Are You Ready for Some FOOTBALL! - Week 7

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Rushing Stats and Defense stats are intertwined, Sava. The better a team is able to rush, the longer the offense will be able to keep possesion of the ball. And the less a defense is on the field, the less total yards and points they are going to give up.

okay... thanks for pointing out the obvious

this is not really relevant...

if anything, it supports my point

I am saying Atlanta wins because they run the ball and with defense.


Where in your point here is there anything about Michael Vick making a contribution?

If you have something to worthwhile to add, I welcome it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, I'm using total points, not points per game. Sorry (forgot some teams had bye weeks already)... but the point STILL stands. 7th in points allowed and 13th yardage allowed. THAT is a dominant defense that can propel any offense to the promise land? I don't think so!

Though I notice you didn't address any of my points, especially those about the 2002 stats and 2004 stats where the points per game and total points rankings are the same. I'll take that as your pwnage.

Where in your point here is there anything about Michael Vick making a contribution?

Are you saying Michael Vick isn't an integral part of the running game?

[Sava]

Are you saying Michael Vick isn't an integral part of the running game?

well, if you subtract Vick, Atlanta is 2nd in the NFL in rushing... (and that doesn't take into account any possible rushing yards a replacement QB would have... Schaub looked pretty good last game)

Though I notice you didn't address any of my points, especially those about the 2002 stats and 2004 stats where the points per game and total points rankings are the same. I'll take that as your pwnage.

because that is a red herring... I am not talking about those seasons

[Imran Siddiqui]

well, if you subtract Vick, Atlanta is 2nd in the NFL in rushing... (and that doesn't take into account any possible rushing yards a replacement QB would have... Schaub looked pretty good last game)

And in 2004 where without Vick, Atlanta is 20th in rushing? And 2002, where they are probably in worse shape without Vick?

They are running the ball uber crazy so far this year, but it isn't going to last. The Falcons won't finish 800 yards above the #2 rushing team. Vick is good for at least 750 yards and so far in 1/4 of a season he has 223 yards. That's 892 yards for the season on that pace. Last year it was 902 yards rushing for Vick, and that was the difference between 20th place and 1st place.

because that is a red herring... I am not talking about those seasons

It's only a red herring to you because it blows up your entire argument and reduces it to a crisp. Last year's stats matter if you are arguing the Falcons win only by rushing and defense. Or are you telling me that Vick was far more important to the Falcons last year than he is this year?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava
okay... thanks for pointing out the obvious

this is not really relevant...

if anything, it supports my point

I am saying Atlanta wins because they run the ball and with defense.


Where in your point here is there anything about Michael Vick making a contribution?

If you have something to worthwhile to add, I welcome it.

It should have been obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out for you. Michael Vick helps the running game, which he does by running for hundreds of yards, which keeps the Defense off the field. Ergo Michael Vick's presence helps Atlanta's defense out.

[Sava]

Imran, why are you talking about subtracting Vick's rushing yards from Atlanta's totals? That is part of my argument. Vick is part of Atlanta's rushing game.



Yet another attempt by you to distract from the issue at hand.

Vick is a MEDIOCRE passer.

Atlanta wins by rushing (that includes Vick's rushes) and defense.

What about this do you not understand?


Shi: None of what you are saying is in dispute. Who are you even arguing with? If you have a point to make about Michael Vick's passing ability being something other than mediocre...then by all means, say so.

[pchang]

Passing ability is not the only way a quarterback can help his team win. Yes or no?

[Shi Huangdi]

You said:

In 2003, Atlanta went 5-11. Vick was injured. Their defense was 30th in points allowed and 32nd in yardage allowed (or vice versa, I forget which). Sorry, but Vick does not play defense... him being in the lineup is not going to make the defense play all that much better (despite your armchair NFL analysis of the situation).

You saying Vick's injury is what made their defense bad is a major BAM!

I was saying Vick's injury may have had quite a bit to do with their defense being bad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, why are you talking about subtracting Vick's rushing yards from Atlanta's totals? That is part of my argument. Vick is part of Atlanta's rushing game.

Yet another attempt by you to distract from the issue at hand.

Vick is a MEDIOCRE passer.

Sorry, you are shifting goalposts. Your argument (and the issue at hand) was:

[q=Sava]he is not a talented QB at all[/q]

There is more to a QB than passing when you have the running talent of Michael Vick.

Though its nice that you realize your argument was wrong and you try to shift it to something else, but NO ONE said Vick was a good passer. We have said he is a good QB, which was the argument. This is further supported by the fact that you've said that if you take away Vick's rushing yards this year, the Falcons are 2nd in rushing so far. You've said this more than once. If you were counting Vick's rushing as part of the 'running attack' why make that point?

I've been talking about Vick's rushing totals for an entire page now and THIS is the first time you said you weren't talking about Vick's running.

Sorry Sava... nice try, but you've failed again.

[Sava]

nope... my points are strong as Steel

you, however, have no ground to stand on

I've been talking about Vick's rushing totals for an entire page now

that's right... because you are trying to distract from the issue...

ITS CALLED A STRAWMAN!!!

in the words of yoda..

this is why YOU FAIL!

I WIN!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I was saying Vick's injury may have had quite a bit to do with their defense being bad.

well, there's no real way to know for sure, so the point is moot...

IMO, I think the impact Vick's injury on the defense's performance is minimal...

the Bears' defense seems to do fine with terrible quarterbacks... they don't use that as an excuse... same with the Ravens when they won the Super Bowl

[Imran Siddiqui]

that's right... because you are trying to distract from the issue...

ITS CALLED A STRAWMAN!!!

The only logical fallacy here is your shifting of goal posts. I've quoted you saying Vick "is not a talented QB". Nothing about you aren't counting running there. Nothing about you were only talking about Vick's passing there.

And IF I was engaging in strawmen... why not call it? Because it WASN'T! You were counting running... which is why you continually pointed out where Atlanta would rank without Vick's rushing yards this year.

Has anyone said Vick was a good passer in this thread? Please, point it out.

Shifting goalposts . You've been so thoroughly pwned, I wonder why you keep digging the hole deeper and deeper for yourself.

[Sava]

sorry, you lose...

thanks for playing

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks for conceeding defeat, Sava.

And the pwnage of Sava is total and complete

[mactbone]

Atlanta 2002 TOP - 32:02
Atlanta 2003 TOP - 27:38
Atlanta 2004 TOP - 29:10

But it doesn't even matter because as this article demonstrates there is no significant correlation between time of possession and winning.

Michael Vick has played in 47 (not starting in 7) games. In that time he has 39 fumbles, 40 passing TDs, 14 rushing TDs, 28 ints, and was sacked 117 times (last year averaging three sacks a game).

One of the big problems is that he was a good passer. In 2002 he passed for 16 TDs and 8 ints. Last year it was 14 TDs and 12 ints.

Using the the new statistical measures at Football Outsiders (affiliated with Baseball Prospectus) Vick ranked as the 36th rated passer in the league last year. Even adding in his rushing he doesn't become that much better.

Also, I have to point out that Vick's replacements in 2003 were Doug Johnson and Kurt Kittner. You're trying to argue that the Falcons with Vick = good and the Falcons without Vick = bad. It's not that simple. You're really comparing the Falcons with Vick = good and the Falcons with Johnson and Kittner = bad. Which is fine because we know that Johnson and Kittner suck, but to say that because they suck then Vick must be a HoFer - that's a bad argument. He's a special talent but the Falcons would be much better off either running some of the old rushing formations or getting someone else to play QB.

Last note, Vick isn't the first running QB. Fran Tarkenton, Bobby Douglass, plus however many guys played before the forward pass was popularized.