Official Michael Vick Thread

[BlakeTyner]

The discussion in the Vick thread in the Gazette has drifted into a discussion best suited for here, in the Sports Den. I've snipped the posts from there and moved them to here. Please use this thread to discuss Vick the player, and the Gazette thread to discuss his current legal woes.

Thanks,
~Blake





The man is a FINE QB.


Oh, he's a fine athlete, I'm not taking that away from him. But opening yourself up for injury the way he does does not a fine QB make. At the end of the day, the game still needs somebody in the position that has the fundamentals down, and I'm not convinced Vick has (or will ever) have those. I'm not even saying that he shouldn't start based on this dogfight thing (innocent until proven guilty, as far as I'm concerned.) The question for me is this: is his star power and dynamic style worth more than getting to the big game? Put another way, if he was dropped in favor of a more conventional pocket passer, and the Falcons were allowed to spend some of the Vick money on better wide outs, would the team be more successful?

~Blake

[Violent VictiM]

If they dropped Vick and even picked themselves up one fine Wide Out, yes, they'd probably be a better team. However, aside from a draft pick, there isn't really a huge talent pool available out there. Daunte Culpepper is probably the best free agent QB, and that isn't even really saying much since no one has been able to see if he's recovered fully from that knee injury.

Take a look at Vince Young, he scrambles as well. Just like no-huddle offense, scrambling QBs could become a great weapon in the future. Steve Young was big on scrambling, and he had himself a fine career. As did Randall Cunningham. Vick's already third only to those two and he's been in the league since only 2001. He may not be the best pocket player (that award goes to my 8th Grade Health teacher), but he sure as hell gets an award in versatility. He puts up decent numbers passing, and when combined with his ability to run, he could be looking at a great future. If one still exists for him, that is.

[BlakeTyner]

Yes, I think they can be a great weapon, but I worry about keeping them healthy. If Vick could be Vick and still play as many games as Favre in his day, I think his style would probably work, for a while. Idunno, I'm not a real fan or critic of Vick, so I'm just spitballing, really.

~Blake

[Violent VictiM]

I'd like to just put out there that Matt Schaub will start as QB for the Texans, and he did do pretty amazing in that game against The Patriots. So I retract my previous sarcasm, however will more than likely make up for it in some other thread on some other topic.

:love:Blakey:love:

[sCabbOy]

A marginal throwing QB and a marginal runningback can at least do what Vick does. Vick has a very bad completion percentage, YPC, rating, etc. He's basically a good runner. He's not worth the shit the Falcons are getting keeping him on their roster.

[Violent VictiM]

A marginal throwing QB and a marginal runningback can at least do what Vick does. Vick has a very bad completion percentage, YPC, rating, etc. He's basically a good runner. He's not worth the shit the Falcons are getting keeping him on their roster.

Yea, cause half the yards of Drew Brees and only 3 more interceptions definitely makes him a marginal QB. Okay, what if in you guys' perfect world, Michael Vick didn't scramble as much as he does? Lets say all of the 1,039 yards he rushed went into throwing. Add that to the 2,474 yards he had passing and you have yourself 3,513 yards. That would tie him with the 8th most alongside Ben Roethlisberger.

Unfortunately, they don't count as passing yards. They count as rushing yards. What is a QBs job? Get yards. Get first downs. Put the ball in the endzone. Vick does this. That in my eyes, makes Vick a fine QB. 3,513 yards is a great number of yards, and he did it his own way. Instead of handing it off to Warrick Dunn, who still managed to get over 1,000 yards last season despite Vick getting 1,000 himself. That makes The Falcons the only team in the NFL that gathered over 2,000 yards rushing.

[BlakeTyner]

I'd like to just put out there that Matt Schaub will start as QB for the Texans, and he did do pretty amazing in that game against The Patriots. So I retract my previous sarcasm, however will more than likely make up for it in some other thread on some other topic.

:love:Blakey:love:

:) No harm, no foul.

~Blake

[nickmeece]

Your thoughts? I'm undecided.

[sCabbOy]

Yea, cause half the yards of Drew Brees and only 3 more interceptions definitely makes him a marginal QB. Okay, what if in you guys' perfect world, Michael Vick didn't scramble as much as he does? Lets say all of the 1,039 yards he rushed went into throwing. Add that to the 2,474 yards he had passing and you have yourself 3,513 yards. That would tie him with the 8th most alongside Ben Roethlisberger.

Unfortunately, they don't count as passing yards. They count as rushing yards. What is a QBs job? Get yards. Get first downs. Put the ball in the endzone. Vick does this. That in my eyes, makes Vick a fine QB. 3,513 yards is a great number of yards, and he did it his own way. Instead of handing it off to Warrick Dunn, who still managed to get over 1,000 yards last season despite Vick getting 1,000 himself. That makes The Falcons the only team in the NFL that gathered over 2,000 yards rushing.


Sort of true, but giving him ALL of his rushing yards in his passing total is unfair since his completion percentage is pretty low- 52% (horrible). So say each of his rushes were throws that means he'd only complete 50% of them. So that 1,000 yards becomes 500 yards and (roughly) 2900 yards.


So let's say he completes 52% of his passes and passes for 2900 yards with a 6.4 Y/A rating. In 2000 Ryan Leaf complete 50% of his passes for a 5.8 Y/A rating. LEaf had more interceptions, but not much worse than Vick. LEaf is now retired because he was considered a bust.

W/o his rushing Vick would probably be on the practice squad waiting for an injury to a 3rd string QB.

[The Dream Master]

The difference between Vick and all those other scrambling QBs you mentioned is the fact that all of the latter could actually, you know, pass. That's never, ever been Vick's strong point, and it just so happens that you can't get away with being a sub-par passer in the NFL.

I've been calling for Vick to be benched in favor of Schaub for the past couple of years (and I'm not even a Falcons fan). Atlanta will rue the day they traded Schaub--I really think he's going to be a good pro QB.

[Violent VictiM]

Okay, yes, Vick can't pass very well. If you guys refuse to believe that half the yards of Drew Brees isn't at the very least DECENT then fine. But whereas he may be different from other scrambling QBs because he can't, ya know, pass...he scrambles better than any QB that does run. Donovan, Young, and we'll even throw Jake Plummer in there since he has the tendency to roll out. None of them even touch Vick when it comes to rushing yards. Like I said earlier, all a QB has to do is get first downs, and keep his offense on the field. He does that.

[FreddyKR]

I think in maybe 2 years Vince Young will be better than Vick with passing and rushing yards. He was only a rookie this year and he dominated the field.

[sCabbOy]

Then maybe he should have become a running back. In big games when they are forced to pass to make up points a 52% completion percentage and a (roughly) 5 yards per pass average won't win many games.

[Violent VictiM]

Well, he's not a running back. He's a Quarterback, who has over 3,000 yards. It's not his fault that he has the ability to rush for 1,000 yards as a Quarterback. If a QB threw for over 3,000 yards, we wouldn't be debating this right now. And I know the next post is going to be along the lines of, "but he's a Quarterback, he should be throwing". Well, don't be surprised when mobile QBs are a huge factor within the next decade.

[sCabbOy]

Since when was 3,000 yards a benchmark for greatness? That's only 180 yards a game! It's much like when people make a huge deal when a RB rushes over 1,000 yards- it's only 60 yards a game.

Furthermore he has NEVER thrown for over 3,000 yards- that still means nothing since you don't measure a QBs greatness based on his passing yards. If you throw for 4,500 yards and have a 85 rating that's not too good.

Vick gets intercepted too much, doesn't complete a lot of passes, has a low yards per throw percentage and a low rating. He doesn't always rush for 1,000 yards usually 500-700 and 900. He had a good year in 2002, but ever since then he's been on the decline.

So what if he rushes for 1,000 yards. Most teams employ a QB in hopes he will complete 60% of his passes, throw for 3,500 yards and 25 TDs while being picked off 8-12 times?

Vick last year was 52% 2,400 yards 20/13. Hardly legendary numbers.

[The Dream Master]

See, I don't think we'll ever get to the point where the NFL is dominated by running QBs. Sure, it helps to have one who can scramble, but a QB should be a passing-oriented position. It'd be completely different if Vick when out and dominated with his feet every single game and led the Falcons to big playoff victories, but he's only done that once in Lambeau a few years back (of course, one can argue that Vick didn't really do much in that came and the Falcons defense forced a ton of turnovers and actually scored a couple of times I think). For the most part, however, this just hasn't been the case. At best, his tenure with the Falcons has been a mediocre one.

Vick is a great athlete, don't get me wrong. But he's really not a QB in my eyes. I think he'd be great in a Kordell Steward type of role, but the Falcons really should have given Schaub more of a chance.

[sCabbOy]

See, I don't think we'll ever get to the point where the NFL is dominated by running QBs. Sure, it helps to have one who can scramble, but a QB should be a passing-oriented position. It'd be completely different if Vick when out and dominated with his feet every single game and led the Falcons to big playoff victories, but he's only done that once in Lambeau a few years back (of course, one can argue that Vick didn't really do much in that came and the Falcons defense forced a ton of turnovers and actually scored a couple of times I think). For the most part, however, this just hasn't been the case. At best, his tenure with the Falcons has been a mediocre one.

Vick is a great athlete, don't get me wrong. But he's really not a QB in my eyes. I think he'd be great in a Kordell Steward type of role, but the Falcons really should have given Schaub more of a chance.


He is a good athlete, just a marginal QB. WHen a QB is know for running, you'd think the team would be a layoff team year round because the QB should be half way decent.

Look at Randall Cunningham- he could run and throw really well. In the year Randall ran for 950 yards he threw 3500 yards completed 59% and 30 yds to 13 ints. Now that is stellar!

[Violent VictiM]

Yes, you're right. That is amazing. However the league was a tad bit different back in 1990 than it is today. I also never said that Vick was a GREAT QB, and if I did I just misused my words because this has been dragging on so long, but I feel he's not as appreciated as he should be. If the dude runs for a majority of his yards, instead of passing then thats how he does it. Those yards still count being as how he's a QB.

Also, under Jim Mora Vick only had the option to change hot routes when it came to audibles. If the play called for a pass, and Vick read the defense, realizing that a pass wasn't going to cut it, he wasn't allowed to change it to a running play. If it was pass, you must pass. No motion was allowed unless called for, so under those conditions he has limited pass options. Under Petrino this season, possible offensive changes could be made, and Vick would be given some more freedom. But we may not be able to see if that is so.

[sCabbOy]

Ya know... as long as Vick wins games- that's all that matters. THere have been not-so-great QBs who won Superbowls. It all goes to defense, offensive line, running game and such.

I think he's much like Kordell Stewart, although Kordell completed a lot more passes- I think one year 66% of them.

[Utellme]

As for his running give the man some wide recievers maybe he wouldn't have to run so much.Just to prove my point name a Atlanta WR thats amongst the elite or even close.

[sCabbOy]

No disrespect to him, but if he's throwing 52% CP he won't hit them even if he had WRs at his disposal.

Back to Kordell, didn't he play WR and RB before a fulltime QB? I loved Kordell and like I said Vick reminded me of him. I also like lefty QB's Steve Young, Boomer Esiason, Todd Marinovich (what ever happened to him?) and such.

[On a Pale Horse]

So now he tests positive of Marijuana. Man..... some people just do dumb shit.

[JVY2K]

As terrible as this was, I happened to be watching it right after they had a segment on about a dentist who was molesting and raping his patients. He got one year in prison and a fine. While Vick is facing up to ten years in prison for dog fighting. Bad as it is, he doesn't deserve a worse punishment then the perverted dentist...

Dogs are not more important than people. Abuse of animals should not be held as a more serious crime then rape and/or molestation. And while I feel he definitely deserves punishment, it should be HIM getting the year in prison and the fine while this dentist gets the ten years+...

[Jigsaw]

I think both Vick and that dentist deserve to have the worst punishments possible. People like them are what's wrong with mankind.

[JVY2K]

I think both Vick and that dentist deserve to have the worst punishments possible. People like them are what's wrong with mankind.

He should be punished, yes. To his credit though, he's not raping or molesting anyone. I hate to think of the amount of football players who've raped or attempted to rape women at big parties and had the whole thing hushed up with money thrown in the proper directions.

[Jigsaw]

Regardless, he did a disgusting thing and deserves the harshest punishment possible. I think animal abuse is just as despicable as any sex crime.

[JVY2K]

Regardless, he did a disgusting thing and deserves the harshest punishment possible. I think animal abuse is just as despicable as any sex crime.

Agreed. My point is that if he's going to face ten years for this, that dentist should be shot on the spot. There is no way a man who was molesting his patients should get less time than someone caught for dog fighting.

[Kat]

Well IMHO, anyone who hurts another human or an animal are sickening and quite frankly disgust me. Both should get at the very least 5 years in jail.

[Jigsaw]

They both deserve castration.

[JVY2K]

Well IMHO, anyone who hurts another human or an animal are sickening and quite frankly disgust me. Both should get at the very least 5 years in jail.

To a degree. Someone who hurts or kills a rapist or pedophile certainly should not be punished. I know they are based on the fucked up law system. But for example a father killing his daughters rapist or killer should definitely NOT be given punishment for that...And I certainly hope that kind of thing would not disgust you. A father going after his daughters rapist. Especially if she was just a young girl molested by some sicko...

[Jigsaw]

I agree with you there. In cases where someone's loved one has been raped or molested or killed, I definitely think vigilante action is justified and the person shouldn't be punished for that.

[JVY2K]

I agree with you there. In cases where someone's loved one has been raped or molested or killed, I definitely think vigilante action is justified and the person shouldn't be punished for that.

Exactly. A friend of mine was raped and beaten a few years ago. She died in the hospital. Had we all found the rapist, my buddies and I would all be serving time right now because we would have beaten him to death. He vanished though. Nobody has heard of what happened to him. My guess is his rich dad had him hidden somewhere...

The law system doesn't do justice anymore for these kinds of crimes. Rapists and pedophiles get less time then drug dealers or thieves sometimes. Out in five years for "good behavior"...There should be no such thing. If you murder an innocent or rape/molest someone, the punishment should be death. No questions asked. Not help and rehabilitation like they try to do nowadays. "Awe, the poor pedophile was abused as a child. Let's understand him and help him"...Where's the help for their victims that are either dead or forced to live the rest of their lives with terrible haunting memories? It's bullshit!

[Jigsaw]

I agree with that 100%. I think any sex crime should immediately make the offender eligible for the death penalty.

[The Dream Master]

While I agree that sex offenders/murderers, etc. are the lowest forms of humanity on earth, I think vigalante justice crosses the line if a mob essentially hunts them down and kills them because, well, that's pre-meditated murder.

Now, if a mob goes and incapacitates the person and turns them over to the police, there's nothing wrong there. It does suck when the justice system lets these people off, though, but that's an entirely different subject altogether.

[Jigsaw]

I think in the case of killing the rapist or sex offender, the killing of the said offender is completely justified. I mean they can end up being sentenced to death by the courts anyway, and what different is it if a court of law condemns an offender to die?

[BlakeTyner]

Sure, that works in principle, but who decides? There are scores of people sent to prison by women who picked them out of lineups as the one who raped them, only to be cleared later by DNA.

Yes, they're despicable people. Yes, they deserve to die (AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!) but doing it "Falling Down" style isn't the right way.

~Blake

[The Dream Master]

I think in the case of killing the rapist or sex offender, the killing of the said offender is completely justified. I mean they can end up being sentenced to death by the courts anyway, and what different is it if a court of law condemns an offender to die?

Well, for one thing, I'm not a fan of the death penalty anyway. However, I know it's there and serves its purpose in upholding our laws. Therefore, I'll humor this discussion by saying that, under law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty; therefore, everyone has a right to a trial, and, if the judge and/or jury decide the death penalty is necessary, the suspect has been given his due process in court. If a vigalante avenger goes after said suspect, then they have violated their rights to that process. I know it sounds silly to say that a rapist or murderer has rights, but that's the law.

Besides, who would want to have the fact that they killed a person on their conscience anyway? Even if it were completely justified, I'd be horrified at the act for my entire life.

[Jigsaw]

I wouldn't be horrified over knowing a murderer or sex offender died. People like that are the scourge of the world and deserve the harshest punishment possible. And I agree that vigilante justice can be unjust when innocents get caught in the mix and are mistaken for the offenders, but when there's evidence to prove the guilt without question and it's known fact that the person did what they did, vigilante justice is justified IMO.

[The Dream Master]

You honestly wouldn't be somewhat shaken by the fact that you killed a person, even if they did deserve it?

[Jigsaw]

No I wouldn't. Humans are living wastebaskets, we live and we die, simple as that.

[The Dream Master]

I think this a case where it's very easy to say that if you haven't been in that position.

[Jigsaw]

I'll admit it's an unduly harsh statement on my part, but I can't value the life of someone who kills for pleasure or sexually abuses people. People like that IMO deserve death, and are the reason why humans as a whole tend to be so fucked up.

[The Dream Master]

I wouldn't say that I'd value their life, but I'd imagine that I'd be pretty fucked up over the fact that I killed someone, no matter what I thought about them.

[Jigsaw]

Looking back, I'll admit that I would probably be pretty shaken and dazed if I ever killed anybody, but my point to begin with was I think vigilante action is justified in cases where the evidence is there to prove the person's guilt and it's a known fact that the person is guilty.

[JVY2K]

It would not weigh on my conscience at all if I ended the life of a man who raped, molested or murdered people. Especially if he was doing it to young children. These people become animals as soon as they commit these crimes and no amount of "rehabilitation" changes that. Nor should a jail sentence give them a "second chance" to start over. If I was living in a community with young kids and a pedophile was released from prison and took up residence in my area, you can bet your ass I'd, as well as any other parents who would join me, be over there to take that sonofabitch out! Sure, we might all serve time because of it, but I'd serve life in prison if it meant sparing the life or rape/molestation of a child!

[Jigsaw]

It would not weigh on my conscience at all if I ended the life of a man who raped, molested or murdered people. Especially if he was doing it to young children. These people become animals as soon as they commit these crimes and now amount of "rehabilitation" changes that. Nor should a jail sentence give them a "second chance" to start over. If I was living in a community with young kids and a pedophile was released from prison and took up residence in my area, you can bet your ass I'd, as well as any other parents who would join me, be over there to take that sonofabitch out! Sure, we might all serve time because of it, but I'd serve life in prison if it meant sparing the life or rape/molestation of a child!


Perfectly put.

[The Dream Master]

See, you're talking about something completely different than I am. I'm not saying the justice system is perfect as it is; in fact, it's far from it. I think rapists/murderers, etc. should be put away for life with no possible chance to be released. If this were the case, there'd be no need for vigalante justice (outside of maybe apprehending a suspect in the first place). Willingly pre-meditating to kill a person is murder no matter what the intention is, so I can't get behind any kind of blood lust like that.

[Jigsaw]

I see your point. I think vigilante justice is an issue that's hard for a lot of people to come to some sort of a universal standstill on.

[The Dream Master]

Most definately. I mean, I have no problem with vigalante justice as long as it doesn't involve some sort of pre-meditated murder. It'd be an entirely different situation if a person were to kill a sex offender or whatever if they caught them right there in the act and absolutely had to kill that person out of protection or to prevent the person from escaping. That's manslaughter, which is an entirely different thing.

[BlakeTyner]

Yeah, I think we all see where each other is coming from, we're just all different on how we think about it. We all hate rapists and murderers. And, to tell the truth, although I don't agree with it, if somebody killed my mom, or my girlfriend, I'd track them down and kill them. Probably torture them. But I'd hate myself if I did that, only to find out it was the wrong person, because then I'm no better than the criminal.

~Blake

[JVY2K]

Willingly pre-meditating to kill a person is murder no matter what the intention is, so I can't get behind any kind of blood lust like that.

Murder is not just murder no matter what. Killing someone who is innocent is far different than killing someone who is out theire ruining people's lives through rape, molestation and murder.

[The Dream Master]

In the eyes of the law, any sort of pre-meditation is murder, and I happen to agree with the law in this case. Yeah, that person might be fucked up and doing all sorts of fucked up things, but it's not up for people to just randomly go around to decide who lives and dies on a whim.

[JVY2K]

In the eyes of the law, any sort of pre-meditation is murder, and I happen to agree with the law in this case. Yeah, that person might be fucked up and doing all sorts of fucked up things, but it's not up for people to just randomly go around to decide who lives and dies on a whim.

The eyes of the law are flawed when it comes to murder. The whole thing needs to be reexamined. For example, there's no way a father who goes out and kills his daughters rapist should be punished the same as a man who is out there killing innocent people for the joy of it.

And it actually is kinda up to "people" as that is what a jury is comprised of. And the whole jury process isn't always fair either. You think there's no pressure in juries and if two people feel it's guilty and the rest don't that said two aren't pressured into voting not guilty? Or vice versa? It's sad that in some cases, sick twisted pedophiles, murderers, rapists etc. go free because they had a convincing lawyer. And then even more people are raped, molested, killed etc. And this is why I welcome vigilantism. I agree with it 100% and feel there needs to be more of it. Rid the world of rapists, pedophiles and serial killers. Just kill 'em all!

[Jigsaw]

I agree. I think in cases where there's evidence to prove the guilt, vigilance is justified.

[On a Pale Horse]

This should probably be split into a different topic, has posts have veered off into a discussion about vigilantes. But I think the justice system is pretty lax on people who lash out at the violent or sex offenders.

Theres a famous case in the 80s caught on video.... a guys son was kidnapped and molested. As they were transporting the prisoner the father pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. I believe he just got probation and psych treatment, no jail time.

[JVY2K]

This should probably be split into a different topic, has posts have veered off into a discussion about vigilantes. But I think the justice system is pretty lax on people who lash out at the violent or sex offenders.

Theres a famous case in the 80s caught on video.... a guys son was kidnapped and molested. As they were transporting the prisoner the father pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. I believe he just got probation and psych treatment, no jail time.

You're saying it's a BAD thing that the father who shot the man who KIDNAPPED and MOLESTED his son didn't get jail time? I hope not, cause that's pretty twisted if you think the father deserves punishment for lashing out at the twisted pedophile who molested his son and who now must live his life forever haunted by those memories. The molester deserved to die and I were the father, I would have tortured him to death!

[On a Pale Horse]

You're saying it's a BAD thing that the father who shot the man who KIDNAPPED and MOLESTED his son didn't get jail time? I hope not, cause that's pretty twisted if you think the father deserves punishment for lashing out at the twisted pedophile who molested his son and who now must live his life forever haunted by those memories. The molester deserved to die and I were the father, I would have tortured him to death!

No, I didn't state any opinion, I just reported the facts.

[JVY2K]

No, I didn't state any opinion, I just reported the facts.

Well that's good. And the justice system SHOULD be lax regarding people who kill child molesters, rapists or serial killers. There's no way someone killing one of these individuals deserves to be punished in the same manner as they would be...