NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[Al B. Sure!]

oops

[Ben Kenobi]

Excuse me?

Andy Reid is probably the best QB coach in the NFL right now.

Barring, say, Norv Turner?

You're talking Brett Favre's ****ing QB coach for a few years

Farve played for many, many years.

you're talking the guy who discovered and developed a 6th round pick rookie sitting on the bench behind Favre... Matt Hasselbeck.

As opposed to the guy that turned Philip Rivers into the top yardage gainer in the entire NFL. Beating out nobodies like Manning, Brees and Brady. Right. I see how that works.

EVERYONE ****ING KNOWS ANDY REID IS A QB (and passing offense) GURU!

For developing Hasslebeck? Pretty thin resume. Maybe Tom Cable should be a guru too for his amazing work with JaMarcus Russell.

He can't manage the clock or time outs, is oblivious to certain rules such as overtime ties, can't win an NFC championship game or Super Bowl, doesn't know what it means to run the ball... Andy Reid has a lot of faults but developing QB's is not even close to being one of them. It's his greatest asset.

If that's his greatest asset, I hate to see his flaws. And yet he's stayed on with the Eagles for as long as he has. The mind boggles.

Personally, the Eagles sucked for so long I think they are just happy to be a winning team again.

[Ben Kenobi]

3-2 in the games Kolb played...

I call bull****. More like 4-1

Doubtful. It's much harder to go 4-1 than 3-2.

... and even if the Desean Jackson punt return (IT WAS A PUNT RETURN, NOT A KR!) never happened, Vick is still 8-3 because he would have won that Redskins game in which he got hurt.

Vick would have won the game where he got hurt? Pretty amazing QB.

First of all, the 20-27 loss to Green Bay in week 1 would have been an Eagles victory with Mike Vick playing more than one half.

Green Bay was the Superbowl Champion. They would have chomped the Eagles anyways, Vick or no Vick. One Loss.

Mike Vick was hurt in the first quarter of the 12-17 loss to the Redskins. You really think Mike Vick who, a few weeks later, throws 4 TD passes and runs for two MORE TDs against these same Redskins, would have suffered a 12-17 loss? Mike Vick doesn't break his ribs, Mike Vick wins that game in a blowout.

But Mike Vick being Mike Vick, with increased workload breaks his ribs anyways and still loses. That's loss 2.

Kolb's 13-14 loss to the Cowboys in the final week was a joke. Kolb threw 3 INT's in this one point loss. No way does Vick lose this game.

Ok, say we give this one to Vick.

So even if we take away the Desean Jackson punt return, Vick still is 8-3 in games he starts since he sweeps the Redskins if healthy. He also pulls off the Week 1 win over the Packers and the Week 17 win over Dallas.

He's not healthy. Why would he suddenly magically be healthy? Those are still losses. You've convinced me. He should be 10-6 without the Deshaun PR.

[Al B. Sure!]

Green Bay was the Superbowl Champion. They would have chomped the Eagles anyways, Vick or no Vick. One Loss.

The Eagles are down 20-3 with Kolb. Vick plays the second half and and they lose 27-20... Vick puts up 17 points in a half. If he played the whole game, they'd probably win it.

But Mike Vick being Mike Vick, with increased workload breaks his ribs anyways and still loses. That's loss 2.

YOU ****ING *******!

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT VICK PLAYING A FULL ****ING SEASON AND BEING HEALTHY!!!! WHAT THE ****!?

I'm mad now.

You framed this entire discussion and now you're backtracking:

They went, what? 2-3 with Kolb and 8-3 with Vick? Had Vick lost that other game they would have been 7-4 with Vick. That would translate to an 10-6 season, which is exactly where they did finish.

Vick for a whole season would have been exactly where they ended up.

I have him going 10-6 over the entire season, no Kolb whatsoever.

And on top of that, you concede the Dallas game, but still say 10-6... you mean 11-5 with the win over Dallas instead of the Kolb loss.


This is all retarded anyway! You can't retroactively predict if a team would have won or lost games with a different QB than actually played! But even if you analyzed those games, a reasonable person would say Vick likely would have put them over the top. A healthy Vick playing full games would have beat Dallas and Washington almost definitely and would have had a better than even chance of beating Green Bay in Week 1.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Eagles are down 20-3 with Kolb. Vick plays the second half and and they lose 27-20... Vick puts up 17 points in a half. If he played the whole game, they'd probably win it.

One, if the Packers know Vick is starting then they can game plan for him. Two, halftime adjustments. Three, if they are up by 17 after the first half, they go into prevent D.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT VICK PLAYING A FULL ****ING SEASON AND BEING HEALTHY!!!! WHAT THE ****!?

I said nothing about being healthy. We're assuming Vick plays all the games that Kolb would have played. Him being injured still counts against him, especially when the fact that he is injury prone is part of the argument.

[Al B. Sure!]

I said nothing about being healthy. We're assuming Vick plays all the games that Kolb would have played. Him being injured still counts against him,.

What the ****? What the flying ****? HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY ****ING SENSE?

especially when the fact that he is injury prone is part of the argument

The idea of Vick being injury-prone was effectively destroyed. As a starting QB, Vick has only had two seasons where he missed more than a single game... the 2003 season and this past season. He played at least 15 games in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006. THE MAN IS NOT INJURY-PRONE!

[Ben Kenobi]

The idea of Vick being injury-prone was effectively destroyed. As a starting QB, Vick has only had two seasons where he missed more than a single game... the 2003 season and this past season. He played at least 15 games in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006. THE MAN IS NOT INJURY-PRONE!

Except for last year when he was apparently at his most productive. Hey, if I'm getting the best league QB over 11 games, that means I'm getting around 65 percent of a Drew Brees. That's somewhere in the neighbourhood of folks like Matt Cassell.

[Al B. Sure!]

Except for last year when he was apparently at his most productive. Hey, if I'm getting the best league QB over 11 games, that means I'm getting around 65 percent of a Drew Brees. That's somewhere in the neighbourhood of folks like Matt Cassell.

Like I said... 2003 and this past season are the only years where Vick did not play at least 15 games as a starter. In 6 seasons as a starter, he played 15+ games in 4 seasons and less in two. That's not particularly injury-prone.

Guys like Carson Palmer and Tony Romo have missed more time than that. McNabb, as well.

[Al B. Sure!]

One, if the Packers know Vick is starting then they can game plan for him.

Game plan for this new and improved Vick in the Philly offense? Really? I wonder why it was so hard for all those other D-coordinators out there... The Packers can't game plan for him in Week 1.

Two, halftime adjustments.

Whatever you say, crazy man. "Halftime adjustments" are a myth.

Three, if they are up by 17 after the first half, they go into prevent D.

They WERE up 17 and Vick promptly put up 17 points to close that gap!

[Al B. Sure!]

With regards to the myth of halftime adjustments, here's Phil Simms:

MYTH 4: Teams lose because they don't make the right halftime adjustments.

Phil Simms hears this and cringes.

The former New York Giants quarterback and current lead analyst for CBS took on a laundry list of myths in a book co-written with Vic Carucci and published in 2004, Sunday Morning Quarterback.

During his 15-year career with the Giants, the one-time Super Bowl MVP says he can't remember two halftime adjustments. It baffles him that such analysis is prominent.

"I'm sure we made some," Simms wrote. "All teams make some. But they're just never as significant as everyone paints them out to be on TV, such as blocking changes or pass-pattern changes or something drastic that's going to happen in the second half."

The "adjustments," Simms noted, generally constituted tossing out plays that were not working and trying other plays that were already in the game plan. In some cases, a subtle switch might have come in running a play to the right side of the line as opposed to the left.

"I just cannot recall making all those major changes whenever we played better in the second half," Simms wrote. "Either that or maybe I got hit too many times in the head to remember."

[Al B. Sure!]

Mike Vick versus a prevent D? Are you kidding me?

Yeah sure! Let's play off and let him throw checkdowns to Lesean McCoy and Desean Jackson all day and run right out of bounds for a 7 yard gain at will.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you suggesting that when up by 17 that the Packers didn't go into prevent D for the latter half of the game

Game plan for this new and improved Vick in the Philly offense? Really? I wonder why it was so hard for all those other D-coordinators out there... The Packers can't game plan for him in Week 1.

Sure they can. Vick plays very differently from Kolb. Just pull out all your old plans against the Vick led Falcons and have at it. You say it like the Packers don't have prior experience at destroying Vick.

Remind me what happened in the playoffs when Vick was healthy and ran up against those same Packers? Gee, they got whupped, when the Pack went up 14-0 in the first half. Vick didn't even manage to score until the 3rd quarter.

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you suggesting that when up by 17 that the Packers didn't go into prevent D for the latter half of the game

I can't say off-hand. I watched the game but I don't remember. Googling I see a bunch of contradictory reports with regards to the prevent D. I do remember the Packers playing a lot of nickel though but that may have been more likely to counter the speed of Vick. Regardless, they gave up 17 points to Vick in the second half.

Just pull out all your old plans against the Vick led Falcons and have at it. You say it like the Packers don't have prior experience at destroying Vick.

You're an idiot. Pull out your old 4 year old game plans? Most of the guys on the Packers D were in college when the Pack last played Vick! And this is not the same Vick. Eagles Mike Vick is worlds better than the old Mike Vick. He is also far more accurate and can read defenses more effectively.

Third, if it was so simple to combat Vick, WHY THE **** NO OTHER TEAM COULD DO IT?! If it was so simple to beat Vick, how did he go 8-3 in games he started?

Remind me what happened in the playoffs when Vick was healthy and ran up against those same Packers? Gee, they got whupped,

Remind you? I apparently need to because you are talking out your ass.

A 21-16 loss that came down to a last minute heave into the endzone by Vick towards Riley Cooper that was picked off by Tramon Williams? That's a whupping to you?

Vick didn't even manage to score until the 3rd quarter.

Who cares when he scored? A TD pass and a TD run and it was a 5 point loss with the Eagles in position to score a game-winning TD. It didn't happen but you're a liar if you think the Packers had this one in the bag.

[Ben Kenobi]

Al:

I don't see how getting whupped 14-0 until your kicker gets them on board is so much better than being down 17. Green Bay knows exactly how to beat Vick. Stomp on him early on and then force him to throw all day to catch up. They were 2-0 against Vick last season.

[-Jrabbit]

Really? Hypotheticals on games from the past??

So sad. I'm out of here.