Are You Ready for Some Football - Week 4

[Imran Siddiqui]

For this year, yes. In his career, no. Remember, he has led some spectacular 4Q comebacks in the past, such as the spectacular Carolina and San Diego comeback victories in the 2004 season (the 11-5 year). Last year he led a 4th Q comeback against the Saints (in San Antonio). In 2002, he had that absolutely spectacular run against Minnesota to tie the game in the 4th Q and then they won it on OT. Don't say he "can't do it" because he has.

[SlowwHand]

Ok. He rarely does it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kurt Warner has had five 4th Quarter Comebacks since he came into the league. Brian Griese has had four, which is the same number I identified for Vick off the top of my head (there could be more I don't recall).

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/06/26/ramblings/stat-analysis/3978/

It seems that Vick is average in coming back in the 4th Q (though he is not specifically mentioned in the article).

[SlowwHand]

Well, then don't go adding stuff. You can't just quote an article and say in your opinion he must belong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't add anything . Just the fact that he has around the same 4th Q comebacks (at least off the top of my head) as some of those listed in the Bottom 10 in comebacks with far less games played, meaning his ratio's are better. Indicates an average ability in coming back.

[SlowwHand]

Ok. I can agree with him being an average QB.

His main problem is that the coaching staff always try to make him into a QB he's not.
In comparison, look at Tennessee. No, they're not winning. They will. They're designing their offense to use Young's strengths, of which he has many.

Vick never had that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok. I can agree with him being an average QB.

His main problem is that the coaching staff always try to make him into a QB he's not.
In comparison, look at Tennessee. No, they're not winning. They will. They're designing their offense to use Young's strengths, of which he has many.

Vick never had that.

100% agree.

I actually think that Dan Reeves may have done something like that for Vick. Mora/Knapp seemed to do their damnest to fit Vick into a "West Coast Offense". Now they added the college option in the playbook. They need to just adapt the offense to Vick by doing more long passes (Vick is good at bombs) instead of quick timing routes.

[SlowwHand]

Reeves tried to, but for some reason I don't think Vick got along with him. Reeves may have been to authoritarian for his tastes. Somday Vick will look back and realize, Reeves would have been good for him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think it was Vick necessarily, but rather the GM didn't like him and thought Reeves played too conservatively. I mean Reeves always gets his QBs mad at him (ie, Elway). It's just the way he is. Though there was an issue with Reeves wanting to rush Vick back from a broken leg.

Reeves still remains one of the biggest backers of Vick, btw.

[SlowwHand]

And Elway grew to love him.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
For this year, yes. In his career, no. Remember, he has led some spectacular 4Q comebacks in the past, such as the spectacular Carolina and San Diego comeback victories in the 2004 season (the 11-5 year). Last year he led a 4th Q comeback against the Saints (in San Antonio). In 2002, he had that absolutely spectacular run against Minnesota to tie the game in the 4th Q and then they won it on OT. Don't say he "can't do it" because he has.

ESPN shows different ratings for different years, but all his split stats all show 39.6 for some reason.

That can't be right.

ACK!

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's 2001 to 2003 you are looking at... and it can't be right because his total rating is shown to be very higher... that's wierd.

2004 onwards has the splits correct, it seems. 2004 it was 89/90. 2005 and so far in 2006 it hasn't been that good.

[-Jrabbit]

Vick has shown the ability to make great plays with his legs.
He has not shown the same ability with his arm.

His arm is strong, but his accuracy is suspect. Oh, and his receivers suck. Amazingly, Atlanta has not managed to draft (or sign) a quality WR in 6 years. Either that, or Michael Vick just doesn't make his receivers better.

Now in his 6th year, Vick has a career percentage completion of 53.8 (with a high of 56.4 in 2004). In 55 starts (basically, 3 full seasons at the helm), he has 54 TD passes and 41 INTs. Plus another 20 TDs rushing. His career QB rating is a mediocre 75.4.

Of course, that rating doesn't take his rushing stats into account.

Nor his 54 fumbles.

Over his career, Michael Vick has averaged 6.97 yards per pass attempt and 7.1 yards per rush attempt. That says it all.

Michael Vick is NOT a great QB. He is a great runner who plays QB.

(all stats through 4 games this year)

[Jaguar]

Here are Jagjag's three random points about Michael Vick:

1. Michael Vick and Lindsay Lohan have a lot in common.
An odd comparison, I know. Here's how they're similar: first, both became spectacularly successful at a very young age. Vick ran for three touchdowns in the first quarter of the first game of his first college season. He had a spectacular college career, and went on to be drafted first overall by the Falcons after a blockbuster trade with the Chargers for the rights to take him. (The Chargers took LaDainian Tomlinson with the pick they received in return. Not too shabby.) He got the largest contract for a rookie quarterback in history. His jerseys sell like mad. He makes the Pro Bowl at 22, even though his accuracy is bad, he tends to fumble, and his dropback mechanics are terrible.

And there, you see, is the problem. He's got millions of dollars and a Pro Bowl invitation already. The public deluded him into thinking he had arrived as a superstar quarterback. Why is the public now so surprised that he hasn't improved?

I think the same is true for Lindsay Lohan. She became a superstar celebrity at the age of 17, mostly because she's very charismatic and attractive. She's not a great actress by any means, but she's paid like one- and ironically, as a result, she'll probably never become one. She's got talent and opportunity, but not incentive. Why should she work to become a great actress when she's already paid like she is one?

2. Michael Vick is still a pretty good quarterback
2005 was arguably Vick's worst season, and it was the year that people really began to turn on him, especially as the Falcons finished the year 2-6 in their last eight games. But really, was it all that bad? Vick ended up with about 3000 total yards, 21 total touchdowns, and 13 interceptions. On a team that already has a powerful rushing attack from its two halfbacks, that is a solid contribution for a quarterback.

It's disturbing that Vick's numbers over the past few years have been trending downward, but it's not all that surprising. I think most teams had no idea how to plan for Vick in 2002 - sure, there had been Randall Cunninghams and Kordell Stewarts in the league, but Vick could run circles around those guys. Now most teams have Vick containment plans on defense.

Vick also might have some "hidden" benefits for Atlanta. Defensive ends are sometimes instructed to line up wider than normal against Vick in order to keep him boxed in. (If he's allowed to freely scramble to the left, especially, he becomes much more dangerous.) When defensive ends line up wide like that, they become less useful against the run. So Warrick Dunn's success may be partially attributable to Vick.

The numbers, however, don't necessarily bear this out. Here is a breakdown of rushing stats for Dunn and Duckett with and without Vick under center. Dunn and Duckett, in fact, were more efficient in games without Vick. But that might be on account of a lurking variable: the Falcons were terrible in 2003, the year where Vick missed the most time due to the broken fibula. They were 2-10 in the 12 games Vick didn't start, and many of the losses were blowouts. Running backs are often very efficient once their team is way behind - the winning team is happy to let the losing team run the clock out and gain yardage in small amounts.

So whether or not Vick's presence helps the halfbacks run better is still a matter that's up for debate. But in general, it's fair to say that Vick is a pretty good quarterback.

3. Michael Vick could be a lot better
I don't think Vick has been coached very effectively. The coaches have been too lenient on him in many ways, but they're also being too controlling in others.

For example, Vick has the infuriating habit of dropping back diagonally, instead of straight back, like a fundamentally sound quarterback would. This easily-correctable error in fundamentals hurts him a lot. He should drop back, examine the pass rush, and then decide whether or not to scramble. When he dropped back last year, I often saw him tripping over Kevin Schaffer (his own lineman) or running straight into the open arms of Mike Rucker. It's completely silly and avoidable.

But on the other hand, they've been too strict trying to pigeonhole him into becoming a West Coast offense passer. Vick is absolutely nothing like Matt Hasselbeck or Joe Montana. The West Coast offense plays precisely to Vick's weaknesses. It's based on timing, accuracy on short routes, and reading the field quickly. Vick doesn't do any of those things well. Vick does best when he's able to improvise, scramble to buy time, and throw long bombs.

In summary: When Vick was drafted, people believed he could become a great quarterback. He was good right off the bat, and he's still pretty good, and people have gotten on his back because he hasn't become great, and they think he never will. I don't think that's necessarily fair. By all means, Vick is never going to complete 60% of his passes, and he's never going to be more than a decent passer. But I do think that if his coaches work with him better, and play to his strengths, he could be much better than he's been for the past five years.

[notyoueither]

The Steelers (and Esks) rule.

The rest drool.

That is all.