EPTNFL Season 2010 - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
It's the same stupid ass hyperbole that we heard throughout his career. I particularly loved the shit in 2006, where every analyst was gushing that he finally arrived because he threw more than two TDS in a single game for the first time in his fucking career—IN HIS SIXTH SEASON. This was after Vick opened the '06 season by having a QB rating better than 77 once in the first five games that season.... and that two game span accounted for nearly 1/3 of his season's production. To date, Vick has thrown more than 2TDs in a game just twice in his career. When the fuck did that become the mark of a good QB, much less a bottom tier starter?? | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
Teams with him at the helm are not designed to come from behind because his skillset is useless in that situation. Those teams are also boned when (not if) Vick gets hurt because the gameplan has to be tailored to him because he's a lefty bastard with no accuracy. He's a great runner, but it's also the death of him as well. If Vick's run threat was stopped, his team went to shit every single time because his passing skills are that bad. Not to mention what it does for team chemistry when your QB has no intention of ever going past his 2nd read before bolting. VICK KILLED PEERLESS PRICE'S CAREER. Run first QBs don't work in the NFL. He's nothing more than an average, yet exciting player | ||
|
CurLy[]
United States759 Posts
| ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
On September 14 2010 00:23 Hawk wrote: Yeah, but he's also a terrible passer—all his passing stats are lower third of the league each year. You can throw the ball 80 yards but it doesn't matter if you can't regularly hit people. The dude failed to break 55% completion in most seasons (in essence, his career averages are comparable to the 2009 versions of Ryan Fitzpatrick, Delhomme, Cassell, Freeman, Sanchez, Quinn and Russell.) Teams with him at the helm are not designed to come from behind because his skillset is useless in that situation. Those teams are also boned when (not if) Vick gets hurt because the gameplan has to be tailored to him because he's a lefty bastard with no accuracy. He's a great runner, but it's also the death of him as well. If Vick's run threat was stopped, his team went to shit every single time because his passing skills are that bad. Not to mention what it does for team chemistry when your QB has no intention of ever going past his 2nd read before bolting. VICK KILLED PEERLESS PRICE'S CAREER. Run first QBs don't work in the NFL. He's nothing more than an average, yet exciting player He's a terrible passer, but he's a dangerous weapon with his running. How long he can keep it up, who knows, but of all the running QBs in the history of the NFL Vick has been the only one to "make it work" so to speak, at least with consistency even in the playoffs. You won't hear me saying "you have to take into account his rushing" for anyone else, I mean I ragged on VY for his inability to pass, and I praised McNabb for becoming a better passer, but in the case of Vick this guy just runs for like fifty plus yards out of the blue and scores random end-zone TDs. There's a reason why teams salivated over having their own Vick and ushered in a sad generation of QB drafting that overemphasized athleticism over being a QB... his rushing is really that good and significant. And that's why I think it's unfair to call him a bad "QB" because of his terrible passing - of all QBs he's the one guy you have to take into account his rushing stats. And that's just the tip of the iceburg - no other QB demands as much gameplanning and defensive formation shifts as he does. Would it be great if he could throw? Yes, he'd be unstoppable. But he can't, and that's what stops him from being unstoppable and being "above average" (from an overall standpoint). You can also argue whether or not you'd like to have him on your team - the Falcons steamrolled everyone in team rushing every year they had Vick, and a lot of that was because teams had to spread themselves horizontally to contain Vick and spread themselves too thin to properly contain/stop the actual RBs. The unfortunate fact is that the league has evolved (via rule changes etc.) to become more of a passing league, but if great rushing + great defense = success then Vick would be more than sufficient. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 14 2010 00:36 Southlight wrote: He's a terrible passer, but he's a dangerous weapon with his running. How long he can keep it up, who knows, but of all the running QBs in the history of the NFL Vick has been the only one to "make it work" so to speak, at least with consistency even in the playoffs. You won't hear me saying "you have to take into account his rushing" for anyone else, I mean I ragged on VY for his inability to pass, and I praised McNabb for becoming a better passer, but in the case of Vick this guy just runs for like fifty plus yards out of the blue and scores random end-zone TDs. There's a reason why teams salivated over having their own Vick and ushered in a sad generation of QB drafting that overemphasized athleticism over being a QB... his rushing is really that good and significant. And that's why I think it's unfair to call him a bad "QB" because of his terrible passing - of all QBs he's the one guy you have to take into account his rushing stats. And that's just the tip of the iceburg - no other QB demands as much gameplanning and defensive formation shifts as he does. Would it be great if he could throw? Yes, he'd be unstoppable. But he can't, and that's what stops him from being unstoppable and being "above average" (from an overall standpoint). You can also argue whether or not you'd like to have him on your team - the Falcons steamrolled everyone in team rushing every year they had Vick, and a lot of that was because teams had to spread themselves horizontally to contain Vick and spread themselves too thin to properly contain/stop the actual RBs. The unfortunate fact is that the league has evolved (via rule changes etc.) to become more of a passing league, but if great rushing + great defense = success then Vick would be more than sufficient. How many rings has a run first QB won? Right, zero. It's not working well enough, apparently. He's had some absolutely magnificent teams around him, too. The problem is that he can't pass. Yes, he will win games with his legs for you, but inevitably, there will come a point that he is forced to pass the ball, and when that comes, he simply cannot do it. Case in point 2004 NFC Championship. The Eagles contained Vick, and dominated the shit out of him and the Falcons. The Bears regularly destroyed Vick because of an athletic line backing corps. Week 15 in 2005, for instance. Vick got smacked around early on, contained fairly well, and was forced to throw in an attempt to bring his team back from behind. What happened? 13/32 122 yds happened. The proof is in the pudding; yes, he has won a lot of games, but when the game is on the line and the team needs him to step up, he repeatedly lets them down. As to "no other QB demands as much game planning and defensive formation shifts as he does," have you heard of a guy named Peyton Manning? Have you seen the things the Ravens, Steelers, Jets, and Patriots try to do to this guy to disrupt him? There is significantly more game planning done against Peyton than against Vick. The same can probably be said for Brees now too. They're easily the two most feared QB's in the league, and I'd say the fear is greater than it was against Vick... for one reason: even when they're down, they aren't out. Vick's legs couldn't carry a team to a come from behind victory the majority of the time, but these guys' arms do it all the time. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 13 2010 12:59 Musoeun wrote: Honestly I didn't mean to complain about that call, it was a solid call - but I guess you're right, the complaint in general was provoked by my attitude towards referees today. Well, not referees so much as rules. I actually expected Chicago to win by about 15, so either 1) Lions' defense is decent for a change, 2) Martz has lost his touch, 3) Cutler is bad, or 4) Martz' system won't work without actual receivers on the team. With what I saw today, I'm thinking #4 is the most likely answer. Not sure what's with Dallas - Washington didn't win that at all, Cowboys lost. Yeah, I've been there my fair share of times. Anyone who has read the older NFL threads can attest to that (me going on unwarranted tangents because I was mad about something else that happened, or whatever). As to the Bears, you're missing a key stat: four turnovers. If you take away three of them, because the one was an awful pass that deserved to be intercepted, then the complexion of the game is changed completely. Most Chicago fans believe it's the end of the season for the Bears because they didn't blow the Lions out, but I'm not one of those people, because I think the turnover mistakes will be corrected. Forte typically doesn't fumble. He had some struggles last year, but he was injured all year so I think you give him a pass. He fumbled once his rookie year. Olsen has fumbled three times in his career now. There's not too much to be concerned about on that end, imo. There are two glaring problems, both coming from the same source, the running game, and pass protection. Forte averaged a pathetic 2.9 ypc yesterday, and Taylor averaged 3.2 ypc. Cutler was running for his life most of the game, and when they had extra protection, there were so many guys in coverage the WR's couldn't break free (plus they aren't good enough to do so). So the source is obvious, the offensive line. Cutler's fumble is partially his fault, because he did hold the ball for a long time (though probably no one was open), but more so it was Omayele's fault, because he couldn't block the guy he was supposed to block. That was a two route play, max protection, and they still got a sack-strip on Cutler. How pathetic is that? But, overall, the offense looked pretty solid. You don't put up 463 yards and not look good at times. Agreed on the Washington/Dallas thing. Looked like more of the same from Washington, and I guess more of the same from Dallas... only earlier than we're accustomed to seeing it. Shock of the week, imo, goes to Seattle. Granted, I've said before that I didn't think they were necessarily a bad team, more so an injured team, but they put the hurt on SF this week. Time will tell if they can keep it up... what a sorry-ass division though. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
On September 14 2010 01:41 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: How many rings has a run first QB won? Right, zero. It's not working well enough, apparently. He's had some absolutely magnificent teams around him, too. The problem is that he can't pass. Yes, he will win games with his legs for you, but inevitably, there will come a point that he is forced to pass the ball, and when that comes, he simply cannot do it. Case in point 2004 NFC Championship. The Eagles contained Vick, and dominated the shit out of him and the Falcons. The Bears regularly destroyed Vick because of an athletic line backing corps. Week 15 in 2005, for instance. Vick got smacked around early on, contained fairly well, and was forced to throw in an attempt to bring his team back from behind. What happened? 13/32 122 yds happened. The proof is in the pudding; yes, he has won a lot of games, but when the game is on the line and the team needs him to step up, he repeatedly lets them down. As to "no other QB demands as much game planning and defensive formation shifts as he does," have you heard of a guy named Peyton Manning? Have you seen the things the Ravens, Steelers, Jets, and Patriots try to do to this guy to disrupt him? There is significantly more game planning done against Peyton than against Vick. The same can probably be said for Brees now too. They're easily the two most feared QB's in the league, and I'd say the fear is greater than it was against Vick... for one reason: even when they're down, they aren't out. Vick's legs couldn't carry a team to a come from behind victory the majority of the time, but these guys' arms do it all the time. A lot of Vicks success was just that there's little incentive for teams to have personnel to deal with fast QBs because there's so few in the league really. None actually start regularly... and Vick always got crushed against fast D's who'd contain him because of that lack of passing. He succeeded because teams built to stop either traditional backs or shut down the passing game. I get what southlight is saying about adding in the running factor get a better image and I do that. Even if you just wanted to cut it as dry as total yardage (pass + run yards), he still falls right around the 3,000 yard mark for almost every year as a full starter. Like 04-05, 3,200k (900 rushing) Total yards, 17 total TD (3 Rush) 19 Total turnovers (12 INT). He went to the pro bowl with these shitty stats . In terms of total yards and TD:Turnover he was most comparable that season to: Vinny Testaverde, David Carr, Kerry Collins, Matt Hasselback and Joey Harrington. All average to below average starters. His 2002 season was the only one in which he resembled a QB instead of an HB that can throw the ball far. I just can't consider anyone that has those statistical peers and plays that poorly vs fast defenses to be anything other than average. I was intrigued when the Eagles first go him, because I really did think they'd use a backfield of McNabb, Vick and Westbrook a lot and cause chaos. I figured that's how he'd actually be best effective, since defenses can't stack against the team for the run or pass. But I don;'t know if he'd be effective with a scripted run play, since a lot of his success comes from improvising... | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
http://twitter.com/espn_nfceast/statuses/24404410433 http://twitter.com/ChrisJohnson28/statuses/24411752325 And about Laron Landy (Redskins S) celebrating on his 17 tackles: But maybe it's so ingrained in our heads that he does this that we see it even when it doesn't happen. I just watched all 17 of Landry's tackles Sunday night. After eight of them, he either strutted, posed, or exchanged obvious words with the tackled player. After one of them, he made like some sort of classical statue, seen above. And after eight of them, he appeared to do nothing except walk back to the huddle. Edit: Also, Sweet, there can't be a running QB to win a SB because my whole point is that Vick is (thus far, and probably for a long time will be) one of a kind. No running QB has the effect of Vick at his peak. Not even close. And Vick has obviously never won. Will we ever know if he could have? The real damn shame is that it's unlikely we'll ever know because he got tossed in jail and thus off a team that was devoted to building around him. He never had the chance of a full proper career to try, unless he becomes a bonafide starter from this point onward. And of course, it's always going to be hard to pin everything on a QB when it comes to whether the team can win a SB or not. For a long time it wasn't like Peyton Manning was a shit QB when it came to him never winning a SB, they (as a team) just couldn't get it done. Is it McNabb's fault he never won a SB? Yet I would argue McNabb is a SB-caliber QB, and has been for a pretty significant amount of time. If Shanahan hadn't happened to Elway we could be arguing about Elway and Montana as well, downgrading their qualities as QBs because they "never won the SB." We can also debate the importance of a QB (ie. Manning) when it comes to these sort of results, and if we disagree I doubt we'd actually come to an agreement on it, so we should just not go there  Edit2: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing Vick is on that level. My point is that in the history of the NFL (AFAIK) there's been no one remotely like Vick, and the excitement (and root of debate) was over whether he could carry teams deep into the playoffs on an annual basis. Because to date, I (and many others) felt that Vick was a once in several generations talent. Yes, there're fast QBs coming out of college, but none of them can shake defenders like Vick. That's just incredible, not even many speedbacks can pull that off (see: Bush, Reggie). He generated massive interest because he was like the poster child of the "other side of QBs" and it's unlikely we'll see another one again any time soon. He was going to be the one that either proved to people that it could work (the run-based offense) or would prove that it just wouldn't translate to the NFL. Amusingly enough, I feel like times have changed, and we don't need a Vick to prove that gimmicky offenses can work in the NFL (Wildcat, Titans running option, etc.) but there's still the excitement and question marks regarding the viability a run-first QB that could actually shake defenders in the NFL. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
Aquafresh
United States824 Posts
On September 13 2010 23:45 Hawk wrote: It's the same stupid ass hyperbole that we heard throughout his career. I particularly loved the shit in 2006, where every analyst was gushing that he finally arrived because he threw more than two TDS in a single game for the first time in his fucking career—IN HIS SIXTH SEASON. This was after Vick opened the '06 season by having a QB rating better than 77 once in the first five games that season.... and that two game span accounted for nearly 1/3 of his season's production. I remember him throwing 4 TDs against the Steelers that year (2006 was when they were a mess, concussed Big Ben giving up short fields, defense was injured etc) and ESPN was talking about how he had "arrived." I think he even almost threw the game away with a few bad picks. Regardless he's always sucked real bad. Low YPA, low percentage passer, lots of INTs considering how little he actually threw, rush yards hardly mattered most of the time considering how many sacks he took, fumbled a lot, shut down by modest defenses, etc. I remember it being popular to blame his receivers, but then as soon as he left and they started running more traditional passers out there guys like Roddy White exploded for huge seasons. I always found it funny how the Falcons traded up with San Diego to take Vick, who ended up taking Tomlinson AND Brees with the picks they got. EDIT: Also it turns out that if you take all Vicks rush attempts and treat them as completed passes he still turns out to be a shitty QB. This doesn't even take into account the fact that when a rush fails it goes down as a sack and thus does not hurt his average. | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:21 Southlight wrote: Hilarity from week 1: http://twitter.com/espn_nfceast/statuses/24404410433 http://twitter.com/ChrisJohnson28/statuses/24411752325 And about Laron Landy (Redskins S) celebrating on his 17 tackles: + Show Spoiler + Edit: Also, Sweet, there can't be a running QB to win a SB because my whole point is that Vick is (thus far, and probably for a long time will be) one of a kind. No running QB has the effect of Vick at his peak. Not even close. And Vick has obviously never won. Will we ever know if he could have? The real damn shame is that it's unlikely we'll ever know because he got tossed in jail and thus off a team that was devoted to building around him. He never had the chance of a full proper career to try, unless he becomes a bonafide starter from this point onward. And of course, it's always going to be hard to pin everything on a QB when it comes to whether the team can win a SB or not. For a long time it wasn't like Peyton Manning was a shit QB when it came to him never winning a SB, they (as a team) just couldn't get it done. Is it McNabb's fault he never won a SB? Yet I would argue McNabb is a SB-caliber QB, and has been for a pretty significant amount of time. If Shanahan hadn't happened to Elway we could be arguing about Elway and Montana as well, downgrading their qualities as QBs because they "never won the SB." We can also debate the importance of a QB (ie. Manning) when it comes to these sort of results, and if we disagree I doubt we'd actually come to an agreement on it, so we should just not go there Edit2: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing Vick is on that level. My point is that in the history of the NFL (AFAIK) there's been no one remotely like Vick, and the excitement (and root of debate) was over whether he could carry teams deep into the playoffs on an annual basis. Because to date, I (and many others) felt that Vick was a once in several generations talent. Yes, there're fast QBs coming out of college, but none of them can shake defenders like Vick. That's just incredible, not even many speedbacks can pull that off (see: Bush, Reggie). He generated massive interest because he was like the poster child of the "other side of QBs" and it's unlikely we'll see another one again any time soon. He was going to be the one that either proved to people that it could work (the run-based offense) or would prove that it just wouldn't translate to the NFL. Amusingly enough, I feel like times have changed, and we don't need a Vick to prove that gimmicky offenses can work in the NFL (Wildcat, Titans running option, etc.) but there's still the excitement and question marks regarding the viability a run-first QB that could actually shake defenders in the NFL. No, dude... he had plenty of time to prove his thing could work. He was drafted in '01, and was booted out of the NFL in '07. It didn't take us that long to call Ryan Leif a bust, Matt Leinart, Jamarcus Russel (what a fucking retarded first name, JAmarcus, why can't it just be Marcus? That shit drives me crazy), and the list goes on. Six years is more than enough time to show whether or not he has it in him. His teams were good; he had decent receiving options, and, at the time, one of the best pass catching TE's in the league. That team had everything around them to be great, and they couldn't get it done. Year after year they failed, miserably. Why should Michael Vick get more time to prove that his style could work than other people got to fail at already proven styles? They HAD the teams, but HE had a fatal flaw... he can't pass. Fast defenses shut him down regularly; it wasn't a freak happening when a fast team spied him with their fastest player and stopped him from running amok. It wasn't a freak thing when his team was down that he couldn't bring him back. You, and it seems all of his other fans, are caught up in the hype and excitement of the player more than his actual skills. He's a freakish athlete, but it just doesn't work. If the root of the debate is whether or not he could REGULARLY carry a team deep into the playoffs, the answer has already been given, and it was a resounding no. He couldn't do it. He couldn't do it with decent teams. The year of his suspension, the Falcons passing game came to life. The year after that, with two additions to the offense (Turner and Ryan), their team was considered one of the better in the NFC. The difference between the '08 Falcons and the '06 Falcons? Vick wasn't there to fuck it up with his inability to pass. 2003, 2005, 2006 the Falcons missed the playoffs with <.500 records. He made the playoffs twice, losing in the divisional round in '02, and in the Championship in '04, a game which completely exposed his lack of throwing ability, because the Eagles stopped the run. Having Vick was hardly different than having a fantastic HB and no QB to back him up. On September 14 2010 07:32 choboPEon wrote: I'm a Jets fan but if Ray Lewis doesn't at least attempt to maim someone tonight, the game will not have lived up to its hype. It's gonna be the same shit it always is. They're two hard hitting teams though, so at least we'll get that out of them, but I don't think they're going to try exceptionally harder on either side. | ||
|
lewik
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32106 Posts
On September 14 2010 06:21 Southlight wrote: Hilarity from week 1: http://twitter.com/espn_nfceast/statuses/24404410433 http://twitter.com/ChrisJohnson28/statuses/24411752325 And about Laron Landy (Redskins S) celebrating on his 17 tackles: Edit: Also, Sweet, there can't be a running QB to win a SB because my whole point is that Vick is (thus far, and probably for a long time will be) one of a kind. No running QB has the effect of Vick at his peak. Not even close. And Vick has obviously never won. Will we ever know if he could have? The real damn shame is that it's unlikely we'll ever know because he got tossed in jail and thus off a team that was devoted to building around him. He never had the chance of a full proper career to try, unless he becomes a bonafide starter from this point onward. And of course, it's always going to be hard to pin everything on a QB when it comes to whether the team can win a SB or not. For a long time it wasn't like Peyton Manning was a shit QB when it came to him never winning a SB, they (as a team) just couldn't get it done. Is it McNabb's fault he never won a SB? Yet I would argue McNabb is a SB-caliber QB, and has been for a pretty significant amount of time. If Shanahan hadn't happened to Elway we could be arguing about Elway and Montana as well, downgrading their qualities as QBs because they "never won the SB." We can also debate the importance of a QB (ie. Manning) when it comes to these sort of results, and if we disagree I doubt we'd actually come to an agreement on it, so we should just not go there Edit2: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing Vick is on that level. My point is that in the history of the NFL (AFAIK) there's been no one remotely like Vick, and the excitement (and root of debate) was over whether he could carry teams deep into the playoffs on an annual basis. Because to date, I (and many others) felt that Vick was a once in several generations talent. Yes, there're fast QBs coming out of college, but none of them can shake defenders like Vick. That's just incredible, not even many speedbacks can pull that off (see: Bush, Reggie). He generated massive interest because he was like the poster child of the "other side of QBs" and it's unlikely we'll see another one again any time soon. He was going to be the one that either proved to people that it could work (the run-based offense) or would prove that it just wouldn't translate to the NFL. Amusingly enough, I feel like times have changed, and we don't need a Vick to prove that gimmicky offenses can work in the NFL (Wildcat, Titans running option, etc.) but there's still the excitement and question marks regarding the viability a run-first QB that could actually shake defenders in the NFL. Yeah I always hate the KISS THE RINGS argument, thats why i didnt go there haha. Always loved Peyton and I thought for a while he'd be this generation's Marino. Def agree though that there's no one like Vick. Cunningham at his peak was maybe the closest thing. But even he was just a threat for a quick first or maybe a big chunk. Vick is an endzone threat anytime he runs Flacco got murdered on his first carry | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
Make that 3) Has there been a single good game yet this season? | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
Picks everywhere. | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
On September 14 2010 08:06 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: You, and it seems all of his other fans, are caught up in the hype and excitement of the player more than his actual skills. He's a freakish athlete, but it just doesn't work. If the root of the debate is whether or not he could REGULARLY carry a team deep into the playoffs, the answer has already been given, and it was a resounding no. He couldn't do it. He couldn't do it with decent teams. The year of his suspension, the Falcons passing game came to life. The year after that, with two additions to the offense (Turner and Ryan), their team was considered one of the better in the NFC. The difference between the '08 Falcons and the '06 Falcons? Vick wasn't there to fuck it up with his inability to pass. 2003, 2005, 2006 the Falcons missed the playoffs with <.500 records. He made the playoffs twice, losing in the divisional round in '02, and in the Championship in '04, a game which completely exposed his lack of throwing ability, because the Eagles stopped the run. Having Vick was hardly different than having a fantastic HB and no QB to back him up. His skill is that he ran for 1000 yards during 2006, totaling over 3400 yards of offense. That's comparable to pretty good QBs. That year they smashed everyone with a ridiculous 5.5 ypc team average http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/year/2006 Again, it's debateable, as he'd played in an era where rules were changing to more and more favor the passing game (it's not surprise that since the early 2000s SBs were won more and more by established stud QBs and less by the Trent Dilfers) that a ridiculous running game + defense is enough. And you could certainly argue that as he tried to pass more his ball security (which he was very good at earlier in his career, ironically) became suspect, and the turnovers would kill a team that's based on running and defending. But saying he lacked skills is a joke. He had skills. Whether they were fit for a SB-calibur team's QB who knows, but if any running QB would do it, it was going to be him, and him alone. His whole career was supposed to be The Great Experiment. But it was not to be. | ||
|
Aquafresh
United States824 Posts
On September 14 2010 09:54 Southlight wrote: Again, it's debateable, as he'd played in an era where rules were changing to more and more favor the passing game (it's not surprise that since the early 2000s SBs were won more and more by established stud QBs and less by the Trent Dilfers) that a ridiculous running game + defense is enough. And you could certainly argue that as he tried to pass more his ball security (which he was very good at earlier in his career, ironically) became suspect, and the turnovers would kill a team that's based on running and defending. Ahh the Trent Dilfer argument. I think whenever he is mentioned to support a point there is a good chance the point is wrong. IE Big Ben is no good, even Trent Dilfer won a Super bowl!, or passing has become much more important since 2000, when guys like Trent Dilfer could win a Super Bowl. Here's the thing. Trent Dilfer would have been a huge outlier in any era. The guys that won super bowls from 95-2000? Off the top of my head Favre, Elway, Elway, Warner, Dilfer. One of these things is not like the other. From then on we have Brady, Johnson, Brady, Brady, Big Ben. Same story. Seems like you always needed a stud passer to win a Superbowl. At least since the late 70s when the rules truly changed. Teams that didn't have great QBs either had innovative coaching (Gibbs Redskins) or historically good defenses (Ravens/Bucs). It is true that the rules have changed to favor passing since the early 2000s, but this is very tiny compared to the huge rules changes that originally sparked the trend in the late 70s. Vick and the 5 or so Falcons teams that were built around him certainly can't blame rules changes for their failures. On September 14 2010 09:54 Southlight wrote: That year they smashed everyone with a ridiculous 5.5 ypc team average Well as I said before 5.5 ypc is disingenuous because of how Vick's stats are counted. It is impossible for a QB to be given negative yardage on a failed run, only on a kneel down. Therefore any failed scrambles that resulted in sacks (of which he had a lot) don't count against his rushing average. In 2006 several teams had scarier running games than they did, the LT led chargers for example, or the Giants behind Barber. Vick's runs can not be counted on for consistent yardage. I guess their 7-9 record can attest to that. On September 14 2010 09:54 Southlight wrote: His skill is that he ran for 1000 yards during 2006, totaling over 3400 yards of offense. That's comparable to pretty good QBs. You haven't considered that these extra 1000 yards took a significant amount of attempts to gain. When you account for that you find that he averaged about 6.7 yards per attempt between his passing and his running. 6.7 ypa makes him comparable to drum roll .................................. + Show Spoiler + Trent Dilfer. | ||
| ||
