thesouphead wrote:
Brady is the better QB....no doubt. but they still produced about the same in that 2006 season.
It's an arbitrary argument. I could show you stats that show Le'Ron McClain being as productive as Michael Turner in certain areas of running the football. But I wouldn't make an argument that McClain is on par with Turner, which implies that I think McClain is just as good a player as Turner.
They did not produce the same. You've taken 3 relatively arbitrary statistics from the 2006 season, in which Brady and Vick compare and make it seem the end all and be all.
Yards and points aren't the only factors, and this is a classic case of someone using stats to mislead an argument. You take some favorable stats from an obviously inferior player, give them a slight boost (by adding rushing yards), and then find an obvious superior player and then try to create a link that suggests they are comparable.
I could use a similar argument by comparing Jim Mora's coaching record in his first 3 years coaching vs. that of Bill Walsh, and then make a statement that Mora was/is a better coach because he has a significantly higher winning % than Walsh.
The facts are that when you look at all of Vick's stats as a passer, he was consistently below average throughout his career. He only gets a "boost" from adding his rushing totals because he was so much better in that area than pretty much every other player that played the game.
But the reality of the situation is like BB has stated in that running the football for a QB has to show that it significantly improves team's chances for winning. And I'm not talking about going 9-7 and 10-6 in the regular season, I'm talking about winning championships. Not to say that going 9-7 or 10-6 is not an accomplishment or not indicative of production. Because it is. But it's not considering a factor in "greatness." Otherwise the legacies of Daunte Culpepper, Randall Cunningham, and Michael Vick would be held in much higher regard than they currently are by football people.
And the crux of the argument and debate seems to stem from Vick's greatness. It's not a question of whether Vick was productive as a Falcon. He certainly was. But there are those that believe that Vick was a great QB that had his ability stifled by his supporting cast and his coaches. This is an argument that I vehemently deny.
And if you don't think Vick was a great QB, then why are you defending him? Why are you coming up with so many excuses which curtailed his success? If you simply belief that Vick was good to very good, then you should be relatively content with his output as this team's QB over his time period. You may believe that Greg Knapp & Co. did not get maximum output from him, but for the most part got most of out of him.
I'm thinking I may have gone to the game. The only thing I recall was that in a radio interview before the game Millen said he liked classical music. Was he subbing for Archer or perhaps even Miller? around that era our QB situation was a mess. scott Campbell started a game. It mattered not who played in the late 80s. We had a back up running back named Keith somebody i recall having to kick off once. I don't care what anyone says, the era when Hanifan was the interim coach has to be about as bad as the franchise ever got. It was almost funny.
