Thank you Packers for ending the Michael Vick Show

GrantZilla wrote:I don't know how people expect Vick to be resisilant, when he's six foot, probably shorter then that, and 215 pounds, and he's getting sacked by the likes of the 6-2, 238 Desmond Bishop

GrantZilla wrote:

Frank wrote:

GrantZilla wrote:

Love the photo. Who knows? If Vick had made it to Atlanta, I may've made that photo a reality. (smile) This "Running QB bullshit" doesn't work in post season. However, Vick should be effective enough in regular season to be Philli's "Franchise QB."

Gumby wrote:

Frank wrote:

GrantZilla wrote:

Love the photo. Who knows? If Vick had made it to Atlanta, I may've made that photo a reality. (smile) This "Running QB bullshit" doesn't work in post season. However, Vick should be effective enough in regular season to be Philli's "Franchise QB."

The game came down to the last drive and Vick didn't play a bad game all things considered. The guy had a phenomenal season. It's like saying the Chargers will never win a Super Bowl because of Phillip Rivers.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Frank wrote:

GrantZilla wrote:

Love the photo. Who knows? If Vick had made it to Atlanta, I may've made that photo a reality. (smile) This "Running QB bullshit" doesn't work in post season. However, Vick should be effective enough in regular season to be Philli's "Franchise QB."

The game came down to the last drive and Vick didn't play a bad game all things considered. The guy had a phenomenal season. It's like saying the Chargers will never win a Super Bowl because of Phillip Rivers.

He did NOT have a phenomenal season. He missed four games due to injury because he plays the game in an unsustainable way.

Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Frank wrote:

GrantZilla wrote:

Love the photo. Who knows? If Vick had made it to Atlanta, I may've made that photo a reality. (smile) This "Running QB bullshit" doesn't work in post season. However, Vick should be effective enough in regular season to be Philli's "Franchise QB."

The game came down to the last drive and Vick didn't play a bad game all things considered. The guy had a phenomenal season. It's like saying the Chargers will never win a Super Bowl because of Phillip Rivers.

He did NOT have a phenomenal season. He missed four games due to injury because he plays the game in an unsustainable way.

I agree Marble.

For those Vick fans out there, if you want to see what "Michael Vick's" post season future is, here's a little experiment you can try out: (a) Get a football and play catch with one of your friends. (b) Following this, turn around in a circular motion for about 5 minutes until you can hardly stand. (c) Try and throw the football again. You may notice a loss in your ability to aim. This is what happen will happen to Michael Vick in the future upon getting hit on a consistant basis by men twice his size.
There's a reason we have an offensive line in pro football. It's to protect the QB from getting hit on a consistant basis. Why? Because, if this happens, he cannnot throw the ball effectively. This is why lines protect QB's. Also, for folks who think this is a racial judgement on the intelligence of "Black QB's", please see the brilliant play of "Warren Moon", former qb for the team formerly known as, the "Houston Oilers." (Now they go by the name of the Tennessee Titans.) Also, the late "Steve McNair" is another good example.

marbleheadmaui wrote:
He did NOT have a phenomenal season. He missed four games due to injury because he plays the game in an unsustainable way.

Frank wrote:For those Vick fans out there, if you want to see what "Michael Vick's" post season future is, here's a little experiment you can try out: (a) Get a football and play catch with one of your friends. (b) Following this, turn around in a circular motion for about 5 minutes until you can hardly stand. (c) Try and throw the football again. You may notice a loss in your ability to aim. This is what happen will happen to Michael Vick in the future upon getting hit on a consistant basis by men twice his size.

Frank wrote:There's a reason we have an offensive line in pro football. It's to protect the QB from getting hit on a consistant basis. Why? Because, if this happens, he cannnot throw the ball effectively. This is why lines protect QB's. Also, for folks who think this is a racial judgement on the intelligence of "Black QB's", please see the brilliant play of "Warren Moon", former qb for the team formerly known as, the "Houston Oilers." (Now they go by the name of the Tennessee Titans.) Also, the late "Steve McNair" is another good example.

Gumby wrote:If you want to make the argument that Vick did not have a phenomenal season because no one did fine. But who was more important to their team this year? Who performed better?

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:
He did NOT have a phenomenal season. He missed four games due to injury because he plays the game in an unsustainable way.

This is what I don't understand. Vick was a consensus MVP candidate, put up great numbers, had his coaches and his teammates respect 2 years removed from jail and that's not phenomenal? He's been a starting QB in the league for 8 years and is actively trying to play smarter. His durability in the league proves that he's sustainable. He was able to miss 4 games because he had a capable backup and no pressure on him to return.

If you want to make the argument that Vick did not have a phenomenal season because no one did fine. But who was more important to their team this year? Who performed better?

Frank wrote:For those Vick fans out there, if you want to see what "Michael Vick's" post season future is, here's a little experiment you can try out: (a) Get a football and play catch with one of your friends. (b) Following this, turn around in a circular motion for about 5 minutes until you can hardly stand. (c) Try and throw the football again. You may notice a loss in your ability to aim. This is what happen will happen to Michael Vick in the future upon getting hit on a consistant basis by men twice his size.

You can't really do an experiment. Vick's level of athleticism is beyond what anyone else is capable of and Vick has proven this, which is how he became such a hyped player. You could be right that he gets hurt or burnt out, but you're arguing against the precedent he's already set with conjecture. Any QB that gets hit repeatedly will have problems. So the Eagles are going to have to find ways to protect him.

Frank wrote:There's a reason we have an offensive line in pro football. It's to protect the QB from getting hit on a consistant basis. Why? Because, if this happens, he cannnot throw the ball effectively. This is why lines protect QB's. Also, for folks who think this is a racial judgement on the intelligence of "Black QB's", please see the brilliant play of "Warren Moon", former qb for the team formerly known as, the "Houston Oilers." (Now they go by the name of the Tennessee Titans.) Also, the late "Steve McNair" is another good example.

The problem is the Eagles line is not able to protect their QB. Why? They're not a great line. So Vick constantly has to work under pressure. He's a pretty good passer and an exceptional runner. He uses his ability to make plays with his feet, and is willing to take the hits to do so. Yet people take shots at him for taking advantage of his strengths. He admittedly has wasted a lot of his potential by not working to develop more as a passer, but running is essential to his game, and he likes to play a little reckless. Aaron Rodgers is the exact same way and has a similarly poor line. He just happens to be a better passer and worse runner. You rarely hear people say his style of play is going to end in a short career. They might say "he needs to get rid of the ball sooner" or "his line needs to protect him better," but he doesn't get consistently get criticized despite being the best player on his team.

For the record I like Rodgers more than Vick. I just have sympathy for Vick because all he's ever done was win and play at a high level. Then people complain that he's winning the wrong way or blame him alone for his teams failures. His teams in Atlanta were terrible. If he hadn't played for Philly they would likely have been a .500 team. I like to think it's because he has so much potential or nowadays because people just plain hate him, but he hasn't gotten credit he's due. He's not an all time great QB, but he's among the best in a strong era and certainly an original.

PS. Steve McNair is not the best example of an intelligent black QB. I love him, in part because he played so reckless and instinctively.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:
He did NOT have a phenomenal season. He missed four games due to injury because he plays the game in an unsustainable way.

This is what I don't understand. Vick was a consensus MVP candidate, put up great numbers, had his coaches and his teammates respect 2 years removed from jail and that's not phenomenal? He's been a starting QB in the league for 8 years and is actively trying to play smarter. His durability in the league proves that he's sustainable. He was able to miss 4 games because he had a capable backup and no pressure on him to return.

If you want to make the argument that Vick did not have a phenomenal season because no one did fine. But who was more important to their team this year? Who performed better?

Frank wrote:For those Vick fans out there, if you want to see what "Michael Vick's" post season future is, here's a little experiment you can try out: (a) Get a football and play catch with one of your friends. (b) Following this, turn around in a circular motion for about 5 minutes until you can hardly stand. (c) Try and throw the football again. You may notice a loss in your ability to aim. This is what happen will happen to Michael Vick in the future upon getting hit on a consistant basis by men twice his size.

You can't really do an experiment. Vick's level of athleticism is beyond what anyone else is capable of and Vick has proven this, which is how he became such a hyped player. You could be right that he gets hurt or burnt out, but you're arguing against the precedent he's already set with conjecture. Any QB that gets hit repeatedly will have problems. So the Eagles are going to have to find ways to protect him.

Frank wrote:There's a reason we have an offensive line in pro football. It's to protect the QB from getting hit on a consistant basis. Why? Because, if this happens, he cannnot throw the ball effectively. This is why lines protect QB's. Also, for folks who think this is a racial judgement on the intelligence of "Black QB's", please see the brilliant play of "Warren Moon", former qb for the team formerly known as, the "Houston Oilers." (Now they go by the name of the Tennessee Titans.) Also, the late "Steve McNair" is another good example.

The problem is the Eagles line is not able to protect their QB. Why? They're not a great line. So Vick constantly has to work under pressure. He's a pretty good passer and an exceptional runner. He uses his ability to make plays with his feet, and is willing to take the hits to do so. Yet people take shots at him for taking advantage of his strengths. He admittedly has wasted a lot of his potential by not working to develop more as a passer, but running is essential to his game, and he likes to play a little reckless. Aaron Rodgers is the exact same way and has a similarly poor line. He just happens to be a better passer and worse runner. You rarely hear people say his style of play is going to end in a short career. They might say "he needs to get rid of the ball sooner" or "his line needs to protect him better," but he doesn't get consistently get criticized despite being the best player on his team.

For the record I like Rodgers more than Vick. I just have sympathy for Vick because all he's ever done was win and play at a high level. Then people complain that he's winning the wrong way or blame him alone for his teams failures. His teams in Atlanta were terrible. If he hadn't played for Philly they would likely have been a .500 team. I like to think it's because he has so much potential or nowadays because people just plain hate him, but he hasn't gotten credit he's due. He's not an all time great QB, but he's among the best in a strong era and certainly an original.

PS. Steve McNair is not the best example of an intelligent black QB. I love him, in part because he played so reckless and instinctively.

The QB's FIRST JOB is to be able to play. If your style is so reckless you aren't available for 25% of the season? That just doesn't work! It is ESPECIALLY true when one can trace a decline throughout the season in Vick's performance. At the end he was NOT a consensus candidate! Why? Because he fell apart against the Vikings (?) and then couldn't play the last regular season game. You want to call him comeback player of the year? Fine! But he faded when it counted. Why? Not a lack of heart, not even a lack of smarts but a lack of wisdom.

Seriously Gumby, go look game by game at his 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009 seasons game by game and compare his first five games each year to the last five in terms of passing performance. The story is the same each year. He fades away. BTW, the reason I left 2003 out? he broke his leg.

Who was better this year? Brady, Manning, Ryan, Brees, Rivers for starters. Why? Among other reasons BECAUSE THEY PLAYED 16 GAMES!!!!! Vick's grade for his four missed games don't make them incomplete, it's a ZERO for each game. You cite his durability. Durability? Vick? He's played in sixteen games ONCE in eight years! ONCE!!!!!!!!NO QB can survive running down the field 8-10 times a game in the NFL. NOBODY

This season 19 QB's threw for more yards, 23 QB's had more completions, 15 threw for more touchdowns, ten QB's had a better completion percentage, heck 8 QB's threw for more yards per game, only six QB's were sacked more often and nobody took more sacks per game than Vick. Why? Two reasons, he doesn't throw the ball away when he should (see int in playoff game) and neither he nor his line reads blitzes for crap. I really think a lot of that for Vick is he is so constantly getting banged it is hard to stay mentally sharp.


Is he good? Sure. As good as he could be? Not even close. He ought to be fined every time he breaks the line of scrimmage. THEN he has a chance to be great.

Good thing I haven't thought about this much huh?

Here's an interesting stat. Steve Young was kind of considered a "running QB." The year he won his only SB? He rushed 58 times in 16 games. That was, by the way, the last time he lasted 16 games. By comparison, this year in only twelve games Vick rushed 100 times!!!!!!!! That is TWICE AS OFTEN PER GAME! Frantic Fran Tarkenton, noted for his scrambling, ran, in his most active season, 62 times in fourteen games (then a full season). In fact tarkenton is an interesting study, he played ten complete seasons and missed one game four others. Why? Because he ran sideline to sideline where the slower guys were the ones chasing him. Then he'd make a downbfield throw. When Vick runs downfield he is challenging the fastest guys on the field when they are running full speed. Too dangerous. Heck, back in the day even Otto Graham, who was almost a Winged-T QB only ran more than 60 times in a season twice and was under 50 seven of his other eight years.

marbleheadmaui wrote:The QB's FIRST JOB is to be able to play. If your style is so reckless you aren't available for 25% of the season? That just doesn't work! It is ESPECIALLY true when one can trace a decline throughout the season in Vick's performance. At the end he was NOT a consensus candidate! Why? Because he fell apart against the Vikings (?) and then couldn't play the last regular season game. You want to call him comeback player of the year? Fine! But he faded when it counted. Why? Not a lack of heart, not even a lack of smarts but a lack of wisdom.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Seriously Gumby, go look game by game at his 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009 seasons game by game and compare his first five games each year to the last five in terms of passing performance. The story is the same each year. He fades away. BTW, the reason I left 2003 out? he broke his leg.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Who was better this year? Brady, Manning, Ryan, Brees, Rivers for starters. Why? Among other reasons BECAUSE THEY PLAYED 16 GAMES!!!!! Vick's grade for his four missed games don't make them incomplete, it's a ZERO for each game. You cite his durability. Durability? Vick? He's played in sixteen games ONCE in eight years! ONCE!!!!!!!!NO QB can survive running down the field 8-10 times a game in the NFL. NOBODY

This season 19 QB's threw for more yards, 23 QB's had more completions, 15 threw for more touchdowns, ten QB's had a better completion percentage, heck 8 QB's threw for more yards per game, only six QB's were sacked more often and nobody took more sacks per game than Vick. Why? Two reasons, he doesn't throw the ball away when he should (see int in playoff game) and neither he nor his line reads blitzes for crap. I really think a lot of that for Vick is he is so constantly getting banged it is hard to stay mentally sharp.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Is he good? Sure. As good as he could be? Not even close. He ought to be fined every time he breaks the line of scrimmage. THEN he has a chance to be great.

hardcorebee24 wrote:Vick is a great athlete and good Quarterback. He's not great nor will he ever be. He get's hit way too much even if he didn't run and that's because his release is one of the slowest I've ever seen in a playoff QB. Even when a pass play is called it takes him forever to cock back the ball and let it go.

GrantZilla wrote:

Gumby wrote:If you want to make the argument that Vick did not have a phenomenal season because no one did fine. But who was more important to their team this year? Who performed better?

QB RAT: 111
YDS: 3,900
TD: 36

GrantZilla wrote:On their way to SB

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:The QB's FIRST JOB is to be able to play. If your style is so reckless you aren't available for 25% of the season? That just doesn't work! It is ESPECIALLY true when one can trace a decline throughout the season in Vick's performance. At the end he was NOT a consensus candidate! Why? Because he fell apart against the Vikings (?) and then couldn't play the last regular season game. You want to call him comeback player of the year? Fine! But he faded when it counted. Why? Not a lack of heart, not even a lack of smarts but a lack of wisdom.

I think that sums it up well. However, saying he wasn't available for 25% of the season doesn't tell the whole story. For 2 of the games he was reportedly willing to play, but the team decided it was best to rest him.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Seriously Gumby, go look game by game at his 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009 seasons game by game and compare his first five games each year to the last five in terms of passing performance. The story is the same each year. He fades away. BTW, the reason I left 2003 out? he broke his leg.

It's not that he fades away, it's that defenses get better and figure out how to attack him. In his early years he would respond by running more, but his last year in Atlanta and this year he's noticeably let the game come to him more. The issue in Atlanta is his receivers had a terrible season and this year he consistently outplayed his opposition.

http://www.nfl.com/players/michaelvick/gamesplits?id=VIC311467

Here are the stats from this year. They support that he didn't fade away. If you go through the years it's the same story. What happens is he throws more picks. That's normal when a team is very dependent on their QB. It's more expected for Vick because he is so unique, a lot of teams don't know what to expect or how to defend him in the early part of the season.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Who was better this year? Brady, Manning, Ryan, Brees, Rivers for starters. Why? Among other reasons BECAUSE THEY PLAYED 16 GAMES!!!!! Vick's grade for his four missed games don't make them incomplete, it's a ZERO for each game. You cite his durability. Durability? Vick? He's played in sixteen games ONCE in eight years! ONCE!!!!!!!!NO QB can survive running down the field 8-10 times a game in the NFL. NOBODY

This season 19 QB's threw for more yards, 23 QB's had more completions, 15 threw for more touchdowns, ten QB's had a better completion percentage, heck 8 QB's threw for more yards per game, only six QB's were sacked more often and nobody took more sacks per game than Vick. Why? Two reasons, he doesn't throw the ball away when he should (see int in playoff game) and neither he nor his line reads blitzes for crap. I really think a lot of that for Vick is he is so constantly getting banged it is hard to stay mentally sharp.

It's not about playing, it's about winning. When Vick plays, he wins games. This year, he was more responsible for the success of his team than everyone on that list except Brady and Ryan. If you look at the statistics the ones that matter are TDs + Yds + %. vs. INTs. Vick's very high on that list. QB rating? Vick's very high on that list. That's without taking into account the impact his running has on the game. He's the only QB on that list.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/seasontype/2
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/rushing/seasontype/2

marbleheadmaui wrote:Is he good? Sure. As good as he could be? Not even close. He ought to be fined every time he breaks the line of scrimmage. THEN he has a chance to be great.

He probably won't be great. He wasted that opportunity. If you think keeping Vick in the pocket is making the most of his talents, you're limiting him more than he ever did to himself. The game is moving towards more mobile QBs and Vick is a blueprint to how they can succeed.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

1. The idea that when he plays he wins is faulty thinking. If a guy can play for eight games and win them all or another can play 16 and go 12-4? You take the second guy.
2. Throwing more picks or defenses figuring you out IS fading away. What he can't do is counter back. Why? I suspect a big part is because he's so beat up.
3. PER GAME ratings are irrelevant if one guy doesn't play all the games. See #1 above.
4. Limiting Vick is what must be done! He has a cannon, is accurate and can avoid the rush. Stay with that and in the fourth quarter of a game he'll still be sharp. In the fourth quarter of the season he'll still be healthy.
5. The pro game is NOT moving towards running QB's. The game is STILL dominated by pocket passers. How many of the eight teams left have a non pocket-passer? If the game were moving in that direction Cam Newton would be the first QB picked. Instead he'll be the fifth.

1. You're right, but those are not the two guys in question. If a guy can play 12 games and win 10 and a guy can play 16 games and win 10, they are equal. They're both in the playoffs. The guy who gives you the better chance of winning 1 game in the playoffs is the guy you want. This year Vick was that guy. He did more for his team with less. He was in the Brady, Manning, Brees, Big Ben, Rodgers, and maybe Ryan class of guys you can win with on their talents alone. Like Manning and Brees, he went up against a better team.
2. Almost every QB in the league fades. My argument is that Vick's is more dramatic because teams have to specifically gameplan for him unlike every other QB in the league. Because of that it takes longer for teams to figure out how to stop Vick and play him more effectively later on. Other teams getting better doesn't mean Vick's getting worse which is what I think of as fading - a player playing progressively worse.
3. PER game ratings are completely relevant. The playoffs are single game eliminations. Tell the Seahawks that what they do over the course of 16 games is what matters. It's about being prepared for the playoffs. PER game ratings are a good measure of what players are capable of in individual games.
4. His accuracy is streaky, he hasn't shown he can read defenses or audible blitz pickups, so he'll still take hits unless he becomes like Manning and drops to protect himself (very doubtful and not easy to do even if he want to). Also, Vick has historically been the best runner on his teams. That's a skill that wins games. If you want to limit him teach him to slide. That's been tried and it hasn't taken.
5. Wait 15 years. 15 years ago Cam Newton likely wouldn't have been a college QB let alone drafted as 1st/2nd rounder. The two best young QBs are Rodgers and Ryan. Rodgers is the perfect guy for my case because he does everything. Ryan knows how to scramble when he needs to (better than Brady and even better than a young Manning did). Cassell runs, Young runs, Garrard runs, Troy Smith and Alex Smith run, Big Ben, McNabb and Romo aren't pocket QBs because they scramble to create time. Saying that the game is moving towards more rushing QBs isn't saying that rushing QBs dominate the game. It's saying that athletic QBs are getting more opportunities on the collegiate and pro level because running is getting recognized as a valuable QB skill. Not a replacement for other QB skills, something that's valued in addition to. On the collegiate game, rushing QBs have already started to take over because their skills are more useful against lesser competition. I predict that Newton has a good NFL career (seems like a guy who made his dumb mistakes early enough to learn from them and wants to be good). His running skills will be a part of that.

marbleheadmaui wrote:First off, THANK YOU for your thoughts and the time you put into them. It's fun and a learning experience for me.

I am responmding specifially to the bold in each number

1. See it's NOT one game that matters in the playoffs. It is 3-4. It's the guy that gives you the best chance at winning the Super Bowl that you want isn't it?
2. I just don't think that's true. Look at Brady or Manning this year. Their numbers got progressively better late in the year. You're right of course that "fading" is relative to the defense being played against.
3. Yeah but to win the SB you have to win 3-4 in a row, not just one game.
4. I think Vick would be more productive if he did a Manning or if he threw it out of bounds or if he learned to slide. History seems to say you get much above 50 runs a year and a QB can't really thrive. I'm guessing here, but I'll bet Vick takes 2-3 times as many hits across a season as Brady or Manning or Brees or Rodgers or Rivers. THAT, I think is the problem.
5. See the bold is where we disagree. Running laterally is fine. Why? Slow guys chasing you. Downfield, mean, nasty, fast guys chasing you. Very Bad In 15 years defenders will likely be bigger, nastier and faster. I don't think the running QB concept works for that reason. Cam took a SHOT in the fourth quarter that almost ended the game for him. The problem with running is that it is NOT just an addition. There can be no question that it detracts from one's passing. Taking hits always does that. The question is, is it a NET addition? I think over 20 games if the goal is to win the Super Bowl? It isn't. But I guess in short that is the crux of the disagreement, right

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:First off, THANK YOU for your thoughts and the time you put into them. It's fun and a learning experience for me.

I am responmding specifially to the bold in each number

1. See it's NOT one game that matters in the playoffs. It is 3-4. It's the guy that gives you the best chance at winning the Super Bowl that you want isn't it?
2. I just don't think that's true. Look at Brady or Manning this year. Their numbers got progressively better late in the year. You're right of course that "fading" is relative to the defense being played against.
3. Yeah but to win the SB you have to win 3-4 in a row, not just one game.
4. I think Vick would be more productive if he did a Manning or if he threw it out of bounds or if he learned to slide. History seems to say you get much above 50 runs a year and a QB can't really thrive. I'm guessing here, but I'll bet Vick takes 2-3 times as many hits across a season as Brady or Manning or Brees or Rodgers or Rivers. THAT, I think is the problem.
5. See the bold is where we disagree. Running laterally is fine. Why? Slow guys chasing you. Downfield, mean, nasty, fast guys chasing you. Very Bad In 15 years defenders will likely be bigger, nastier and faster. I don't think the running QB concept works for that reason. Cam took a SHOT in the fourth quarter that almost ended the game for him. The problem with running is that it is NOT just an addition. There can be no question that it detracts from one's passing. Taking hits always does that. The question is, is it a NET addition? I think over 20 games if the goal is to win the Super Bowl? It isn't. But I guess in short that is the crux of the disagreement, right

The same.

It's hard to put anyone in a category with Brady and Manning. They're two of the best QBs ever and statistical anomalies in just how good they are. You're right that durability is important, but with more coaching instability I think more guys will be willing to gamble on running QBs and hope they have one or a few great seasons. My favorite non-Brady QB is Rodgers. I think he makes great reads, but knows when to tuck the ball and get important yards. I think there's going to be a point when running QBs get more to that level. That they can use their athleticism as a support and not a crutch. Maybe it won't be Cam Newton or Terrelle Pryor, but I think there will be a guy who can put it all together, more after him. I think our disagreement does come down to short term vs. long term. Risk vs. reward. As a fan, I like the gamblers (unless it's the Pats).

Final thoughts:

Vick is a dog killer. If you hate him for that you're entitled to.

The main thing that gets lost in all of the criticism of what Vick doesn't do is that he's a joy to watch. At the end of the day I'm rooting against him so all I want him to do is entertain me. And he does. The play he hurt his shoulder was a "wow" moment: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81b085de/Vick-injured-on-rushing-attempt?r_src=ramp. He constantly does things I can't believe. That's way more exciting than throwing a check down. It's not about what he should be or could have been, but what he is. I think he's among the elite players in the game today and probably its most entertaining. Also, he's unexpected. Every time the ball is in his hands there's the chance something electric will happen. Every game he's in there's the chance he could something amazing to win. I like the "you never know what's going to happen when the ball's in his hands" aspect of his game. He's the Suns. They could never beat the Lakers or Spurs and might not have been better than the Mavericks, but you'll remember them because they were special and did something different.

Gumby wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:Vick is a great athlete and good Quarterback. He's not great nor will he ever be. He get's hit way too much even if he didn't run and that's because his release is one of the slowest I've ever seen in a playoff QB. Even when a pass play is called it takes him forever to cock back the ball and let it go.