Pro Bowl Bound - Samuels, Moss

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

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.

That is a very good point, however, I think that a great reciever can make a mediocre/pretty good QB great...see: TO and Garcia. Just something to think about. I do agree that Vick needs to be a better passer and that if he were a truly great passer he could make recievers look good. However, I never claimed he was a great passer. He's a great talent and a winning QB. Period. He wins games. I don't care how he does it, just that he does it. Just win baby. That's my main determining factor about a QB.

However, I would point out that Price looked great in Buffalo, terrible in Atlanta and then terrible again when you put him back with Bledsoe and he was supposedly the #1 reciever as a Falcon. That doesn't say much for Vick's wide outs.

I'm willing to concede that Vick's not the greatest passer in the world, my point is that he doesn't need to be. He still wins games when he runs for touchdowns. My point is, what's wrong with that? He's redefining the way a lot of people think about quarterbacks. He's a great talent, not the best QB in the world. However, if you wanna know if I'd take him ahead of Brunell or Bledsoe, I'd do it 100 times out of 100. Consider this: Brunell has been to 2 Conference Championship games in however many years he's been in the league. Vick's in his 3rd full season as a starter, as I would disqualify the one where he broke his leg and he's already been to one and in his first year as a starter was the first QB to ever to come into Green Bay in the playoffs and walk out a winner. Just something to think about.

I don't argue that he doesn't have great stats or that he's not a great passer, but he's a winner and the difference maker for the Falcons.

[SmootSmack]

Well Brunell got the Jaguars to the AFC Championship game in their second year of existence, and that's not too bad. But either way the Pro Bowl should be about who's had the better year.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Well Brunell got the Jaguars to the AFC Championship game in their second year of existence, and that's not too bad. But either way the Pro Bowl should be about who's had the better year.

No, that's not bad at all, however, if you gave Vick Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell in their prime he could have probably done it too.

[ST21]

Originally Posted by jdlea

That is a very good point, however, I think that a great reciever can make a mediocre/pretty good QB great...see: TO and Garcia. Just something to think about. I do agree that Vick needs to be a better passer and that if he were a truly great passer he could make recievers look good. However, I never claimed he was a great passer. He's a great talent and a winning QB. Period. He wins games. I don't care how he does it, just that he does it. Just win baby. That's my main determining factor about a QB.

However, I would point out that Price looked great in Buffalo, terrible in Atlanta and then terrible again when you put him back with Bledsoe and he was supposedly the #1 reciever as a Falcon. That doesn't say much for Vick's wide outs.

I'm willing to concede that Vick's not the greatest passer in the world, my point is that he doesn't need to be. He still wins games when he runs for touchdowns. My point is, what's wrong with that? He's redefining the way a lot of people think about quarterbacks. He's a great talent, not the best QB in the world. However, if you wanna know if I'd take him ahead of Brunell or Bledsoe, I'd do it 100 times out of 100. Consider this: Brunell has been to 2 Conference Championship games in however many years he's been in the league. Vick's in his 3rd full season as a starter, as I would disqualify the one where he broke his leg and he's already been to one and in his first year as a starter was the first QB to ever to come into Green Bay in the playoffs and walk out a winner. Just something to think about.

I don't argue that he doesn't have great stats or that he's not a great passer, but he's a winner and the difference maker for the Falcons.

Of course again you've made a great point, but Vick needs to avoid his talent stand in the pocket and not use those God given talents.........ITs wrong of him to think he could ever play that position....wrong, just wrong :yeahright