FalcFans Forums

TD's in 2006:

Manning: 35
Palmer: 28
Brees: 26
Bulger: 24
Brady: 24
E Manning: 24
Grossman: 24
Kitna: 23
Vick: 22 (8th)
Rivers: 22
McNabb(strt 10): 21
Lossman: 20
Rothlisberger: 20
Romo(strt 10 games): 19
Favre: 19
V Young(srt 13): 19
Hasselbeck(strt 12): 18
Alex Smith: 18
Delhomme(srt 13): 17
Pennington: 17
McNair: 17
Carr: 13

yards in 2006...

Brees: 4450
Manning: 4433
Kitna: 4364
Bulger: 4345
Palmer: 4072
Favre: 3914
Brady: 3631
Roethlisberger: 3611
Vick: 3513 (8th)
Pennington: 3461
Rivers: 3437
E Manning: 3265
Grossman: 3195

As usual, and somewhat predictable for a novice, you don't understand how football works. It isn't all black and white. As Pudge said, stats can show what you want them to show. However a comprehensive system like the DVOA and DYAR tells you the real story. It is what serious football people use to get the story. When you develop a true football sense, and can understand how your obvious bias is affecting your judgment, then you will probably have matured past where you are now. Though the climb will be restrained by the somewhat obvious intellectual gulf between you and the other posters here.


It isn't too late to let him go.

who where the top 5 QBs of 2006 using those DVOA's? Seems like a pretty simply request. Hook me up.

Manning, P
Brees
Palmer
Bulger
Brady

just read an article about that list at pro football reference. they do not factor in QB rushing yards, TDs or turnovers. In other words, they take away 1039 yards from Vick in the process. It's strictly a passing list...not QB performance.

Palmer had 21 turnovers, but they only count 14 of them. blah.

Of course they figure in Turnovers. But it really doesn't matter, as QB's will be passing 95% of the time. Real QB's that is.

they only factor in some of the turnovers. as mentioned, they did not factor in that Carson Palmer fumbled 15 times and lost 7 of them. That's 33% of his turnovers that left out of the equation. Silly.

If it makes you feel better soup, then I'll say it. Maybe Vick was an above average QB in the 2006.

And what's the point. It certainly doesn't help the argument that Knapp poorly utilized him.

You take one year, it doesn't prove that he was a great QB over his entire career. Because no stat is going to overcome the fact that he quit on the team that year, and the fact that he thought that because of his stats, he had done everything he could have possibly done that year to make this team a winner. The great ones don't do those things.

What does it prove? That Vick was good? Yeah, absolutely. I haven't seen anybody dispute whether Vick was a good player and all factors included, his running ability made him go from a poor/below average passer to an overall good player.

But to me it's not an issue of whether Vick was good. It never has been an issue of whether Vick was good. It's always been a matter of whether Vick was great. Good isn't good enough when you're being paid $130 million.

No one ever revisits the Chandler years. Why? Because most people are content with Chandler's goodness. I doubt there are few that think of Chandler as a great QB. A good QB, that in the right situation can do some great things.

People always rehash the Vick years, because they seemingly aren't content with what he did on the field.

I don't think Greg Knapp maximized/optimized Vick while he was here in Atlanta. But for the most part I'm content with VIck's career here in Atlanta, just like I am with Chandler's. I don't think they are Lombardis that are sitting in Tampa, Foxborough, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis instead of Flowery Branch because of Knapp's "crimes" against Vick.

Vick was an inconsistent, up and down player. His A game, he was virtually unbeatable. His C game (which showed up more often than not), he was fairly average. And IMO, it's not Greg Knapp's fault that his C game showed up so often. If a guy isn't willing to do the little things that his craft requires, then there IMO is certainly going to be a ceilling upon how good he can be. Did Vick reach his ceiling? Porbably not. But I don't think he was that far from it.

Here's an analogy I would use. You're a teacher and you have this really bright, smart kid that on the big tests, projects, and exams you have manages to get high As. But he doens't relaly care about the quizzes, all the homework assignments, and all the other things that are required to get an A in the class, so he winds up getting a B- or something. Now as that kid's teacher, it may frustrate you to no end that you see all this potential, but you can't quite inspire him to do all the work required to be a top student. His study habits are poor, he skips class and school on occasion, cuts up many of the times he does show up, doesn't do his reading or his homework half the time, and seems more interested in being popular and getting with girls than anything you ever say in class. But again, he's averaging a B so there really isn't a ton you can complain about. All of his other teachers say the same thing about him going forward.

Now as that teacher you could spend the next several years lamenting over the lost opportunity that student was, or you can just be content with the fact that you tried. Maybe you could have done a bit more. Maybe you could have gotten a bit more involved with his home life, which could have been the cause of some of the issues. A lot of maybes you could've done. but in the end, you're likely to burn yourself out as a teacher after only a few years if you keep thinking like that. Instead, it's probably better to be content with the fact that you tried, and it's not your fault if every student that passes through your door doesn't wind up going on to greatness. That teach is likely going to last 40 years and get some big illustrious award at their retirement banquet commemorating all the students that they did actually inspire because they actually willing to be inspired.

Do you grasp what I'm saying? You just gotta ask yourself, is it really worth the time and effort to wonder what could have been, or do you just move and hope for a better tomorrow?...

best analogy ever. case closed.

How is it that discussing a mercurial albeit flawed player like Vick means that one hasn't "moved on?" Almost everyone I know is content with Ryan...like Ryan. But the brilliant student or whatever will always be an interesting topic and especially in the way it all came to an inconclusive end like a cliff hanger serial. The argument can go on forever and both sides are content that they are right. It just is what it is. Why do people talk about Bo Jackson at Auburn?

Quite frankly, they dont. At least not anymore.

One of my heroes had 'questions' about 9-11. Thinks the WTC was brought down with explosives.

http://theevanlee.blogspot.com/2009/05/ ... -show.html

Now, he says he 'has questions'. After Popular Mechanics weighs in with the 9-11 commission too? Okay he has 'questions'.

But, HAS HE MOVED ON? I dont think so, It's even more damning that this guy was a sitting independant Gov, but he did not ask those tought questions then? Because he was 'too busy'?

So the Vickars that keep asking 'why did Knapp, Dunn, Blank, the 'man' that kept him down' when we have a real QB it does seem a little more bitter then 'better'. lets be clear were better now then then, right? We have a better QB.

Period.

Ryan is the cult of Vick killer. Why keep asking 'what if'? HOw about 'why did we pick up this dogs mess so long?'

Exactly fun gus. As I said nobody ever talks about Chandler's career as a Falcon. Why is that?

I think it's because nobody is what 'what if' with Chandler, because they are for the most part content with what he did here in Atlanta. Chris Chandler is never going to be remembered probably anywhere outside Tennessee and Atlanta. in Tennessee, he'll be noted for his mentorship of McNair (good or bad). In Atlanta, he'll be remembered for the '98 season he had. Maybe, he'll be remembered in Arizona for being one of many average QBs they had over the years.

But people come out of the woodwork to talk about Vick. And it almost always turns to some discussion about how Vick is/was being victimized. He was railroaded by the league and the law for something that wasn't that big a deal. Or he was the victim of having a terrible supporting cast and bad offensive coordinator.

Wasn't Chandler a victim of playing behind bad lines? Absolutely. But you know what, in Chandler's case, people have some clarity and realize that Chandler and his holding onto the ball forever contirbuting to him being sacked a lot more than he should have been. But nobody ever has that same clarity that maybe Michael Vick and his poor pocket management skills added more sacks than he should have gotten. To me that pocket management was at its worst in 2006. Cappy (who is not a 'Vick hater') attribute 17 sacks given up that year to Vick's mistakes.

If I had the audacity to try and compare Chris Chandler to Michael Vick. I'm sure someone would keep coming up with excuses of how Chris Chandler had better receivers, better blockers, better defense, better coaching, blah blah blah.

It would be the same thing as me pining for what could have been if Al Gore won (or from some people's point of view, awarded) the election in 2000. OMG, the last 8 years of my life would have been so much better, wah wah wah wah.

Let it go, move on, and stop losing sleep over Greg Knapp, Warrick Dunn, and Michael Vick. In the NFL, it's ancient history. Just for some perspective, hundreds if not thousands of players have had their careers begin and end in the time since any of those guys were relevant to Falcon fans.

I don't "lose sleep" over 9-11...much less Mike Vick. Comparing Chandler--a journeyman QB--to a #1 pick is kind of apples and oranges. I think we are in better shape all around now for a number of reasons Ryan among them. The resurgence of the Knapp/Dunn/etc., arguments is pretty boring...from both ends. Speculating as to where he may wind up and how he might fair is mildly interesting in June. People talk about Brett Favre all the time as well because he is a compelling character who probably overshadows his actual on field accomplishments. I realize to some that analyzing stats and rosters is the height of entertainment....but not everyone.

Vick will play again--probably for a desperate and sorry team like last time--and you'll be able to point and say, "See, he sucks as a player and a person!" One side of the fence has said little more enlightening or enlightened in the Vick Debates than the other. The protestations that any such discussions be moved here or there are just funny...agenda.

As for Knapp, Mora, Blank, McKay, etc., well, they all essentially got fired other than Blank so for you stat guys...there's your stat! Would Vick and the team have done better under someone else, Petrino? We'll never know, hence, the discussion. Nobody burned a church or killed a baby. No harm. No foul. Don't have to click the thread. Pudge, didn't you swear you were posting for the last time about this topic almost a year ago? Irresistible force meet immovable object.

ps...gus, people who watched Bo play here still talk about him. What if Dye had had a real passing game? etc. It's what football fans do...conjecture.

Why? They both were Falcon QBs.


Problem is bnb, that's not where the debate lies. The debate lies in areas that there is no need for speculation. The debate always come back to the 'Vicktim' and how all the fates and parties involved with this team conspired against his greatness.

Hey but we managed to get 5 good pages and about a week's worth of good debate about Vick's future in this thread until it turned. But it always turns eventually.


For your sake of knowing, the person that requested the threads be moved is probably someone I doubt you would accuse of having an agenda.


I like that, irresistible force... I'd bet I've said that at least 3 or 4 times on this board and never stuck to it. What can I say, I'm a fickle bitch.

well it's pretty obvious that Chandler did have better WRs. Mathis and Martin is the best tandem the Falcons have ever had, right?


anyway...just to poke at ya:

career passing TD to INT ratio:

Chandler: 1.16 TDs for every INT
Vick: 1.37 TDs for every INT

Just for the record some of us can keep Knapp in his square then also keep
Vick in his. Two complete different kind of screw ups... Knapp thinks and says he's playing chess out there on the football field (and that's not even close), and Vick well he's played checkers but has no clue what Chess is.

So that makes them both stupid, Knapp mostly for wanting to play chess with a checkers player and Vick not trying to learn chess, its not that hard.

BTW I'll be glad to own up to the fact I asked Pudge to consider moving the Vick threads. I was posting where they had made me sick, and IMO hurt the board so I went to another Chinese Restaurant and the same dude comes along and
wants to start Vick all over. You guys have now talked about a Falcon who will will never play for us again more in two days than in the last month. Wait till he gets warmed up (:

It isn't just here. It's at the AF.com, Roost boards too. I think it's hilarious. I have threatened to litter the Vick forum with non-vick thread topics!

As for how the discussion "always" goes...it always goes a certain way with certain people who feel compelled to say the same things over and over. How they get a response is beyond me. the chain Birdy has been yanking for the last five years is held together by mere fibers due to the wear and tear. Discussing Vick's situation does not have to devolve into Knapp=Satan or Vick=God. It's a pretty unique case all around. If you want to say we should compare him to Chandler because they were both Falcon QBs then let's compare him to Frank Ganz because they both worked for the Falcons.Or Jimmy Williams because they are both from VT.

If you want to call him a Victim I suppose there is some validity to the notion that very few #1 picks go into stellar situations and are victims of the mediocrity. The teams don't get the #1 pick by being stellar. Anyone who can look at the Falcons between when Mike was drafted and when he was done and say there is no compelling evidence that the guy could play has already made up their mind. I can certainly accept that he was a good not great QB. Huge flaws in his game on a hugely flawed team from a hugely flawed organization. If he had played for the Chargers and I hadn't watched every game he played in would I be as interested as to how thing shook out? Heck no. If the perversely unique circumstances revolving around his exit from the league were not there would I find it as interesting? Heck no. It's just a wacked out situation that I happened to have relatively front row seats to for close to a decade due to my morbid obsession with this clusterf#ck of a franchise and I enjoy discussing it with people who were also along for the ride. Some guys really just want to talk football. Period. Fine. Is there not room enough in cyberspace for everyone?

The last thing I want to do is dictate what people discuss, but it always does turn the minute we start talking about Vick and football. We got 5 good pages in this thread before it turned, because we weren't discussing Vick and football per se, at least not his past with this team. We were talking about his future, and whether he "deserved" to be suspended.

I have no problem with talking about that as you can tell I chimed in quite a bit on my opinions in the first 5 pages of this thread.

I just hate seeing people hold on fervently to this bile they have to past individuals like Knapp for what I believe is no reason. Playing this "what if" game IMO in this case doesn't benefit anyone. In the case of whether we should have drafted Chad Johnson over Alge Crumpler 8 years ago, that can be a fun "what if" discussion because nobody has this strong emotional connection to them like they have with Vick.

I'm sure there are many Falcon fans that are still bitter about Eugene Robinson. But I would tell them the same thing. Accept it and move on. It's that "Bill Buckner Syndrome" where fans can't let go. I just find that very sad.

Every Sunday by 8 PM, I've accepted the result of the Falcon game. May not like it, may still be a little bitter or sour for a few days, but I'm not going to let it plant a seed of enmity in me that I'm going to hold onto for weeks, months, or even years.

seed of enmity....

Wait, letting go of Eugene Robinson is the hardest of the bunch. I have moved on a long time ago,
but I can't move past a millionaire offering only $40 for a blow job (:

Where's his class? (:

He was slumming...part of the cachet.