Vick either. QBs that can't throw will one day be less popular than the Run and Shoot.
I agree w/ DD, but at the same time the days of the stationary QB are all but over. Bledsoe is the last of a dying breed. DLs are simply too quick now. In order to have a lengthy career in the pros you have to possess some mobility.
How do you define stationary? Marino wasn't stationary though he could hardly be considered a runner. Marino had excellent footwork and could manage the pocket. That's all you need.
I think I gave an excellent definition in Bledsoe. And yes Marino was good with his feet. Similar to Brady he had ability to sense where the pressure was coming & more importantly was able to avoid it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bakes781)</div><div class='quotemain'>I agree w/ DD, but at the same time the days of the stationary QB are all but over. Bledsoe is the last of a dying breed. DLs are simply too quick now. In order to have a lengthy career in the pros you have to possess some mobility.</div> I agree with Bakes. More and more QB's are turning into the dual threat and more and more teams are in search of that type of QB. That's what I kind of meant. Now Dale I've never said Vick was the most dangerous weapon in the NFL. I don't believe he is. My defending of Vick is when you guys seem to think Atlanta would be better off without him. I disagree from what I've seen thus far. Jim Mora's offense is built around Mike Vick. Just like San Diego is built around LT. You take out the main dish and it just doesn't taste better. Mike Vick is Atlanta's QB and gives them the best chance to win now. That is why I defend him. I don't defend him because I would want him as my QB. I would prefer Manning, Brady, Favre, Brees, Palmer, Bulger, Culpepper, McNabb over Vick any day and that's just off the top of my head, there are more. Would I prefer Gus Ferrotte and Trent Dilfer over him. I doubt it. Defensive Coordinators don't game plan to stop Gus Ferrotte and Trent Dilfer. They do install a type of defense in to stop Mike Vick. They don't for Dilfer or Ferrotte. Does that make Mike Vick the most dangerous weapon in football. I don't believe so. Does it make him a valuable player to the Falcons. I believe so.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>My defending of Vick is when you guys seem to think Atlanta would be better off without him.</div> With many one or two exceptions, I think this comment is an overstatement. Very few would say that Atlanta would be better off without knowing who would be replacing him. The Falcons would not be as good if they replaced Vick with a lot of QBs. However, until Vick improves his passing, he will be considered at best a 2nd tier QB by many. I think along with your admission that he is not the most dangerous weapon, there would be some admissions that he is not the worst QB. I think some of the "anti-Vick" discussion is brought up when Vick is hyped by some as the most dangerous weapon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>Ill go as far to say that if Schaub was the starting QB, the Falcons would be better....</div> If the dophins were going to trade draft pick for QB, who would you want, schaub or vick?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ill go as far to say that if Schaub was the starting QB, the Falcons would be better....</div> You beat me to that one Beef!
