<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Without Vick the Falcons go from #1 to #22 in rushing. that is not one of the top teams. Everything you said makes no sense at all. They start him to sell tickets. Teams look to win games and you think Matt Schaub would win more games than Mike Vick at QB. You really must not pay any attention to the football then. You think he looks confused. Really you can see his face. I don't think so. In scoring Atlanta finished 16th. Right in the middle of the league. 14th in TD's. Those numbers aren't all that bad.</div> Actually, that would be accurate, except you really should go back and subtract rushing yards of all QBs for every team. See where they are then Also check rushing TDs where they rank once you take away Vick. I did my fact checking thoroughly not just skewing with vick colored glasses like some</div> Funny thing is you made a mistake and now your trying to cover it up. Can you say whoopsy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianWestbrook)</div><div class='quotemain'>When did I ever say the Falcons were a losing team? When did I ever even make that impression? They are a great team, I just think their only weakness is lack of a QB who can throw the ball. McNabb got TO, but before that he had Thrash and Pinkston, and I'd rather have Peerless Price over either of those WR's any day</div> Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was referring just to you. The Falcons big weakness is WR and OL everyone knows that. Thrash and Price are not that different at all. Look how much sucess McNabb had when TO came to town. I think if Vick gets a solid #1 wideout then he will have better sucess. Especially now that he has 1 FULL year under the west coast offense.
<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'>Without Vick the Falcons go from #1 to #22 in rushing. that is not one of the top teams. Everything you said makes no sense at all. They start him to sell tickets. Teams look to win games and you think Matt Schaub would win more games than Mike Vick at QB. You really must not pay any attention to the football then. You think he looks confused. Really you can see his face. I don't think so. In scoring Atlanta finished 16th. Right in the middle of the league. 14th in TD's. Those numbers aren't all that bad.</div> Actually, that would be accurate, except you really should go back and subtract rushing yards of all QBs for every team. See where they are then Also check rushing TDs where they rank once you take away Vick. I did my fact checking thoroughly not just skewing with vick colored glasses like some</div> Funny thing is you made a mistake and now your trying to cover it up. Can you say whoopsy. </div> i stand by it, i will post totals later
From the number of Pro-Vick posts in this thread, it's obvious that not too many people know the meaning of INDISPUTABLE!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'> Actually, that would be accurate, except you really should go back and subtract rushing yards of all QBs for every team. See where they are then Also check rushing TDs where they rank once you take away Vick. I did my fact checking thoroughly not just skewing with vick colored glasses like some</div> Funny thing is you made a mistake and now your trying to cover it up. Can you say whoopsy. </div> i stand by it, i will post totals later</div> Either way we were talking about the Falcons without Mike Vick. Not every team being without their QB. Mike Vick makes a big Difference in the Falcons offense.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'>From the number of Pro-Vick posts in this thread, it's obvious that not too many people know the meaning of INDISPUTABLE! </div> Ok Preacher Boy
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianWestbrook)</div><div class='quotemain'>When did I ever say the Falcons were a losing team? When did I ever even make that impression? They are a great team, I just think their only weakness is lack of a QB who can throw the ball. McNabb got TO, but before that he had Thrash and Pinkston, and I'd rather have Peerless Price over either of those WR's any day</div> Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was referring just to you. The Falcons big weakness is WR and OL everyone knows that. Thrash and Price are not that different at all. Look how much sucess McNabb had when TO came to town. I think if Vick gets a solid #1 wideout then he will have better sucess. Especially now that he has 1 FULL year under the west coast offense.</div> Stop comparing Vick to McNabb before he had TO, McNabb posted WAY better numbers than Vick. You can't say that Vick would have an improvement like McNabb if Vick were to get a WR like TO. What I was pointing out is McNabb would have been able to throw the ball to Peerless Price with ease. Oh and JB, Moulds posted just about the same numbers as Price did in 2002. They're only seperated by 40 yards and one TD, plus Price's higher YPC. Price is a proven reciever, Thrash and Pinkston never were. Stop trashing a WR who was at the rise of his career. It's completely obvious that Vick cannot accurately throw the ball and you know it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>If you have grown weary about arguing with Mike Vick than why post this. Plus Vick has only been a starter for 2 Full seasons. Now granted he is marketable which is why he sells jerseys. I have never heard someone in my life compare him to the likes of a Joe Montana or Tom Brady. If so I would probably get frustrated a lot like you guys seem to be. I have said before this season being his 2nd in the west coast offense will tell you a lot about Mike Vick.The last I saw the Eagles have a good defense. So lets not assume Mike Vick is a bad "QB" but the Eagles had a great defense. In the playoff game the Falcons won Mike Vick went 12 of 16 with 2 TD's and that is a 75 pct of his passes completed. So he has played nice in big games. Every time a team loses usually a QB doesn't play that well. Vick is like any other QB in when his team loses he plays bad but when he plays great his team rolls. hmmmmmmm. Yet Mike Vick is a "BAD" QB. His numbers may not be great all the time but until Mike Vick goes 6-10 or 5-11 as a starter I am not going to say he is a "BAD" player. I am sure you made this post feeling like you would inspire someone sounding like some kind of preacher.</div> I may grow weary, but I'm going to fight the good fight to keep the standards of football greatness sacred. The TRUTH is that Vick has played four years. I won't cut years off his career, to make an excuse for his poor throwing, because he runs around too much and gets injured. Vick needs to learn how to find an open man and quit being a ball hog. I have NEVER claimed to be an ordained preacher though sometimes a special annoiting pours forth and my posts almost write themselves. Some people call it being in the Zone. I'm flattered that you found my post inspirational.
Price had 1 good year and you consider him a proven reciever. Eric Moulds saw double coverages that year and Price got to 1 on 1 all by himself all day long. He can't take the double coverages. Price is not a solid wideout he is a #2. Hey did you no Price only played 1 year with Vick as well. Do you honestly think 1 good year makes you a prove wideout in the NFL because I can answer that for you. It doesn't.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>If you have grown weary about arguing with Mike Vick than why post this. Plus Vick has only been a starter for 2 Full seasons. Now granted he is marketable which is why he sells jerseys. I have never heard someone in my life compare him to the likes of a Joe Montana or Tom Brady. If so I would probably get frustrated a lot like you guys seem to be. I have said before this season being his 2nd in the west coast offense will tell you a lot about Mike Vick.The last I saw the Eagles have a good defense. So lets not assume Mike Vick is a bad "QB" but the Eagles had a great defense. In the playoff game the Falcons won Mike Vick went 12 of 16 with 2 TD's and that is a 75 pct of his passes completed. So he has played nice in big games. Every time a team loses usually a QB doesn't play that well. Vick is like any other QB in when his team loses he plays bad but when he plays great his team rolls. hmmmmmmm. Yet Mike Vick is a "BAD" QB. His numbers may not be great all the time but until Mike Vick goes 6-10 or 5-11 as a starter I am not going to say he is a "BAD" player. I am sure you made this post feeling like you would inspire someone sounding like some kind of preacher.</div> I may grow weary, but I'm going to fight the good fight to keep the standards of football greatness sacred. The TRUTH is that Vick has played four years. I won't cut years off his career, to make an excuse for his poor throwing, because he runs around too much and gets injured. Vick needs to learn how to find an open man and quit being a ball hog. I have NEVER claimed to be an ordained preacher though sometimes a special annoiting pours forth and my posts almost write themselves. Some people call it being in the Zone. I'm flattered that you found my post inspirational.</div> Never said I was inspired by it. BF1 seemed to be though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBry07)</div><div class='quotemain'>He's starting because he has proved to be a winner, and lets face it the Falcons weren't winning before he began starting.</div> They weren't winning before Vick began starting? Who got beat by the Broncos in Super Bowl 33? The TRUTH is that Mora is Wannstedt like in his devotion to Vick and that's why he's starting at QB. The TRUTH is the Dolphins won with Fiedler, but that didn't make Fiedler a winner no matter how many times the whores of media brought up his "successful" win-loss record.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Price had 1 good year and you consider him a proven reciever. Eric Moulds saw double coverages that year and Price got to 1 on 1 all by himself all day long. He can't take the double coverages. Price is not a solid wideout he is a #2. Hey did you no Price only played 1 year with Vick as well. Do you honestly think 1 good year makes you a prove wideout in the NFL because I can answer that for you. It doesn't.</div> The TRUTH is that DolfanDale never said that Price was a proven receiver. I do think that he was certainly an up and coming receiver until he moved to Atlanta and was teamed with a QB that can't throw the football accurately on a consistant basis. However, from where I sit, one good year is still one more good year than Vick has had throwing the football which is what quarterbacks do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'> Actually, that would be accurate, except you really should go back and subtract rushing yards of all QBs for every team. See where they are then Also check rushing TDs where they rank once you take away Vick. I did my fact checking thoroughly not just skewing with vick colored glasses like some</div> Funny thing is you made a mistake and now your trying to cover it up. Can you say whoopsy. </div> i stand by it, i will post totals later</div> Subtracting the QB's rushing yards from every team this is the rushing rankings then 1. Pitt 2320 2. Jets 2262 3. Cheifs 2204 4. Chargers 2132 5. Broncos 2131 6. Pats 2106 7. Seahawks 2005 8. Ravens 1874 9. Packers 1872 10. Giants 1839 11. Bills 1837 12. Colts 1814 13. Texans 1809 14. Bengals 1792 15. Falcons 1770 BF1 you still stand by your word. They drop from 1 to 15 by subtracting all the QB's. That is the middle of the pack. Not the top of the league like your false statement said.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DolfanDale)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Price had 1 good year and you consider him a proven reciever. Eric Moulds saw double coverages that year and Price got to 1 on 1 all by himself all day long. He can't take the double coverages. Price is not a solid wideout he is a #2. Hey did you no Price only played 1 year with Vick as well. Do you honestly think 1 good year makes you a prove wideout in the NFL because I can answer that for you. It doesn't.</div> The TRUTH is that DolfanDale never said that Price was a proven receiver. I do think that he was certainly an up and coming receiver until he moved to Atlanta and was teamed with a QB that can't throw the football accurately on a consistant basis. However, from where I sit, one good year is still one more good year than Vick has had throwing the football which is what quarterbacks do.</div> The Truth is Porky wasn't talking to DolfanDale. Sorry. Ask BrianWestbrooke(post above yours) and his "proven reciever Price"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrianWestbrook)</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh and JB, Moulds posted just about the same numbers as Price did in 2002. They're only seperated by 40 yards and one TD, plus Price's higher YPC. Price is a proven reciever, Thrash and Pinkston never were. Stop trashing a WR who was at the rise of his career. It's completely obvious that Vick cannot accurately throw the ball and you know it.</div> BW. I'm not sure how many times you want me to say that he needs work on his accuracy and passing. I've agreed with that point enough and I'm not arguing that fact so stop bringing it up. Price is not a proven WR, he had ONE 1000+ yard season in Buffalo. Price himself knows he needs to step it up and he wants to remain in Atlanta to do so, and prove that to his critics. Why would Price want to stay in Atlanta if Vick couldn't get him the ball and he thought Vick was the ONLY reason for his decline in numbers? Atleast Price and Vick are bright enough to place the blame on themselves and the other person. Enough said. DolfanDale. When I said the Falcons weren't winning before Vick began starting I was speaking about the time when he was drafted in 2001. I realize they went to the SB game in 1998 and lost to the Broncos.
now i'm skimming over these posts and all this stuff and not that i support Vick at all, i dont think hes a good QB right now. But with his talent you have to be optomistic about him having the potential to be a great player. Players usualy dont hit their prime until 27 so why not give him a couple more years, when hes 30 and doing the same thing as now. I'd say hes a bad qb and never will be a good one. But for now the same thing cant be said. Also another thing heres todays new undisputable fact..... r u ready.... the Falcons were 11-5. Yes with an OK defense and Vick leading the offense they went 11-5. You cant argue with results. And truthfully i dont think Falcon fans really care how good or bad Vick is right now. All they know is that they won 11 games last year and almost made it to the Superbowl. So who cares if Vick is a bad qb and doesnt rack up those passing yards, with 11 wins no one looks at the stats but people who are bored and want to critize someone. cough dolfan cough . so sayeth J-E-T-S 1083
Vick is an exciting player, that is indisputable. I've had the opportunity to watch several games. There are a few truths about Vick as things are right now: 1. He is exciting. 2. He will sell tickets. 3. He does have a strong arm. 4. He has poor decision making and is a bad passer. #4 is the big problem with Vick. Atlanta is changing their entire offense to rotate around Vick, which is dangerous. There is no backup that could even step up to what they are asking Vick to do...in fact, there is probably no other QB that can do what Vick can do. He is a confusing player. He has a lot of skill, but passing is not one of them. From that games I've seen him play, he lacks touch on his passes, and he lacks good decision making. He may improve in these areas, but for now, he hasn't produced enough for me to say that he is a good QB. He's a great athlete, and a good football player, but he needs to modify his skills to become a good QB.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Price had 1 good year and you consider him a proven reciever. Eric Moulds saw double coverages that year and Price got to 1 on 1 all by himself all day long. He can't take the double coverages. Price is not a solid wideout he is a #2. Hey did you no Price only played 1 year with Vick as well. Do you honestly think 1 good year makes you a prove wideout in the NFL because I can answer that for you. It doesn't.</div> Did you ever even watch Price with the Bills? He made amazing catches, and he is a good reciever. Whether or not you ever watched Peerless Price play with a QB who can throw the ball in his general direction, I don't think you realize he is not just a #2 WR. He could be a #1, if he had gone anywhere besides Atlanta. Just because Eric Moulds was on the other side, doesn't mean that Price proved himself in every catch he got. You constantly make him out to be a bum when he is a good receiver that any QB with accuracy could find open quite often
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J-E-T-S 1083)</div><div class='quotemain'>now i'm skimming over these posts and all this stuff and not that i support Vick at all, i dont think hes a good QB right now. But with his talent you have to be optomistic about him having the potential to be a great player. Players usualy dont hit their prime until 27 so why not give him a couple more years, when hes 30 and doing the same thing as now. I'd say hes a bad qb and never will be a good one. But for now the same thing cant be said. Also another thing heres todays new undisputable fact..... r u ready.... the Falcons were 11-5. Yes with an OK defense and Vick leading the offense they went 11-5. You cant argue with results. And truthfully i dont think Falcon fans really care how good or bad Vick is right now. All they know is that they won 11 games last year and almost made it to the Superbowl. So who cares if Vick is a bad qb and doesnt rack up those passing yards, with 11 wins no one looks at the stats but people who are bored and want to critize someone. cough dolfan cough . so sayeth J-E-T-S 1083 </div> I'm not looking to criticize Vick just for fun. I'm almost appauled that my stellar reputation should be impugned in such a manner. However, those of us, who wish to serve as guardians of the world's greatest game, must confront heresy when it raises it's ugly head lest the whores of media turn football fans everywhere into zombies that accept mediocrity as superstardom and regurgitate the hype they constantly being force fed. Who cares if Vick can't throw the football? Falcons fans should. The more that Mora adjusts the offense to makeup for Vick's lack of throwing ability, the less effective an actual QB will be when he has to come in for Vick because Vick has just gotten injured while running around foolishly. I don't hate Michael Vick but it's time to move him to halfback because he can't throw the ball effectively. However, if Falcons fans are satisfied with 11 wins and making the playoffs, but never a championship because there will always be one team good enough to shut down Vick's running, then keep him at QB. The "so sayeth" is a nice touch, J-E-T-S! I've always heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>Vick is an exciting player, that is indisputable. I've had the opportunity to watch several games. There are a few truths about Vick as things are right now: 1. He is exciting. 2. He will sell tickets. 3. He does have a strong arm. 4. He has poor decision making and is a bad passer. #4 is the big problem with Vick. Atlanta is changing their entire offense to rotate around Vick, which is dangerous. There is no backup that could even step up to what they are asking Vick to do...in fact, there is probably no other QB that can do what Vick can do. He is a confusing player. He has a lot of skill, but passing is not one of them. From that games I've seen him play, he lacks touch on his passes, and he lacks good decision making. He may improve in these areas, but for now, he hasn't produced enough for me to say that he is a good QB. He's a great athlete, and a good football player, but he needs to modify his skills to become a good QB.</div> Vikingfan speaks a great deal of TRUTH. The TRUTH is that "there is probably no other QB that can do what Vick can do" because running is the job of a running back. The TRUTH is that Vick "has a lot of skill, but passing is not one of them" which is a shame because passing IS the job of the QB. If the QB can't throw, who is going to? I'm not saying that a QB with running skills can't be an effective weapon. The occasional run has served REAL QBs like McNabb, McNair, Culpepper and Young quite well over the years, but a QB has to be able to throw the football.
