[quote name='DolfanDale']You need to check your facts. According to NFL.com, Matt Schaub has only started two games in his career, one last year and one this year. I would hardly think that two games is a fair assessment of Schaub's ability as a starting QB. What numbers he has this year are pretty good. (3 tds, 0 ints, 93.0 QB rating)[/quote] Matt Schaub's career rating is a 61.9. I hardly say that's enough to bench Vick for him. Even if you were making that assumption. Not saying you are thinking that even though we know you would feel that it would probably be better. Schaub's a pocket passer right... I'm reading post for post. So just because it's a pet peeve of yours don't mean I'm purposely not reading your post..... I've read every post on this thread. Why?? Are the Falcons not contending with Mike Vick. Are the Falcons not winning with Mike Vick. Again it doesn't squarely come down to JUST Mike Vick but Vick is a factor in their offense. He does give defenses coordinators nightmares. You've failed to admit that because your biased against Vick won't let you.... I've said it once. I've said it twice. The Falcons are a BETTER TEAM with Michael Vick at QB. I've preached the Team thing and I stand by it. The Falcons are a better TEAM with Mike Vick at QB. You try to turn the tables yet the tables stay still. Just because you don't think the Falcons are better off with Vick doesn?t MEAN THAT I DO. Looks like both my arguments fit well. My opinion on a QB one of the most important jobs is to be a winner. Not a WR. WR's need to make plays. I won't say because of 7 good games that Steve Smith is the best WR in the league. He's certainly playing like the best now but I won't give him the award over Moss or TO yet. I consider Tom Brady the best QB in the game because he's a winner. I think a QB needs to be able to be a winner. I think WR's need to make plays that will make the job of a QB a lot easier and make it easier to be a winner. My OPINION is that Randy Moss is a better and deadlier playmaker than Steve Smith. I don't appreciate you taking a cheap shot at me so that you can make yourself look good and me look bad. I find that rather rude and annoying. No it doesn't make you sound good either. It makes you look like someone who ran out of ideas on an argument. I'm simply responding to that part of the post that you brought up. To go back on topic since this is about Mike Vick not Porky. Are your opinions not biased towards Michael Vick. Do you not like Mike Vick as a player so do you not look for every little thing he says to rip on him. That?s what it sounds like. Even though Mike Vick is a pitiful passer. Are the Falcons not playing better with him as their QB than they were with Matt Schaub. Again your biased towards Mike Vick continue to not let you answer that question because Mike Vick is a player you don't like. Biased will do that to you. It does it to EVERYONE!
I am little late to this thread and what I say probably seems like its coming out of Left field. I keep waiting for Vick to change or at least develop as a "more complete QB" like some of the experts say he is. I have not seen it. It surprises me that Mora hasn't installed some kind of Single wing offense. LOL. It is not like it can?t be or hasn?t been done. The desire has got to be there but it clearly is not in Vick?s case. FWIW, Favre and Young were triple option QB's in H.S. and made the transformation. McNabb ran quite a complex option based offense at Syracuse and progressed into a more typical QB. The experts keep trying to compare him to Steve Young. Young eventually became a decent pocket passer who could run if he needed but was NOT looking to run first as Vick does and will ALWAYS do. Steve Young was a more complete QB when he was 6th string at BYU than Vick EVER will be. Much To Holmgren?s patience, Favre was a bit reckless in the beginning but turned out okay. In fact, #4 will probably go down with 2nd greatest passing stats (behind Dan the Man) until Peyton eclipses BF. Why should he? Just think how much harder to defend him & how much publicity he?d get if he wanted to become a well rounded QB. All this hype he generates as ?Electricity with a football? is worth its wait in Iron Pyrite. Fools good to the science challenged. It all boils down to $. He may get mad endorsements now but he?d be richer than Croesus, Bill Gates, & Warren Buffet combined if he desired. Until proven otherwise, I don?t think he wants to do so. If you ask me there is nothing sorrier than being willingly apathetic and complacent.
Porky, I'm sorry if you felt that I took a cheap shot at you. However, I never said anything about you as a person. I view the exchanges that we've been having as a debate, so I felt that pointing out the flaws in your arguments is fair ground. I know what you've said about Michael Vick and the Falcons because I read your posts and that's why I predicted that you would respond with an abstract argument as opposed to a factual one. That was an attack on the logic that you typically use when discussing Michael Vick and not on you as a person. If you didn't like that, then you could have embrassed me by proving me wrong. However, you responded with the usual Michael Vick is a winner blah, blah, blah..., but NO ONE has presented any substantial evidence that Michael Vick has anything to do with the Falcons winning. I have presented plenty of evidence that the Falcons are winning despite him. The most damning piece of evidence being that when you add his supposedly great rushing yardage total to his passing yardage total that would only increase his rank from 30th to 27th in passing yardage in the NFL. Are the Falcons contending? Yes, however the goal is to win a World Championship and having a QB that's a crappy passer may cost them all that goal. Am I biased against Michael Vick? If wanting to puke when I hear a pathetic passer say that his game is unparalleled, then I guess I'm biased. If hating to see real QBs like Brett Favre stay home, while Vick goes to the Pro Bowl with an 79 QB rating is being bias, then I guess I'm bias. I will not stand quietly while crappy quarterbacks like Michael Vick are being hyped and the standards of the world's greatest sports league are made a mockery of. However, nothing I said in debating this topic was meant to be a slight toward Porky the person and I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but if we're going to have a decent debates on these forums, people have to have thicker skins.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>I have presented plenty of evidence that the Falcons are winning despite him. The most damning piece of evidence being that when you add his supposedly great rushing yardage total to his passing yardage total that would only increase his rank from 30th to 27th in passing yardage in the NFL.</div> Hold on a minute. That proves what? Nothing! There is no proof that THIS ATLANTA FALCON TEAM would be better with a pure pocket passer. No proof can be made. There's no proof that if you take Vick out of the Falcons and replace him with a pure pocket passer that the Falcons running game will be as effective. You said it yourself. Jim Mora has made his offense revolve around Mike Vick. Hence winning a Championship. There's no proof that the Falcons would be better without Vick as thier QB hence winning a championship maybe. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Are the Falcons contending? Yes, however the goal is to win a World Championship and having a QB that's a crappy passer may cost them all that goal. Am I biased against Michael Vick? If wanting to puke when I hear a pathetic passer say that his game is unparalleled, then I guess I'm biased. If hating to see real QBs like Brett Favre stay home, while Vick goes to the Pro Bowl with an 79 QB rating is being bias, then I guess I'm bias.</div> Well there was probably no stopping that. Most likely Favre would of declined the option. I do agree that Vick is not a top 3 QB in the NFC. I thought that he had potential but he doesn't. I don't even think he's top 10 in the NFL anymore. For the Falcons though I will say he's there guy and that?s why I will defend Mike Vick as the ATLANTA Falcons QB. Would I want him in Green Bay. Never..... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I will not stand quietly while crappy quarterbacks like Michael Vick are being hyped and the standards of the world's greatest sports league are made a mockery of. However, nothing I said in debating this topic was meant to be a slight toward Porky the person and I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but if we're going to have a decent debates on these forums, people have to have thicker skins.</div> I felt you went off topic. Simple as that. I felt that you were trying to make me look like a fool. My feelings weren't hurt. I was more pissed that you never let me explain what I think the "jobs" of a QB and WR are. I gave you my answer in my last post and I hope you take it for what it is. A opinion. I think you could of handled it better than making a statement out of "which is it" I thought you could of asked me to explain my thinking. I could of handled it better by rubbing it off my shoulder but with the way footballs been going for Porky it's hard to rub anything off. I do look forward to our debates. I will no longer defend Mike Vick as a star QB in the NFL. He is not. I consider him a great athlete but like I've said he's been nothing but a disappointment for me this season. I will however defend Mike Vick as the Falcons starting QB and the Falcons being a better team with Vick.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>If Atlanta reaches the Superbowl, I think I am agreeing with you in that it doesn't make Vick any better or worse. I do disagree with you that it doesn't necessarily mean he was one of the reasons why they got there. There could be plenty of other QBs that could accomplish that if they were "blessed with a great team".</div> So if Atlanta were to reach the Super Bowl this season with Mike Vick as the starting QB, he is not ONE of many reasons why they made the Super Bowl. This is where most people bring in the Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson argument. Were they not ONE of many reasons why their respective teams made the Super Bowl. I believe they were. If Atlanta makes it this season Vick is ONE of many reasons why they made it. Again ONE. Meaning I'm not saying the only. Warrick Dunn and Defense to name others</div> Maybe...probably...but not necessarily. The guy on the practice squad is part of the team, but I hardly think he is a reason they made the Superbowl. Overexaggerating? Yes. But lets just assume they have a poor starting FS. They could make the Superbowl in spite of that person instead of a reason they made it there. Understand? FWIW, I never said Vick should be benched. He should be the starter - no question. I just was agreeing with the fact that he wasn't outstanding or unparalleled in that sense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'>If Atlanta reaches the Superbowl, I think I am agreeing with you in that it doesn't make Vick any better or worse. I do disagree with you that it doesn't necessarily mean he was one of the reasons why they got there. There could be plenty of other QBs that could accomplish that if they were "blessed with a great team".</div> So if Atlanta were to reach the Super Bowl this season with Mike Vick as the starting QB, he is not ONE of many reasons why they made the Super Bowl. This is where most people bring in the Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson argument. Were they not ONE of many reasons why their respective teams made the Super Bowl. I believe they were. If Atlanta makes it this season Vick is ONE of many reasons why they made it. Again ONE. Meaning I'm not saying the only. Warrick Dunn and Defense to name others</div> Maybe...probably...but not necessarily. The guy on the practice squad is part of the team, but I hardly think he is a reason they made the Superbowl. Overexaggerating? Yes. But lets just assume they have a poor starting FS. They could make the Superbowl in spite of that person instead of a reason they made it there. Understand? FWIW, I never said Vick should be benched. He should be the starter - no question. I just was agreeing with the fact that he wasn't outstanding or unparalleled in that sense.</div> Ok I see what you mean now. But come on. Most likely you would have to give Vick a little credit for getting them to the Super Bowl. He is the man in the middle in the offense. He may not be the MAIN reason but he's would be a littler reason. It'll be intresting how the NFC race plays out. It's really wide open.
Im going to try to prove tht without vick their worse. Lets see: 2003 3 season- vick played 5 games, 4 started had 585 pass yards, 4 passing TDs, 3 INTs, 255 rush yards, and 1 rush TD. Not the greatest but when he would play they were 3-1 when starting. the falcons ended the season 5-11. 2004- 2313 passin yards, 14 TDs, 12 INTs, 902 rushing yards, 3 rush TDs, and 15 games played. Also not the greatest but 11-5 in the reg. season but losing to the Igles in the conf. championship. LLookin at these stats when vick starts they win. These stats arent 100% but nothing is. Vick could be the best QB next week for all we know! actually thts impossible but if they have a good chance by winning with vick then he could throw as bad as he wants as long as he helps the team to get a W.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Ok I see what you mean now. But come on. Most likely you would have to give Vick a little credit for getting them to the Super Bowl. He is the man in the middle in the offense. He may not be the MAIN reason but he's would be a littler reason. It'll be intresting how the NFC race plays out. It's really wide open.</div> Agreed - yes, its tough to win the Superbowl without help from your QB.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Im going to try to prove tht without vick their worse. Lets see: 2003 3 season- vick played 5 games, 4 started had 585 pass yards, 4 passing TDs, 3 INTs, 255 rush yards, and 1 rush TD. Not the greatest but when he would play they were 3-1 when starting. the falcons ended the season 5-11. 2004- 2313 passin yards, 14 TDs, 12 INTs, 902 rushing yards, 3 rush TDs, and 15 games played. Also not the greatest but 11-5 in the reg. season but losing to the Igles in the conf. championship. LLookin at these stats when vick starts they win. These stats arent 100% but nothing is. Vick could be the best QB next week for all we know! actually thts impossible but if they have a good chance by winning with vick then he could throw as bad as he wants as long as he helps the team to get a W.</div> Or it shows that Vick is better than Doug Johnson and Kurt Kittner anyway, Dunn should be the feature back instead of Duckett, and Vick has a better per-run average than a per-pass average.
Actually, I never said that he should be benched either. It wasn't the point of this thread. I should know. I started it.
First thing this morning, I hear some media whore talking about how the Falcons don't care what Vick's QB rating is because he is one of the most dangerous weapons in the NFL. How in the blue blazes is Michael Vick a dangerous weapon? There are 26 QBs in the NFL that are throwing for more yardage than Vick has running and throwing combined. Vick only has 8 tds passing and rushing combined. I would say that Carson Palmer is a much more dangerous weapon considering that he's responsible for twice as much yardage and twice as many touchdowns. I guess Carson would have to throw for 125 - 150 yards less a game and run for 50 more yards a game, then he would be considered dangerous. That makes a heck of a lot of sense. By the way, Michael Vick is in no way a playmaker either. To be a playmaker, that would mean that he can effectively run the teams' plays consistantly no matter the circumstance. Michael Vick can't do that. What he can do is use his running ability to make positive yardage when a play breaks down. Of course, the reason so many of the Falcons plays break down is because Michael Vick can't read defenses. The hype surrounding this idiot is astounding.
Vick is a playmaker because he makes a 5 yd loss to a 10 yd game. I think tht hes great to watch and dangerous but the most in the NFL. I agree DD tht hes not as dangerous as Palmer but hes close. If u had to go against Vick u would see tht hes better than u think. I would rather go against Palmer because he stays in the pocket and we know tht hes going to throw, whereas Vick will do wht he thinks is best, run or pass. He might mess up a lot but i think he makes up with big plays when needed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Vick is a playmaker because he makes a 5 yd loss to a 10 yd game. I think tht hes great to watch and dangerous but the most in the NFL. I agree DD tht hes not as dangerous as Palmer but hes close. If u had to go against Vick u would see tht hes better than u think. I would rather go against Palmer because he stays in the pocket and we know tht hes going to throw, whereas Vick will do wht he thinks is best, run or pass. He might mess up a lot but i think he makes up with big plays when needed.</div> Posts like this make me think that no one reads what I write. Can anyone give a direct answer to a point anymore? How slow must I type for people to keep up? Do they teach math in schools anymore? Why would anyone rather face Carson Palmer, who has TWICE as many yards and touchdowns than Michael Vick? WHY?????? I don't want to hear any nebulous arguments. Save the existentialism for theology class. Somebody give me an argument based in fact. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Vick is a playmaker because he makes a 5 yd loss to a 10 yd game. I think tht hes great to watch and dangerous but the most in the NFL. I agree DD tht hes not as dangerous as Palmer but hes close. If u had to go against Vick u would see tht hes better than u think. I would rather go against Palmer because he stays in the pocket and we know tht hes going to throw, whereas Vick will do wht he thinks is best, run or pass. He might mess up a lot but i think he makes up with big plays when needed.</div> Posts like this make me think that no one reads what I write. Can anyone give a direct answer to a point anymore? How slow must I type for people to keep up? Do they teach math in schools anymore? Why would anyone rather face Carson Palmer, who has TWICE as many yards and touchdowns than Michael Vick? WHY?????? I don't want to hear any nebulous arguments. Save the existentialism for theology class. Somebody give me an argument based in fact. I dare you. I double dog dare you.</div> Can u please type slower Give Carson Palmer the same recievers tht vick has and youll see y he runs so much. U cant have Jenkins as ur #1 reciever for big success in the passing game. Vick has Crumpler but theyll double team him so tht vick runs. Vick should pass way more often but he thinks running works better and i agree. He should play RB if he likes to run tht much! All tht matters right now is tht Vick is winning with the run and there's no reason to stop. Hes not going to get much better at passing but if hes playing the way he is and it works then let him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Vick is a playmaker because he makes a 5 yd loss to a 10 yd game. I think tht hes great to watch and dangerous but the most in the NFL. I agree DD tht hes not as dangerous as Palmer but hes close. If u had to go against Vick u would see tht hes better than u think. I would rather go against Palmer because he stays in the pocket and we know tht hes going to throw, whereas Vick will do wht he thinks is best, run or pass. He might mess up a lot but i think he makes up with big plays when needed.</div> Posts like this make me think that no one reads what I write. Can anyone give a direct answer to a point anymore? How slow must I type for people to keep up? Do they teach math in schools anymore? Why would anyone rather face Carson Palmer, who has TWICE as many yards and touchdowns than Michael Vick? WHY?????? I don't want to hear any nebulous arguments. Save the existentialism for theology class. Somebody give me an argument based in fact. I dare you. I double dog dare you.</div> Can u please type slower Give Carson Palmer the same recievers tht vick has and youll see y he runs so much. U cant have Jenkins as ur #1 reciever for big success in the passing game. Vick has Crumpler but theyll double team him so tht vick runs. Vick should pass way more often but he thinks running works better and i agree. He should play RB if he likes to run tht much! All tht matters right now is tht Vick is winning with the run and there's no reason to stop. Hes not going to get much better at passing but if hes playing the way he is and it works then let him.</div> DD, I can give a direct repsonse, but since i agree we would just be part of the mutual appreciation society. As for the argument that Vick hasnt had the WRs, all he has is 2 first rd RBs in backfield, ALL-pro TE and 3 1st rd pick WRs. Yep, definately getting screwed
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'> Posts like this make me think that no one reads what I write. Can anyone give a direct answer to a point anymore? How slow must I type for people to keep up? Do they teach math in schools anymore? Why would anyone rather face Carson Palmer, who has TWICE as many yards and touchdowns than Michael Vick? WHY?????? I don't want to hear any nebulous arguments. Save the existentialism for theology class. Somebody give me an argument based in fact. I dare you. I double dog dare you.</div> Can u please type slower Give Carson Palmer the same recievers tht vick has and youll see y he runs so much. U cant have Jenkins as ur #1 reciever for big success in the passing game. Vick has Crumpler but theyll double team him so tht vick runs. Vick should pass way more often but he thinks running works better and i agree. He should play RB if he likes to run tht much! All tht matters right now is tht Vick is winning with the run and there's no reason to stop. Hes not going to get much better at passing but if hes playing the way he is and it works then let him.</div> DD, I can give a direct repsonse, but since i agree we would just be part of the mutual appreciation society. As for the argument that Vick hasnt had the WRs, all he has is 2 first rd RBs in backfield, ALL-pro TE and 3 1st rd pick WRs. Yep, definately getting screwed </div> Continuuing the mutual admiration, it all gets back to my initial thoughts in this thread. Vick has got to want to improve and its so obvious he doesn't to even w/ all that talent.
This just in; On NFL Matchup on ESPN. Bill Walsh said Vick lacks consistency. The goobers in the studio mentioned the winning percentage. For which I have 2 words, Jay Feidler.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'> Posts like this make me think that no one reads what I write. Can anyone give a direct answer to a point anymore? How slow must I type for people to keep up? Do they teach math in schools anymore? Why would anyone rather face Carson Palmer, who has TWICE as many yards and touchdowns than Michael Vick? WHY?????? I don't want to hear any nebulous arguments. Save the existentialism for theology class. Somebody give me an argument based in fact. I dare you. I double dog dare you.</div> Can u please type slower Give Carson Palmer the same recievers tht vick has and youll see y he runs so much. U cant have Jenkins as ur #1 reciever for big success in the passing game. Vick has Crumpler but theyll double team him so tht vick runs. Vick should pass way more often but he thinks running works better and i agree. He should play RB if he likes to run tht much! All tht matters right now is tht Vick is winning with the run and there's no reason to stop. Hes not going to get much better at passing but if hes playing the way he is and it works then let him.</div> DD, I can give a direct repsonse, but since i agree we would just be part of the mutual appreciation society. As for the argument that Vick hasnt had the WRs, all he has is 2 first rd RBs in backfield, ALL-pro TE and 3 1st rd pick WRs. Yep, definately getting screwed </div> Ur right every 1st round WR is great! Ryan Leaf was great too! Vick should throw more but he doesnt have tht many GOOD choices. He has Crumpler and white. Im not saying Jenkins is good because he hasnt proven n e thing but its not his fault. He hasnt proven n e thing because he hasnt been thrown the ball lol I dont think Vick really needs to throw it n e way because they have dunn and duckett. they should throw it like 10 times and theyll go undefeated.l Ok maybe not but theyll do better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MysteryMan)</div><div class='quotemain'> Can u please type slower Give Carson Palmer the same recievers tht vick has and youll see y he runs so much. U cant have Jenkins as ur #1 reciever for big success in the passing game. Vick has Crumpler but theyll double team him so tht vick runs. Vick should pass way more often but he thinks running works better and i agree. He should play RB if he likes to run tht much! All tht matters right now is tht Vick is winning with the run and there's no reason to stop. Hes not going to get much better at passing but if hes playing the way he is and it works then let him.</div> DD, I can give a direct repsonse, but since i agree we would just be part of the mutual appreciation society. As for the argument that Vick hasnt had the WRs, all he has is 2 first rd RBs in backfield, ALL-pro TE and 3 1st rd pick WRs. Yep, definately getting screwed </div> Ur right every 1st round WR is great! Ryan Leaf was great too! Vick should throw more but he doesnt have tht many GOOD choices. He has Crumpler and white. Im not saying Jenkins is good because he hasnt proven n e thing but its not his fault. He hasnt proven n e thing because he hasnt been thrown the ball lol I dont think Vick really needs to throw it n e way because they have dunn and duckett. they should throw it like 10 times and theyll go undefeated.l Ok maybe not but theyll do better.</div> Price obviously capable of suceeding as WR with good QB. It was proven. Not saying every WR is quality, but when 1st rder becomes bust by teaming up with vick, and then 2 they drafted both struggle teaming up with vick, and no one on entire depth chart can play well with vick, you dont assume the problem is WR, because you have a trend.
There has been trade rumors about Vick in the offseason. Was this be because Matt Schaub had a great game and actually thrown more often than Vick?
