Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]He's still overrated.[/QUOTE]

You're overrrated. :laughing2

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer][url]http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Commentary/Columns/2005/edholm122205.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
This guy was giving some serious Redskins love.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]You're overrrated. :laughing2[/QUOTE]
Your momma's overrated.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]Valid argument. You've changed my view of Michael Vick completely, with that in depth analysis.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to change anyone's view, but if it changed yours that's great!

That's about as in depth as you have to get with Vick.

He's overrated, simple as that.

His numbers are garbage for a QB. So he wins when he's in the lineup... yeah that's great. Are you telling me Dallas or Washington would have won the same amount of games if you took away Bledsoe and Brunell?

He's a great athlete, but from a pure QB standpoint his name carries him. The Pro Bowl is a popularity contest most of the time so it's not surprising Vick is in, I just don't think it's justified based on his play.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]You're overrrated. :laughing2[/QUOTE]

As overrated as I am Vick still tops the list.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]How come last week I was wrong for judging people based on stats, which by the way, included wins, but this week all people want to do is use stats to explain why Vick is overrated.

First of all, the Falcons are one of the worst teams in the league without Michael Vick on the field. He may not be a great passer, but he changes games. You can't honestly tell me that you think coaches lose sleep over Mark Brunell or Drew Bledsoe. That's why Vick gets votes. When coaches and players go up against Mike Vick they have to come up with ways to stop him. If I were coming up with a gameplan against the Skins or Boys I would try to make Brunell or Bledsoe beat me.

Second, Vick has no one but Crumpler and Dunn on offense. Don't give me that "he doesn't throw to recievers" nonsense. He doesn't throw to them because they're garbage. He has one legit target. The offense is him and Dunn. That's it.

Vick is the MVP of his team every single season. Without him, we've seen what happens to the Falcons. Michael Vick changes games and people respect what he can do way more than Brunell or Bledsoe.[/QUOTE]

Vick also has Duckett (underrated short-yardage back in my opinion). And what does Brunell have besides Portis, Moss and Cooley. Very few teams have more than two or three targets anyway.

I don't deny the difference that Vick can make but if he was such an MVP then he wouldn't have been so lousy these last couple of weeks in key games (both losses) to the Panthers and Bears.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I wasn't trying to change anyone's view, but if it changed yours that's great!

That's about as in depth as you have to get with Vick.

He's overrated, simple as that.

His numbers are garbage for a QB. So he wins when he's in the lineup... yeah that's great. Are you telling me Dallas or Washington would have won the same amount of games if you took away Bledsoe and Brunell?

He's a great athlete, but from a pure QB standpoint his name carries him. The Pro Bowl is a popularity contest most of the time so it's not surprising Vick is in, I just don't think it's justified based on his play.[/QUOTE]

Tom Brady's stats don't really jump off the page. He's never thrown more than 28 TDs and his next closest total is 23. Would you argue that he's overrated?

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Vick also has Duckett (underrated short-yardage back in my opinion). And what does Brunell have besides Portis, Moss and Cooley. Very few teams have more than two or three targets anyway.

I don't deny the difference that Vick can make but if he was such an MVP then he wouldn't have been so lousy these last couple of weeks in key games (both losses) to the Panthers and Bears.[/QUOTE]

Duckett isn't any better than Zack Crockett. If you wanna put Duckett out there, you had better thrown in Betts and Sellers and David Patten, who was very good coming in.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]Duckett isn't any better than Zack Crockett. If you wanna put Duckett out there, you had better thrown in Betts and Sellers and David Patten, who was very good coming in.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough....now as far as comparing Tom Brady to Vick. Brady's passing numbers are way better than Vick's. Brady has like a 2:1 TD to INT ratio. For every TD Vick throws he throws an INT.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Fair enough....now as far as comparing Tom Brady to Vick. Brady's passing numbers are way better than Vick's. Brady has like a 2:1 TD to INT ratio. For every TD Vick throws he throws an INT.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to compare Brady to Vick. He's a far superior passer, I'm just saying that when you compare Brady to the league then his stats don't jump off the page. All he does is win which is why everyone loves him. Vick does a lot of winning too, but people still hate, I just don't get it.

That's not to put Vick's playoff appearances on par with Tom Brady's, just pointing out that it's a pretty similar situation.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I don't deny the difference that Vick can make but if he was such an MVP then he wouldn't have been so lousy these last couple of weeks in key games (both losses) to the Panthers and Bears.[/QUOTE]

The Panthers and Bears are divison leading playoff teams. Brunell lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Cardinals. Bledsoe also lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Niners.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]Tom Brady's stats don't really jump off the page. He's never thrown more than 28 TDs and his next closest total is 23. Would you argue that he's overrated?[/QUOTE]

This year Brady is putting up monster numbers, he's on pace for over 4000 yards and over 25 TDs. Those are big numbers worthy of the Pro Bowl IMO.

As for his previous years I'm not sure what you're talking about, he's always had the numbers.

Look at his yardage and TD-INT ratio over the past 3 years

2002: 3764, 28-14
2003: 3620, 23-12
2004: 3692, 28-14

I don't know where you come from, but where I come from those are pretty damn good numbers. Add in completion percentages all over 60% during those years and there's just no denying what Brady has done stats wise along with the wins.

Vick doesn't even touch these numbers. He's not even in the ball park. Their situations aren't similar in the least bit.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

I'm just going to go ahead and say it: WHAT IS THE ****ING OBSESSION WITH MIKE VICK?!?!?!

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]The Panthers and Bears are divison leading playoff teams. Brunell lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Cardinals. Bledsoe also lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Niners.[/QUOTE]

I realize that. Brunell also has won three in a row, with the playoffs on the line. Though I understand what you're saying about the quality of the opponent.

What I'm saying though is that if the argument is going to be made that the Falcons are a much better team when Vick is in and they win with him and that's a big reason why he's in the Pro Bowl, then you have to factor in that when it's mattered recently against top teams they haven't won. And Vick can't be absolved of blame in those losses. So what does it matter that they're better with him if they lose anyway.?

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I'm just going to go ahead and say it: WHAT IS THE ****ING OBSESSION WITH MIKE VICK?!?!?![/QUOTE]

First of all, I'm not at all obsessed with Vick, but if I had to guess why the general population loves him so much, it's probably because he has more natural ability than just about everyone in the league.


[QUOTE=TAFKAS]What I'm saying though is that if the argument is going to be made that the Falcons are a much better team when Vick is in and they win with him and that's a big reason why he's in the Pro Bowl, then you have to factor in that when it's mattered recently against top teams they haven't won. And Vick can't be absolved of blame in those losses. So what does it matter that they're better with him if they lose anyway.?[/QUOTE]

Good point, and I do agree that there are several areas where Vick has to improve to be a championship quarterback(i.e. closing games, relying on his teammates and not just himself, etc.). I'm not even trying to argue that he definitely should be in the Pro Bowl. It just seems like the general population of this board thinks he sucks or is overrated, and I completely disagree with that sentiment.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

i cants figure out how to make a new post but i just wanted to say hi to you dumb skins fans. anyone remember me? aww yeah denim is back in the hizzow

:headbange

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

For what it's worth, Dan Patrick is HEAVILY endorsing Brunell for the Pro Bowl on his show this PM.
Food for thought. I to, have heard the Vick arguments. He IS definately entertaining. However, any team that is not SIGNIFIGANTLY better with it's starting QB in the lineup DESPERATELY needs another starting QB!

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

Vick doesn't win big games, its as simple as that. He is an okay passer and a good runner. To say he doesn't have targets is a joke. ATL got Peerless Price, they used their last 2 1st round picks on WR's, and yet none of these guys can play in the NFL?

It's the overall ground game (Dunn, Duckett, Vick) that drives the ATL offense. Stop that and they have nothing, cuz Vick can't pass to anyone besides Crumpler.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]It just seems like the general population of this board thinks he sucks or is overrated, and I completely disagree with that sentiment.[/QUOTE]

It's important to remember that what I and, I think, many others are saying is not that he sucks. Just that he's overrated in terms of being one of the better QBs in the league. You can still be good but not be one of the best.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]:postcop:
Why would have McNabb have made the pro-bowl, and what is your reasoning that Vick made it? Was it Vick's great touchdown to int ratio of 13td's to 12 int's? Or was it Vick's incrediable completion percentage of 54%?

Why would it be so hard, if you are a redskins fan, to be upset that our very own Mark Brunell did not make it? I mean he is having a way better season than Vick is, you do have to admit that.

I agree that Hasselbeck and Delhomme(SP) should not have made it, not over Brunell and Bledsoe(SP). Espically not Delhomme, not when Brunell has 2 td's for every 1 int.

And yes I will admit that last year I couldn't stand that Brunell was our QB, but you have to give credit where credit is due and Brunell got totally nubbed.[/QUOTE]

Its wouldn't my brother....Brunell can have Haslebeck place.....I voted for Mark Brunell

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]If Vick had Bledsoe's receivers or Washington's defense, he'd have more than eight wins.




I'm not actually defending him for the Pro Bowl, I'm just giving reasons why I can understand he was picked. You guys seem to forget that it's not just fans that pick the Pro Bowl, which is very apparent from the fact that Cooley didn't make it, in spite of being far and away the fan favorite. So obviously his peers and the coaches think he's worthy too.

Coaches gameplan for Vick and are always attempting to keep him contained. I highly doubt any coach in the league is saying to himself before a Dallas game, "How are we going to stop Bledsoe?".[/QUOTE]

Finally, Reason and Logic, Listen Ladies dont get it twisted (black terminology) I'm a Redskin fan...first, but this Idea that every QB has to stand in the pocket to be consider a regular QB is crazy, black or white, good is good and bad is bad, and Vick # don't state he should be there, but he does as much for his team as Peyton Manning..... Now everyone says I use race, and sometimes I do, because I can feel the hate for this one paticular QB, all you critics do are critize him,..... Respect what he can do, and give him time to grow, as far as I'm concerned....not just fans voted him in, and I didn't either...I voted for Brunell, Bled-hoe and Hasslebeck.....but this weekend I watch Peyton, look dazed and confused, and when he couldn't throw the ball those athletic abilitys didn't workout for him...........:hitfan:

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]The Panthers and Bears are divison leading playoff teams. Brunell lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Cardinals. Bledsoe also lost to the Raiders, and tried his best to lose to the Niners.[/QUOTE]

Good Ass point.....and everyone think Brunell has been great, he has, but only because Santana Moss has put him in that situation........

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Your momma's overrated.[/QUOTE]

AND I'M CHILDISH.......

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]Finally, Reason and Logic, Listen Ladies dont get it twisted (black terminology) I'm a Redskin fan...first, but this Idea that every QB has to stand in the pocket to be consider a regular QB is crazy, black or white, good is good and bad is bad, and Vick # don't state he should be there, but he does as much for his team as Peyton Manning..... Now everyone says I use race, and sometimes I do, because I can feel the hate for this one paticular QB, all you critics do are critize him,..... Respect what he can do, and give him time to grow, as far as I'm concerned....not just fans voted him in, and I didn't either...I voted for Brunell, Bled-hoe and Hasslebeck.....but I watch Peyton, look dazed and confused, and when he did try to use those athletic abilitys to get out of the pocket............:hitfan:[/QUOTE]
If he still needs time to grow, how is he worthy of a Pro Bowl nod?

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

Vick could be getting the love because all the wins he has produced this year and he helps the Falcons win. Oh that is right they are also 8-6 and not going to the playoffs, so the Vick wins arguement is out the door, and the stats don't support the nod for Hawaii either. If anything he should have been put in the same situation as Cooley, what category do you put him in QB or RB, he beats teams with his legs and athletic ability. Oh yeah he should get the nod because he is fun and exciting to watch kind of like Mack Strong is more exciting to watch than Cooley, not. Even if Cooley was listed as a FB and it was wrong that is what they had him at and he definitely was the best player listed in that category statistically, and exciting.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]If he still needs time to grow, how is he worthy of a Pro Bowl nod?[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY!! Thank you Payne the Brain! And really has he grown much? I don't know if he's a better QB than he was when he entered the league.

And wewhite, why'd you vote for Hasselbeck and not Vick if just a few posts ago you called Hass overrated and you've gone so far as to change your avatar to a Falcons helmet in Vick's defense?

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]Good Ass point.....and everyone think Brunell has been great, he has, but only because Santana Moss has put him in that situation........[/QUOTE]I would have to give both of them credit for both of their success. One could not have done it without the other. Credit should go 50/50.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]EXACTLY!! Thank you Payne the Brain! And really has he grown much? I don't know if he's a better QB than he was when he entered the league.

And wewhite, why'd you vote for Hasselbeck and not Vick if just a few posts ago you called Hass overrated and you've gone so far as to change your avatar to a Falcons helmet in Vick's defense?[/QUOTE]

I'm SO not down with people picking due to race. We're ALL humans here, that's when you look at the stats and Vick just didn't have them.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=wewhite3]...dont get it twisted (black terminology)...:hitfan:[/QUOTE]You've been watching too many episodes of America's Next Top Model.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

Vick is a commodity at quarterback, a glorified running back who happens to line up behind center & look off one receiver before he tucks the ball to run. He is essentially the same quarterback today as he was when he came into the league.

Base it on the receivers he has around him, the number of wins his team has, or the numbers he puts up, none of which merit a slot. Black, White, Asian or Redneck, the guy is overrated & does not deserve the distinction of being named a Pro-Bowl quarterback.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Cooley 350Z]Base it on the receivers he has around him, the number of wins his team has, or the numbers he puts up, none of which merit a slot. Black, White, Asian or Redneck, the guy is overrated & does not deserve the distinction of being named a Pro-Bowl quarterback.[/QUOTE]

The bottom line is, if his peers and the coaches that have to play against him every week thought he was as overrated as you guys seem to think he is, he wouldn't have gotten in. As I said before, Cooley was by far the fan favorite at the fullback position, but didn't get in, so it's a lot more than just a matter of a lot uneducated fans drooling over Michael Vick that got him into the Pro Bowl.

The funny thing is, this wouldn't even be a discussion if Brunell had gotten the nod.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

I'm glad some of our guys made it, but the ProBowl is overrated. It's become more about the NFL showcasing its stars, rather than a legitmate award based on performance. In other words it's just like all the other "all-star" games.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw]The bottom line is, if his peers and the coaches that have to play against him every week thought he was as overrated as you guys seem to think he is, he wouldn't have gotten in. As I said before, Cooley was by far the fan favorite at the fullback position, but didn't get in, so it's a lot more than just a matter of a lot uneducated fans drooling over Michael Vick that got him into the Pro Bowl.

The funny thing is, this wouldn't even be a discussion if Brunell had gotten the nod.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Vick's peers think that he's a Pro Bowler and their votes are the ones that really matter. If people in the league didn't vote for him he wouldn't be going.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]Exactly! Vick's peers think that he's a Pro Bowler and their votes are the ones that really matter. If people in the league didn't vote for him he wouldn't be going.[/QUOTE]

Players in the locker room usually don't put much thought into who they vote for. They often just fill out names just based on previous year's performance or simply name recognition. It's sort of an afterthought for them....or so I've been told.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]This year Brady is putting up monster numbers, he's on pace for over 4000 yards and over 25 TDs. Those are big numbers worthy of the Pro Bowl IMO.

As for his previous years I'm not sure what you're talking about, he's always had the numbers.

Look at his yardage and TD-INT ratio over the past 3 years

2002: 3764, 28-14
2003: 3620, 23-12
2004: 3692, 28-14

I don't know where you come from, but where I come from those are pretty damn good numbers. Add in completion percentages all over 60% during those years and there's just no denying what Brady has done stats wise along with the wins.

Vick doesn't even touch these numbers. He's not even in the ball park. Their situations aren't similar in the least bit.[/QUOTE]

In 03 and 04, the last 2 times the Pats won Super Bowls he was in the top 10 with those passing numbers. If we're going to use stats to justify Pro Bowlers then he probably shouldn't have gone because there were 2 or 3 other QB's from the AFC who had more yards or TD's than him each year.

Brady wins games that's why it's similar to Vick. I even said that I wasn't comparing their numbers. All I said was they don't jump off the page. IMO they don't. I don't look at Tom Brady's stats and wonder how he did that. I did that with Manning and Culpepper last year, not Brady, but Brady is the one who took home the Lombardi Trophy. Brady's most important stat is 3, as in Super Bowl rings. I like QB's who win...that's what Vick does.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]Players in the locker room usually don't put much thought into who they vote for. They often just fill out names just based on previous year's performance or simply name recognition. It's sort of an afterthought for them....or so I've been told.[/QUOTE]

Well if 1/3 of the voting isn't even paid attention to...why do we pay so much attention to it?

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=bigmarley4]Vick doesn't win big games, its as simple as that. He is an okay passer and a good runner. To say he doesn't have targets is a joke. ATL got Peerless Price, they used their last 2 1st round picks on WR's, and yet none of these guys can play in the NFL?

It's the overall ground game (Dunn, Duckett, Vick) that drives the ATL offense. Stop that and they have nothing, cuz Vick can't pass to anyone besides Crumpler.[/QUOTE]

No, actually Peerless Price isn't in the NFL. On top of that, guys like Freddie Mitchell and Rod Gardner were picked in the first round of the draft, that doesn't mean that they're a lock to be good. I don't think Roddy White or Michael Jenkins can play. Jenkins wasn't even that good at Ohio State and Roddy White went to UAB, he only got into the first round because of a good combine. That's as inexact a science as any in sports.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I realize that. Brunell also has won three in a row, with the playoffs on the line. Though I understand what you're saying about the quality of the opponent.

What I'm saying though is that if the argument is going to be made that the Falcons are a much better team when Vick is in and they win with him and that's a big reason why he's in the Pro Bowl, then you have to factor in that when it's mattered recently against top teams they haven't won. And Vick can't be absolved of blame in those losses. So what does it matter that they're better with him if they lose anyway.?[/QUOTE]

What if the Skins lose this weekend? Does that mean that Mark Brunell has no business in the Pro Bowl because that could cost his team the playoff spot? Brunell doesn't scare anybody. He throws to 2 people on the team and that's because he has a reciever who is very good. He'd be worse than Vick if he were a Falcon. The Falcons have Vick, Crumpler, Dunn, Hall and Coleman who can play. That's pretty much it. That team is garbage. Mike Vick is the only reason they're even in a playoff hunt.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

What's funny about this thread is that there was a similar debate last year about the greatness of Brett Favre. Some people said that he was great and now he just gets by on reputation. That was even before this season, people were doubting Brett Favre.

Just wanted to clear that up.

For the record, I'm not comparing Vick to Favre, merely pointing out that a lot of question people for some strange reasons.

Re: Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]In 03 and 04, the last 2 times the Pats won Super Bowls he was in the top 10 with those passing numbers. If we're going to use stats to justify Pro Bowlers then he probably shouldn't have gone because there were 2 or 3 other QB's from the AFC who had more yards or TD's than him each year.

Brady wins games that's why it's similar to Vick. I even said that I wasn't comparing their numbers. All I said was they don't jump off the page. IMO they don't. I don't look at Tom Brady's stats and wonder how he did that. I did that with Manning and Culpepper last year, not Brady, but Brady is the one who took home the Lombardi Trophy. Brady's most important stat is 3, as in Super Bowl rings. I like QB's who win...that's what Vick does.[/QUOTE]

Vick doesn't win the way Brady does, but then again who does? But the interesting thing about comparing Brady and Vick is this. You, and several others, say that Vick has no wide receivers. That all he has is Dunn and Crumpler. Names like Branch, Givens, Brown and even Patten don't exactly scare people when not mentioned with Tom Brady. In fact what a lot of people said when the Redskins signed Patten was "can he be good without Brady" Hard to say without all those receivers playing for other teams but at any rate those receivers do quite well with Brady.

So we'd have to ask ourselves how much of the Falcons' receiver issues lie with the QB? Are Jenkins, Finneran and White really that bad? Maybe, or maybe Vick just isn't that good....yet.