Are you ready for some FOOTBALL - Final Regular Season Week

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you wanted to be fair, which I know has never been your aim, you may have wanted to consider Vick's rushing yardage.

597 yards...

and Vick's running hurts the Falcons more than it helps them

if he ever learns to think pass first and run only as a last resort, he'll develop into a much better QB

just like McNabb developed over the course of his first four years... he came into the league a scrambling QB like Vick (or if you prefer a "running QB" )... and then when Owens joined Philly, the final piece fit into place and McNabb had the weapon at WR in addition to changing his game that allowed him to have that amazing season of over 100 passer rating... However, while Owens may be responsible for McNabb's rating being high that year via the 31 passing TD's (20 from Owens), over 2600 of McNabbs passing yards were to other receivers. And McNabb had 3 previous seasons of 3,000 passing yards... and McNabb was on pace this year to pass for over 4,000 yards!!!

I don't mean to threadjack to talk about McNabb, but I know you like to make the argument that Owens is responsible for McNabb's tranformation. And that is just another thing you are wrong about.

Vick is a great athlete... there's no doubt about that... but he's a below-average QB.

It's an absolute joke that he's going to the Pro-Bowl.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Isn't it good to be back, Imran?

[pchang]

Where is Imran's new sig?

[Imran Siddiqui]

and Vick's running hurts the Falcons more than it helps them

Because we know that with that offensive line and recievers that a pocket passer QB would make the Falcons 'better'. I'd love to see Schaub get the job for a span for 10 games or so (even if due to injury to Vick) so all the people who say the Falcons would do better with Schaub would get the same lesson as people who said the Falcons would have done better with Doug Johnson (though I think Schaub may be a bit better).

I know you like to make the argument that Owens is responsible for McNabb's tranformation

When in the Hell have I ever said that?

Owens, however, is responsible for McNabb reaching the elite passing. McNabb has always been a good passer, AND a good runner. It was when Owens came around that he was able to further elevate the passing game.

Where is Imran's new sig?

I dunno... ask whoever is responsible for coming up with it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


When in the Hell have I ever said that?

A while ago, some other NFL thread when I was pointing out the truth about Vick and how he needs to change his game like McNabb did.

Owens, however, is responsible for McNabb reaching the elite passing. McNabb has always been a good passer, AND a good runner. It was when Owens came around that he was able to further elevate the passing game.

mmmmm not quite... in McNabb's first two years, he resembled Vick... then he started to become more of a pocket passer, and using the running aspect of his game as a last resort, just keeping the defenses on their toes.

That is how mobile QB's are most effective... passing, but keeping the possibility of the run as a plan B. Or using play action, mixed in with the occasional bootleg.

Steve Young is a great example of what a mobile QB should be, when developed to the full potential.

oh, and look at Steve Young's 2nd year... 1986 with Tampa...

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=252

Very Vick-like numbers.

[-Jrabbit]

Brunell and Bledsoe have cases, but neither where, IMO, valuable to their squads as Vick was to Atlanta...

Imran, this is not an MVP vote, it's a vote based on how each player compared to others at their position. Based on the numbers, Vick did not deserve to make the Pro Bowl.

As for "the players made sure he got in" -- it's important to note that fully 1/2 of the player votes are from guys who didn't play against him this year. He got plenty of "reputation" votes.

Bledsoe and Brunell in particular deserved to get in based on performance. Manning is young, inconsistent, and can't win on the road.

I'd also like to point out that Atlanta LOST 2 of those 3 straight November games where Vick was busy proving he could be a pocket passer with a high QB rating. In the 6 games this year where Vick had a passer rating over 90 in 2005, the team was 2-4. When his QB rating was under 90, the Falcons were 6-2. I suspect Vick has fallen into the trap of focusing more on STATS at the expense of focusing on WINNING. In the past, he didn't seem to care about his numbers as long as the Falcons were winning.

I'm actually more of a Vick fan than most of the Chicago mafia that hang out here, and believe he does have a skillset that doesn't translate well to established QB measurement techniques. (In fact, I picked Atlanta as NFC champs in preseason. )

But in 2005, based on both team and individual performance, IMO Michael Vick does NOT deserve to go to the Pro Bowl.

[-Jrabbit]

Oh, and welcome back!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, this is not an MVP vote, it's a vote based on how each player compared to others at their position.

People are voted onto all star teams or pro bowl squads all the time because of their value to their teams. I'd probably have personally put Bledsoe in as the 3rd QB, but have had Vick over Brunell. However, I consider it pretty close.

But you can't overlook the "who would you want to see play" factor when looking at the voting.

in McNabb's first two years, he resembled Vick

Actually in McNabb's 2nd year, he put up over 3,000 yards passing with a 58% completion percentage along with his 600 yards rushing. Now I love Vick, but I'd be estatic if he had put up passing stats like that next year.

[Sava]

I was referring to his tendency to rush more and his low completion percentage and passer rating (compared to the rest of his career)... not the actual numbers as they compare to Vick's.

McNabb is the better QB, no doubt. But you can still make the comparison between the two... especially when it comes to what Vick needs to do to improve his game.

[-Jrabbit]

I'd probably have personally put Bledsoe in as the 3rd QB...

Agreed. I'm not a Bledsoe fan, but he regained his old form for most of the year and deserved the Pro Bowl nod. Considering Dallas' mediocre running game (due primarily to O-line injuries), he's had a pretty good year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was referring to his tendency to rush more and his low completion percentage and passer rating (compared to the rest of his career)...

Well, I'd compare his 2nd season in 2000 with his 2003 season (the one right before Owens came on the scene).

2000: McNabb had a 58.0 completion percentage and passing yards of 3365. He ran 86 times for 629 yards and 6 TDs.

2003: McNabb had a 57.5 completition percentage and 3216 passing yards. He also ran the ball 71 times for 355 yards and 3 TDs.

The two years are virtually identical. I don't see his rushing that much less (one less rush per game), and the completion percentage was higher.

Now with Owens, McNabb exploded with a 64.0 completion percentage and 3875 yards. He only ran for 41 times for 220 yards and 3 TDs, which may indicate that many 'running QBs' tend to run a lot because of lack of WR talent. The year before, McNabb ran almost twice as much.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's a stupid point is what it is. The only think Vick and Douglass have in common is that they run well (at least Douglass did for two seasons). Douglass has none of Vick's leadership ability or presense, which has served the Falcons very well in the 3 years Vick has been starter.

I think the Falcons will take a QB that runs a bit for the record they've complied with him under center. Interestingly enough, this year he ran for substantially less yards than he did last year or 2 years before that when he led the Falcons to the playoffs. I think that has been one of Mora's failings this year. While improving his passing, Vick hasn't done his creative runs nearly as much.

Furthermore, what about QBs who can run and throw?! That is the plan for Vick. Cunningham once ran for 900+ yards and threw for ~3,500 yards. Now he wasn't the leader that Vick was, and didn't have any running back help (Cunningham was the leading rusher in 1990.. Heath Sherman was second with a bit over 680 yards), but Vick has that in place and has gone farther than Cunningham ever did with Philly. When the passing game starts clicking, he'll be a a great dual threat, and he better run as well as pass to keep defenses on their toes.

speaking of Cunningham. The most success he's had, has been passing. With the Minnesota Vikings. Think about it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The two years are virtually identical. I don't see his rushing that much less (one less rush per game), and the completion percentage was higher.

This is where you make your mistake.

The numbers don't tell you the full story here. By 2003, McNabb had already pretty much transformed his game. You can see a clear progression in his stats leading up to this season. And if you had watched the Eagles that year, or if you were to watch tape on McNabb and compare it to 2000 you'd see the difference in his play.

2003 was a down year for Donovan and is misleading when looking at his progression. The Eagles had a revolving door at RB that year, which really affected their consistency at offense.

This may be news to you Imran, but NFL football is a team game. One player's stats are dependent upon other players' positions. And the passing game is going to have problems if the running game is not consistent. If you remember, Philly's inconsistency at the RB position was a huge concern for them that year. It's not a coincidence McNabb had a drop-off in stats.

You see... I look beyond just one player's numbers and I find the answers.

This is why I have superior football knowledge.

[Sava]

There's some drama going on between Viking's DT Pat Williams and Bears C Olin Kreutz.

These two rivals are turning up the hate
Kreutz-Williams tiff just latest of many in Bears-Vikings series

By John Mullin
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 28, 2005

Festering in the long shadow of the Bears-Packers rivalry, the Bears-Vikings "relationship" at times has seemed to make up in venom what it may lack in tradition.

For example, Minnesota defensive tackle Pat Williams declared the selection of Bears five-time Pro Bowl center Olin Kreutz a "joke." His agent suggested Kreutz mounted a conspiracy against Williams, who never has been picked.

"I wish I had that kind of power," Kreutz said, laughing. "I'd put all my teammates in the Pro Bowl."

Why would the corpulent Williams have a problem with Kreutz?

"I must have made him mad," Kreutz mused. "Stole his cheeseburger or something."

By Bears-Vikings standards, the tiff is tame.

Bears-Packers has quantity: Ditka-Gregg, Martin-McMahon, Stills-Suhey and such.

Bears-Vikings has quality: throat-slashes, Dwayne Rudd backpedaling across the goal line taunting a pursuing Edgar Bennett. When former Bears defensive end Trace Armstrong once was asked to name his most-hated player in the NFL, the response was instantaneous.

"[Vikings tackle] Tim Irwin," Armstrong declared. "If I ran over him with my car on the street, I'd back up to make sure I got him."

Former Bears coach Mike Ditka called the Metrodome "the Rollerdome." When Ditka belittled going up to play in "that big old barn," Minneapolis denizens obligingly placed farm animals all over the Metrodome floor to greet the Bears.

"They have honestly looked at themselves as a little brother thing," said defensive coordinator Ron Rivera, a veteran of Minnesota games from 1984 to 1991. "With Green Bay, we're equals. But with Minnesota it's almost little brother-big brother. They're younger than we are and sometimes that's an issue.

"Some in Minnesota almost look at us with a second-city complex."

The expansion Vikings won their first game in 1961 against the Bears in Ditka's NFL debut. And it was an interception by Todd Scott that started Ditka's coaching demise in Chicago.

For the Vikings, it was sweet revenge after several years in the late 1980s in which they sent more players to the Pro Bowl (1987-89) yet came up short in the standings and in NFL standing.

"They thought they were better than we were and in some instances, some positions, maybe they were better," Rivera said.

Quarterbacks coach Wade Wilson, a Viking from 1981 to 1991, agreed.

"We felt like we had some good teams as well," he said. "There definitely was some nastiness, some bitterness, some good, old-fashioned hatred between the teams."

When the Bears forgot to check the "compensation" box on D'Wayne Bates' offer sheet in 2002, it was the Vikings who moved in to take advantage of the situation with an offer of their own. The Vikings also put the Bears in a tough spot with an offer sheet for kicker Paul Edinger. The Bears wound up matching the offer, paying Edinger vastly more than they had intended.

Now comes Kreutz-Williams to a rivalry already marked by hard feelings.

"You're not going to like them very much," Kreutz said. "When you play somebody twice a year, there's going to be an edge. … They're going to get you some plays and you get them."

jmullin@tribune.com

link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...-sportsnew-hed

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if you had watched the Eagles that year, or if you were to watch tape on McNabb and compare it to 2000 you'd see the difference in his play.

2003 was a down year for Donovan and is misleading when looking at his progression. The Eagles had a revolving door at RB that year, which really affected their consistency at offense.

You mean as opposed to 2000?

It may surprise you to know that in 2003 the Eagles running game was 9th in the league while in 2000 the Eagles running attack was only 15th.

Sure the running attack was better in 2002 than 2003... but it was 7th in the league and about 200 yards more in total (12.5 yards extra per game). Not that much better than 2003 at all.

So I'm sorry if I disagree with you pulling reasons out of your ass, but blaming lower than you'd want stats on a lack of a running game doesn't wash.

I watched plenty of McNabb and he was basically the same QB in 2003 as he was in 2000. A bit better in scanning the field, but not that much. Still prone to run a lot (in 2002 with the lack of 'inconsistency in the RB position', McNabb only played 10 games, but ran 63 times.. a far higher run percentage per game than in any other year of his career).

And let down in stats? His completion percentage went from a 58.4 to a 57.5. That's not that big of a drop at all. His yards per attempt actually went UP in 2003 to 6.7 yards per attempt from 6.3. Now in 2003 he did throw for less TDs, but most because the RBs scored more!

So yeah, numbers tell far more of the story than you'd want to believe .