August 15, 200917 yr And you are obviously a fan of him so your view is just as slanted as mine. And Roddy White got better because Vick was gone. White had two years with Vick (05 and 06) and he never had more than around 500 yards. He's had two years without Vick as well, and he's had over 1,200 yards each year without him. I'm not as much of a fan of him as you may think. I just don't harbor any grudges against him for his past indiscretions. I'm not using his mistake(s) to hate on him. To say he wasn't one of the best athletes ever in the NFL is laughable to me. Regardless of whether anyone liked him or not, you'd have to be blind to his talent and ability. As far as Roddy White, IMO, that is more coincidence than anything else. So many times I watched White and Jenkins drop balls that Vick put in their hands. IMO, it's coincidental that he focused on becoming an NFL receiver after Vick got in trouble. I also remember Crumpler being one of the top 5 tight ends under Vick and gawd awful without Vick.
August 15, 200917 yr I'm not as much of a fan of him as you may think. I just don't harbor any grudges against him for his past indiscretions. I'm not using his mistake(s) to hate on him. To say he wasn't one of the best athletes ever in the NFL is laughable to me. Regardless of whether anyone liked him or not, you'd have to be blind to his talent and ability. As far as Roddy White, IMO, that is more coincidence than anything else. So many times I watched White and Jenkins drop balls that Vick put in their hands. IMO, it's coincidental that he focused on becoming an NFL receiver after Vick got in trouble. I also remember Crumpler being one of the top 5 tight ends under Vick and gawd awful without Vick. I can agree that Vick is talented, but talent doesn't always translate to the field. He was not a top 10 QB IMO. He could run very well with the ball, but his passing abilities were not good at all. He had a strong arm, yes, but he was not accurate at all. His best completion percentage was 56% but he averaged around 53.8%. That's not good. He is talented, there is no arguing that. But he is not the player some of you make him out to be.
August 15, 200917 yr First of all, I never said or implied that Ward or any other receiver (Randel El) were bad receivers. I said they were not "very good". Meaning that they are not top 10 or even top 15 WR's imo. I was as specific as I needed to be. Wide receiver is the easiest? According to who? You? Are you an NFL expert? Because I've read at least a few times that it's one of the hardest positions in the NFL to learn in your first year at the position. Most rookies struggle at wide receiver, but you see many rookie running backs do well. Matt Forte is one example of a very good rookie running back. Chris Johnson is another... And who says Vick has all of this knowledge of coverage, seeing the field etc. He wasn't a very good QB :lol:. He never had a QB rating over 81 (only hit the 80's once) and he never threw for more than 20 TD's. He also never threw for more than 2900 yards in a season. He was a running QB who couldn't pass very well. I think you'd be hard pressed to find 15 better WR than Hines Ward in the NFL. You have to remember that he is in a running offense. No NFL expert, it's just common sense. The only difference for WR transition is that some WR do not run full route trees in college, like say a Percy Harvin (who I think will turn out pretty good). Maybe Vick wasn't a great passer because of the lack of talent around him. Crumpler is a good target, but Peerless Price and the other garbage around him didn't scream a top 15 passing attack in the league to me. Once again saying Mike Vick wasn't a good QB is crazy to me. You cannot measure a QB simply by stats. You have to take into account how they win, who they win with, and the effect they have on their offense. With Vick, the Falcons were one of the top rushing teams in the league on a consistent basis. I'm sorry but Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett couldn't have done that on their own. The Falcons did win some games with Vick, including in the playoffs. The Vick of a few years ago could really only realistically be taken behind 6 or 7 QB's in the league, tops. Manning, Brady, Brees, Big Ben (Vick's better but it's hard to argue with the Super Bowls), McNabb (I think Vick was better but once again it's hard to argue with the wins). Who else? Maybe Eli, but until the Playoffs two years ago people thought he was a bust. Rivers? No way? Cutler? Nope. Warner is interesting, but he isn't as consistent as I'd like. Once again, Vick completing even 52% of his passes is the same, or better than Eli Manning hitting 60% because of what he gives you on the ground, not only for himself but for the other backs in the backfield. People are too old school. It would be different if the results on the field proved otherwise, but I think taking a bottom 6 or 7 team talent wise and making them relevant speaks volumes about Vick as a QB. So what if Vick wasn't Peyton Manning, he didn't have to be. It's sickening that people think that there is only one way to play the game in the NFL. Why was Vick so bad? Because he didn't sit back in the pocket? The Falcons shortcomings under MV had little to do with him as a player. The Vick of a few years ago was a once in a generation player. He was a winner and a great player, whether he was the standard, boring, drop back passer or not. It's about the wins....most of the time. It's why Montana is considered better than Marino, though statistically you would have to take Marino. I have a few theories, but they are for another time and place.
August 15, 200917 yr I think you'd be hard pressed to find 15 better WR than Hines Ward in the NFL. You have to remember that he is in a running offense. So what if Vick wasn't Peyton Manning, he didn't have to be. It's sickening that people think that there is only one way to play the game in the NFL. Why was Vick so bad? Because he didn't sit back in the pocket? The Falcons shortcomings under MV had little to do with him as a player. I can name 15 I'd rather have over Ward right now. Larry Fitzgerald Randy Moss Anquan Boldin Steve Smith Roddy White Calvin Johnson Greg Jennings Brandon Marshall Antonio Bryant Wes Welker Reggie Wayne Terrell Owens Lee Evans Santana Moss Vincent Jackson No NFL expert, it's just common sense. The only difference for WR transition is that some WR do not run full route trees in college, like say a Percy Harvin (who I think will turn out pretty good). Common sense tells you that being a wide receiver should be easy huh? That's not what I've read. I found an article supporting my thoughts. Wide receivers seem to have a pretty clear-cut job description: Run routes, get open, catch passes, score touchdowns. Do it in college, there's no reason you can't do it in the pros. But here's the catch: More than almost any other position, collegiate receiving stars fail in the NFL. Of the 39 receivers selected in the first three rounds of the last three NFL Drafts, only 14 have had an impact. "The college game and the NFL game are so different, it's not even comparable," said former Pahokee High School and Florida State standout Anquan Boldin, who beat the odds by catching 101 passes as a rookie after being Arizona's second-round pick in 2003. "You have the playbook, speed of the game, nuances of defenses, route-running, trying to learn zone coverages, man coverages. There's a lot that goes into it."... ..."It's the hardest position to evaluate in the draft," said former NFL executive Michael Lombardi, now a columnist with the Web site National Football Post. Hall of Famer Michael Irvin, who caught 750 passes for nearly 12,000 yards in his 12 years with Dallas, said almost every receiver coming to the NFL is in for a surprise. "They're used to being able to run by defensive backs," Irvin said. "In the league, you're never going to run by guys, so you have to learn how to catch passes with a guy on you as close as your shirt. "The whole idea of all that contact and focusing on the ball, while trying to get off the line of scrimmage, it's rough on young guys," Irvin said... "It takes three years to figure out what you're doing out there," he said. "Young receivers tend to stare at the spot they're going to make their cut when they line up. Defensive backs know that and react to it, so you learn to stare at another spot. "At what point during a game am I going to line up and run a 40-yard sprint?'' Irvin said. "And jumping: It's not enough just to jump high. Does he know when to jump? So you have to take some of the numbers with a grain of salt." Like I said before, I don't think he'll have an easy time transitioning to wide receiver if that's what the Eagles try. LINK to that article Maybe Vick wasn't a great passer because of the lack of talent around him. Crumpler is a good target, but Peerless Price and the other garbage around him didn't scream a top 15 passing attack in the league to me. Vick's last two years he had Roddy White and Alge Crumpler. he didn't always have junk. And you don't always have to have great receivers to show you are a great passer. Once again saying Mike Vick wasn't a good QB is crazy to me. You cannot measure a QB simply by stats. You have to take into account how they win, who they win with, and the effect they have on their offense. With Vick, the Falcons were one of the top rushing teams in the league on a consistent basis. I'm sorry but Warrick Dunn and TJ Duckett couldn't have done that on their own. The Falcons did win some games with Vick, including in the playoffs. And I'll stand by my opinion that Vick was not a very good QB. If he was as good as you make him out to be, and he isn't going to be a distraction...why didn't more teams want him? Why did so many teams refuse to even consider the idea of signing Vick? The Vick of a few years ago could really only realistically be taken behind 6 or 7 QB's in the league, tops. Manning, Brady, Brees, Big Ben (Vick's better but it's hard to argue with the Super Bowls), McNabb (I think Vick was better but once again it's hard to argue with the wins). Who else? Maybe Eli, but until the Playoffs two years ago people thought he was a bust. Rivers? No way? Cutler? Nope. Warner is interesting, but he isn't as consistent as I'd like. I'd take Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brees, Big Ben, McNabb, Eli Manning, Cutler, Rivers, Warner, Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo, Matt Cassell, Matt Ryan, Matt Schaub all over the Vick from 2 years ago. Maybe more... I'd take even more than that over Vick right now. I wouldn't want Vick anywhere near my team. You say "no way" to Rivers...but Rivers had 34 TD's and 11 INTS last year. Far better than any year Vick has ever had. And anyone who considered Eli a bust before the 2007 season is impatient. He had only started 2 years, and went 11-5 and 8-8 in those two years. He then went 10-6 and went on one of the greatest runs in NFL playoff history with his team. After that he led his team to a 12-4 record, better than any record Vick's teams have ever had. Eli has never missed the playoffs as an NFL starter...he's better than Vick. Same for the rest of the QB's I mentioned. They're all better than Vick. Once again, Vick completing even 52% of his passes is the same, or better than Eli Manning hitting 60% because of what he gives you on the ground, not only for himself but for the other backs in the backfield. People are too old school. It would be different if the results on the field proved otherwise, but I think taking a bottom 6 or 7 team talent wise and making them relevant speaks volumes about Vick as a QB. I disagree that Vick had consistently bad teams. The Vick of a few years ago was a once in a generation player. He was a winner and a great player, whether he was the standard, boring, drop back passer or not. It's about the wins....most of the time. It's why Montana is considered better than Marino, though statistically you would have to take Marino. I have a few theories, but they are for another time and place. Vick never made it past the 2nd round. His name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Marino or Montana. He's no where near their talent. It takes more than just being athletic in the NFL but imo that's all Vick has. He could prove me wrong, come in and take McNabb's job and lead the Eagles to the super bowl as their QB. But I seriously doubt that will happen.
August 15, 200917 yr I can agree that Vick is talented, but talent doesn't always translate to the field. He was not a top 10 QB IMO. He could run very well with the ball, but his passing abilities were not good at all. He had a strong arm, yes, but he was not accurate at all. His best completion percentage was 56% but he averaged around 53.8%. That's not good. He is talented, there is no arguing that. But he is not the player some of you make him out to be. I disagree with your evaluation of Ward, but admittedly I am biased. I agree with most of your other posts on this thread however. :thumb: I would add that most players that have had a taste of playing QB in the NFL, if not all, are not willing to take on another position. Edited August 15, 200917 yr by JPP typo
August 15, 200917 yr I can name 15 I'd rather have over Ward right now. Larry Fitzgerald Randy Moss Anquan Boldin Steve Smith Roddy White Calvin Johnson Greg Jennings Brandon Marshall Antonio Bryant Wes Welker Reggie Wayne Terrell Owens Lee Evans Santana Moss Vincent Jackson Common sense tells you that being a wide receiver should be easy huh? That's not what I've read. I found an article supporting my thoughts. Like I said before, I don't think he'll have an easy time transitioning to wide receiver if that's what the Eagles try. LINK to that article Vick's last two years he had Roddy White and Alge Crumpler. he didn't always have junk. And you don't always have to have great receivers to show you are a great passer. And I'll stand by my opinion that Vick was not a very good QB. If he was as good as you make him out to be, and he isn't going to be a distraction...why didn't more teams want him? Why did so many teams refuse to even consider the idea of signing Vick? I'd take Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brees, Big Ben, McNabb, Eli Manning, Cutler, Rivers, Warner, Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo, Matt Cassell, Matt Ryan, Matt Schaub all over the Vick from 2 years ago. Maybe more... I'd take even more than that over Vick right now. I wouldn't want Vick anywhere near my team. You say "no way" to Rivers...but Rivers had 34 TD's and 11 INTS last year. Far better than any year Vick has ever had. And anyone who considered Eli a bust before the 2007 season is impatient. He had only started 2 years, and went 11-5 and 8-8 in those two years. He then went 10-6 and went on one of the greatest runs in NFL playoff history with his team. After that he led his team to a 12-4 record, better than any record Vick's teams have ever had. Eli has never missed the playoffs as an NFL starter...he's better than Vick. Same for the rest of the QB's I mentioned. They're all better than Vick. I disagree that Vick had consistently bad teams. Vick never made it past the 2nd round. His name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Marino or Montana. He's no where near their talent. It takes more than just being athletic in the NFL but imo that's all Vick has. He could prove me wrong, come in and take McNabb's job and lead the Eagles to the super bowl as their QB. But I seriously doubt that will happen. While I agree with most of those WR, some are a stretch. Hines Ward is in the top 15-20 WR range in the NFL. Are all of those WR future HOF players? I say no. Ward most likely is. As for Crumpler and Roddy White, Crumpler was better (as PP said) with Vick, and Roddy White was garbage when Vick was there. His rep was that he could not catch. The old Vick, you know the one who set an NFL record for Rushing Yards by a Quarterback in a season, was better than Phillip Rivers, Tony Romo, or Jay Cutler. We have only had short samples of what Aaron Rodgers, Matt Shaub, and Matt Ryan can do, so you can't justify taking them over him. What is your deal with Vick? I didn't say he was Montana or Marino, I said that usually being a winner takes place over stats. Which one of Michael Vick's teams should have made it past the 2nd round? They were garbage besides him. Complete garbage by NFL standards. As for Phillip Rivers, he does have a million times more talent around him than Vick ever had. He has played with one of the greatest runningbacks of all-time, one of the best TE's of all-time, and Sproles and Jackson aren't bad. Would Vick have had those numbers? I say no. But I do think that he would have won a Super Bowl or at least got there with that defense, LT, and Gates. To the bolded, I figured this was obviously, but maybe because he is a CONVICTED FELON. He has spent two years in prison, so most likely he cannot be a full-time starting QB this season and possibly ever again. It doesn't make sense to get Vick this season if you're not a title contender, because the public backlash, such as things that you have said (no offense obviously), would outweigh what he could give you. There's just no talking you out of this. Are you against all athletic QB's? I'm not talking about McNabb because he's more of a passer than a runner. I mean Vick, VY, Tebow, Pryor, etc? Because Vick's the cream of the crop of them, whether he completed 80% of his passes or 40%. Have you always had such a hate for him? Cause some people just cannot be measured by stats.
August 15, 200917 yr I disagree with your evaluation of Ward, but admittedly I am biased. I agree with most of your other posts on this thread however. :thumb: I would add that most players that have had a taste of playing QB in the NFL, if not all, are not willing to take on another position. I agree with that. Take Eric Crouch for example.
August 15, 200917 yr ^^^ Also I never called Eli a bust, but many did. Now I think people overrate him a little bit. He is a very good passer though. Also it is a joke to say already that Matt Cassell is better than anyone. He played with alot of talent last year, Moss and Welker can make anyone look good. Cassell may turn out to be really good, but I think you have to take last year with a grain of salt. Many times first year starting QB's also do well in the NFL, because DC's don't have a much tape on them and can't really pick up the little things they do. I also think that it's a little early for Ryan, but what he did as a rookie is obviously very impressive. We'll have to see if he can keep it up.
August 15, 200917 yr While I agree with most of those WR, some are a stretch. Hines Ward is in the top 15-20 WR range in the NFL. Are all of those WR future HOF players? I say no. Ward most likely is. As for Crumpler and Roddy White, Crumpler was better (as PP said) with Vick, and Roddy White was garbage when Vick was there. His rep was that he could not catch. The old Vick, you know the one who set an NFL record for Rushing Yards by a Quarterback in a season, was better than Phillip Rivers, Tony Romo, or Jay Cutler. We have only had short samples of what Aaron Rodgers, Matt Shaub, and Matt Ryan can do, so you can't justify taking them over him. What is your deal with Vick? I didn't say he was Montana or Marino, I said that usually being a winner takes place over stats. Which one of Michael Vick's teams should have made it past the 2nd round? They were garbage besides him. Complete garbage by NFL standards. As for Phillip Rivers, he does have a million times more talent around him than Vick ever had. He has played with one of the greatest runningbacks of all-time, one of the best TE's of all-time, and Sproles and Jackson aren't bad. Would Vick have had those numbers? I say no. But I do think that he would have won a Super Bowl or at least got there with that defense, LT, and Gates. To the bolded, I figured this was obviously, but maybe because he is a CONVICTED FELON. He has spent two years in prison, so most likely he cannot be a full-time starting QB this season and possibly ever again. It doesn't make sense to get Vick this season if you're not a title contender, because the public backlash, such as things that you have said (no offense obviously), would outweigh what he could give you. There's just no talking you out of this. Are you against all athletic QB's? I'm not talking about McNabb because he's more of a passer than a runner. I mean Vick, VY, Tebow, Pryor, etc? Because Vick's the cream of the crop of them, whether he completed 80% of his passes or 40%. Have you always had such a hate for him? Cause some people just cannot be measured by stats. Hines Ward is a good receiver. I'm not denying that. But he is one guy who used to be a part time QB who can play WR. I'm saying that not many guys can do what he did and be successful at both positions (even though he was only a part time QB in college, he did not play the position in the NFL). Vick didn't just have Crumpler and Roddy White. He also had Warrick Dunn who had about 3 very good years with the Falcons with over 1100 yards rushing in each. And I'd take Rivers, Romo and Cutler over the old Vick if I were starting a team. Vick is an average QB who can run. Rivers, Romo, and Cutler can pass the ball much better than Vick and that's what I want from a QB. If I want a runner, I'll look for a running back. His teams were not garbage. He had very good running teams with some decent (not great but decent) defensive teams. What's your deal with Vick? Why do you support a convicted felon so much? I can dislike whomever I choose. I not only dislike him as a person (I think what he did was awful), I think he's an average QB who was extremely overrated when he played and and is obviously still overrated by some here. Rivers hasn't had great years every year, but in his 3rd year as a full time starter he really did a great job. He proved he has what it takes to be a top QB in this league by throwing for 4000 yards and 34 TD's. Something Vick could NEVER do. I'm not a big fan of the running QB. It hasn't worked all that well for many NFL teams has it? Vick is the cream of the crop, according to you, but he never won more than 11 games and never made it past the 2nd round in the playoffs. However many traditional style QB's have won super bowls. I don't mind a QB being mobile and agile, that's necessary. But I would not want a run first QB on my team. McNabb can run and pass, but he looks to throw first and doesn't run until he has to. I'm not so sure Vick does that. I'd take McNabb on my team any day of the week over Vick...and I HATE Donovan McNabb.
August 15, 200917 yr ^^^ Also I never called Eli a bust, but many did. Now I think people overrate him a little bit. He is a very good passer though. Also it is a joke to say already that Matt Cassell is better than anyone. He played with alot of talent last year, Moss and Welker can make anyone look good. Cassell may turn out to be really good, but I think you have to take last year with a grain of salt. Many times first year starting QB's also do well in the NFL, because DC's don't have a much tape on them and can't really pick up the little things they do. I also think that it's a little early for Ryan, but what he did as a rookie is obviously very impressive. We'll have to see if he can keep it up. I didn't specifically say Matt Cassell was better. I said I'd rather have him over Vick.
August 15, 200917 yr I can name 15 I'd rather have over Ward right now. Larry Fitzgerald Randy Moss Anquan Boldin Steve Smith Roddy White Calvin Johnson Greg Jennings Brandon Marshall Antonio Bryant Wes Welker Reggie Wayne Terrell Owens Lee Evans Santana Moss Vincent Jackson Common sense tells you that being a wide receiver should be easy huh? That's not what I've read. I found an article supporting my thoughts. Like I said before, I don't think he'll have an easy time transitioning to wide receiver if that's what the Eagles try. LINK to that article Vick's last two years he had Roddy White and Alge Crumpler. he didn't always have junk. And you don't always have to have great receivers to show you are a great passer. And I'll stand by my opinion that Vick was not a very good QB. If he was as good as you make him out to be, and he isn't going to be a distraction...why didn't more teams want him? Why did so many teams refuse to even consider the idea of signing Vick? I'd take Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brees, Big Ben, McNabb, Eli Manning, Cutler, Rivers, Warner, Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo, Matt Cassell, Matt Ryan, Matt Schaub all over the Vick from 2 years ago. Maybe more...I'd take even more than that over Vick right now. I wouldn't want Vick anywhere near my team. You say "no way" to Rivers...but Rivers had 34 TD's and 11 INTS last year. Far better than any year Vick has ever had. And anyone who considered Eli a bust before the 2007 season is impatient. He had only started 2 years, and went 11-5 and 8-8 in those two years. He then went 10-6 and went on one of the greatest runs in NFL playoff history with his team. After that he led his team to a 12-4 record, better than any record Vick's teams have ever had. Eli has never missed the playoffs as an NFL starter...he's better than Vick. Same for the rest of the QB's I mentioned. They're all better than Vick. I disagree that Vick had consistently bad teams. Vick never made it past the 2nd round. His name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Marino or Montana. He's no where near their talent. It takes more than just being athletic in the NFL but imo that's all Vick has. He could prove me wrong, come in and take McNabb's job and lead the Eagles to the super bowl as their QB. But I seriously doubt that will happen. Palmer?
August 15, 200917 yr Hines Ward is a good receiver. I'm not denying that. But he is one guy who used to be a part time QB who can play WR. I'm saying that not many guys can do what he did and be successful at both positions (even though he was only a part time QB in college, he did not play the position in the NFL). Vick didn't just have Crumpler and Roddy White. He also had Warrick Dunn who had about 3 very good years with the Falcons with over 1100 yards rushing in each. And I'd take Rivers, Romo and Cutler over the old Vick if I were starting a team. Vick is an average QB who can run. Rivers, Romo, and Cutler can pass the ball much better than Vick and that's what I want from a QB. If I want a runner, I'll look for a running back. His teams were not garbage. He had very good running teams with some decent (not great but decent) defensive teams. What's your deal with Vick? Why do you support a convicted felon so much? I can dislike whomever I choose. I not only dislike him as a person (I think what he did was awful), I think he's an average QB who was extremely overrated when he played and and is obviously still overrated by some here. Rivers hasn't had great years every year, but in his 3rd year as a full time starter he really did a great job. He proved he has what it takes to be a top QB in this league by throwing for 4000 yards and 34 TD's. Something Vick could NEVER do. I'm not a big fan of the running QB. It hasn't worked all that well for many NFL teams has it? Vick is the cream of the crop, according to you, but he never won more than 11 games and never made it past the 2nd round in the playoffs. However many traditional style QB's have won super bowls. I don't mind a QB being mobile and agile, that's necessary. But I would not want a run first QB on my team. McNabb can run and pass, but he looks to throw first and doesn't run until he has to. I'm not so sure Vick does that. I'd take McNabb on my team any day of the week over Vick...and I HATE Donovan McNabb. Wouldn't you agree that Vick had something to do with the success that Dunn and Duckett had? Though Vick wasn't an accomplished passer, his running ability prevented teams from loading the box, giving his runners a chance to succeed. As for Running QB's winning the SuperBowl, we really haven't had much of a chance to see it yet. The Super Bowl era ushered in more of a drop back style passing game. Before that plenty of Running QB's won titles, I'm sure. Obviously that was a different game, but we are seeing the era of a new game, IMO. How many drop back, pocket passers are getting ready to come into the league in the next few years? Bradford and Snead are great prospects. McCoy is kind of a tweener, but obviously he is more of a passer than runner. Of the three of the top rated QB prospects in the Sophomore class, only Russell Wilson is more of a passer than runner, and he is more than capable of using his wheels. Also you cannot compare the amount of talent Rivers and Romo have played with to Vick. They have played with better WR (at the time obviously), better runningbacks and better defenses. Culter is a good argument, but they are night and day different. Cutler has one of the best arms in the NFL, and he is one of my favorites, but how many games has he won lately? Like I have said before, Vick didn't have to throw for 4,000 yards and 34 TD's to be effective. If those teams were so good why didn't they win when he was hurt, or suspended? Last year was a totally different team than the one Vick played with, so I think that also has to be taken into account. Vick and Turner would have been a nasty combo. Why do I support Vick? Really three reasons. One, I think he deserves a second chance. What he did was wrong, but other players, celebrities, etc. have gotten away with things just as bad. Two I think he was a very good, albeit non-traditional QB, and I think that eventually we'll see more mobile QB's thrive in the NFL. Three, thouigh he is a dreaded VT Hokie, I have always liked Vick. Also, teams win the Super Bowl. I hate to bring Marino back into it, but isn't he much better than Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Namath, and other Super Bowl winning QB's? We only saw 6 years (one completely lost to injury) of Vick, who knows what how much he would have progressed over the last two years? Also, I hate the thought that only slow, strong armed, pass only QB's can win the Super Bowl. It's too old school and unimaginative for my taste.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.