Jump to content

Vick: Ring with Jets would seal legacy (Even if with Geno under center)


Villain The Foe

Recommended Posts

No its not, because Joe Namath played with 14 game seasons, before the Mel Blount rule and I also think before the Dick "Night Train" Lane rule. Namath like 40 years ago, to make this statement of yours hurts my brain to force it to respond

 

The Philadelphia Eagles let go of Michael Vick and replaced him with Mark Sanchez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not true. Cunningham didnt rush for 1000 yards because he was 58 yards short of it. Do I think Cunningham was a better passer than Vick? yes....though not by much. I got to see his full body of work over 16 years. Vick's career isn't complete. I will say that they are very similar when it comes to passing and passing percentage. Both averaged 60% completion for the first time in their 8th season in the league. Cunningham was only a slightly better passer than Vick, Michael Vick hands down is the best running QB in the history of the NFL.....with a passing ability similar to Randall Cunningham's. 

 

If you compare Cunningham's first 11 years to Vicks then this is what you get.

22,877 passing yards for Cunningham to 21,489 passing yards for Vick.

150 passing TD's for Cunningham, 128 passing TD's for Vick.

105 INT's for Cunningham, 85 for Vick.

52.9% completion rate Cunningham, 56.2 completion rate Vick.  

4482 rushing yards Cunnigham, 5857 rush yards vick.

32 rushing TD's Cunningham, 36 rushing TD's Vick. 

27,359 Total yards for Cunningham, 27,346 total yards for Vick (A difference of 13 yards)

182 total TD's Cunningham, 164 total TD's for Vick (A difference of 18 TD's)

 

And these numbers are with Vick missing 2 years in the league in his prime. 

 

To make it seem like Cunningham was clear cut better is simply favoritism. To say that Vick was a bad passer then after looking at the numbers you could say the same thing for Cunningham in his first 11 years yet no one does. You'll probably say that they played in a different league where it was harder to throw the ball in Cunnigham's time. Well, Vick didnt play in that time and Cunningham isn't playing now so we dont know what would have happened. They played in 16 games a year so in that regard its the same. And it wasn't that much different. The Mel Blount rule came into affect in the 70's and the Tom Brady Rule came info affect less than 10 years ago. For the most part they've played in a similar type environment. If anything Cunningham also got to play with 2 HOF WR's in Cris Carter and Randy Moss in Philly and in Minnesota as well as Mike Quick who was a 5X All-Pro. The best WR Vick had was desean jackson for (for which he completed 60.1% of his passes with a top 10 target in those 3 years). Who were even Vick's WR's in ATL? I'll tell you, a washed up Terrance Mathis, Brian Finneran (that had his best years with Vick), Peerless Price, Alge Crumpler (who made his career under Vick), Michael Jenkins and a rookie Roddy White who didnt explode on to the scene until his 3rd year (2007) and Vick was gone by then. 

 

Im not saying its you, but generally speaking the lack of respect for Vick and his game is the dog fighting.

So Michael Vick is revolutionary because 58 yards?

How many championships have these post revolutionary QBs won?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Vick had a total 1 season in the NFL where he was a competent passer.  One.

His first 3 full years with the eagles he averaged a 60% pass completion rate, accounted for 62 TD's to 30 INT's, with 8,683 passing yards and 1,600 rushing yards. And was a pro-bowler. Go away bro. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His first 3 full years with the eagles he averaged a 60% pass completion rate, accounted for 62 TD's to 30 INT's, with 8,683 passing yards and 1,600 rushing yards. Go away bro. 

 

And what about that is "revolutionary"?  That's not transcendent play or Hall of Fame-caliber play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Michael Vick is revolutionary because 58 yards?

How many championships have these post revolutionary QBs won?

No, he's revolutionary because of his consistency with it. Cunningham never got nowhere close to that 942 ever again. Vick almost ran for 1000 yards multiple times.  In Vick's first 6 years his rushing average was higher than Cunningham's highest rushing season outside of that 942. And please, stay on topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about that is "revolutionary"?  That's not transcendent play or Hall of Fame-caliber play.

Stay on topic. The topic was your statement about him having just one competent passing year. The statement was wrong. If you want to talk about revolutionary then there's 5 pages in this thread that you can read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Philadelphia Eagles let go of Michael Vick, and replaced him with Mark Sanchez.

The eagles also let go Desean Jackson and replaced him with Jordan Matthews. I dont see the Redskins or Jets complaining about the Eagles moves and I dont see the eagles being disappointed in Nick Foles as their starter with a 4-2 playoff record Mark Sanchez as their back up or with Jordan Matthews so far being the best looking WR in minicamp ( I called that Jordan Matthews pick by the way). I dont see the Redskins complaining about having 2 #1 type WR's for their "Mike Vick-like" QB. I dont see the Jets having a problem letting Mike Vick mentor Geno Smith and paying him 5 million to do so as well as be the back up just in case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he's revolutionary because of his consistency with it. Cunningham never got nowhere close to that 942 ever again. Vick almost ran for 1000 yards multiple times.  In Vick's first 6 years his rushing average was higher than Cunningham's highest rushing season outside of that 942. And please, stay on topic.

I am staying on topic. Vick rushing for lots of yards numerous times has not been revolutionary, it's been an anomaly. Simple as that. Others did what he has done before (-58 yards), and no one really seems all that interested in duplicating it. When someone in the NFL is revolutionary, it usually means that player altered the game as a result of his play. Michael Vick has rushed for more yards than any QB before or since, I'm failing to see the revolution. Or the playoff wins. Or the championships. If he was a revolution, it was a pretty damn lame one.

And he's a herpes spreading dog killer, but that's besides the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. Cunningham didnt rush for 1000 yards because he was 58 yards short of it. Do I think Cunningham was a better passer than Vick? yes....though not by much. I got to see his full body of work over 16 years. Vick's career isn't complete. I will say that they are very similar when it comes to passing and passing percentage. Both averaged 60% completion for the first time in their 8th season in the league. Cunningham was only a slightly better passer than Vick, Michael Vick hands down is the best running QB in the history of the NFL.....with a passing ability similar to Randall Cunningham's. 

 

If you compare Cunningham's first 11 years to Vicks then this is what you get.

22,877 passing yards for Cunningham to 21,489 passing yards for Vick.

150 passing TD's for Cunningham, 128 passing TD's for Vick.

105 INT's for Cunningham, 85 for Vick.

52.9% completion rate Cunningham, 56.2 completion rate Vick.  

4482 rushing yards Cunnigham, 5857 rush yards vick.

32 rushing TD's Cunningham, 36 rushing TD's Vick. 

27,359 Total yards for Cunningham, 27,346 total yards for Vick (A difference of 13 yards)

182 total TD's Cunningham, 164 total TD's for Vick (A difference of 18 TD's)

 

And these numbers are with Vick missing 2 years in the league in his prime. 

 

To make it seem like Cunningham was clear cut better is simply favoritism. To say that Vick was a bad passer then after looking at the numbers you could say the same thing for Cunningham in his first 11 years yet no one does. You'll probably say that they played in a different league where it was harder to throw the ball in Cunnigham's time. Well, Vick didnt play in that time and Cunningham isn't playing now so we dont know what would have happened. They played in 16 games a year so in that regard its the same. And it wasn't that much different. The Mel Blount rule came into affect in the 70's and the Tom Brady Rule came info affect less than 10 years ago. For the most part they've played in a similar type environment. If anything Cunningham also got to play with 2 HOF WR's in Cris Carter and Randy Moss in Philly and in Minnesota as well as Mike Quick who was a 5X All-Pro. The best WR Vick had was desean jackson for (for which he completed 60.1% of his passes with a top 10 target in those 3 years). Who were even Vick's WR's in ATL? I'll tell you, a washed up Terrance Mathis, Brian Finneran (that had his best years with Vick), Peerless Price, Alge Crumpler (who made his career under Vick), Michael Jenkins and a rookie Roddy White who didnt explode on to the scene until his 3rd year (2007) and Vick was gone by then. 

 

Im not saying its you, but generally speaking the lack of respect for Vick and his game is the dog fighting. 

 

The suggestion is that 6 additional yards per game (65 vs 59) is what made him a "revolutionary" figure in changing the way we look at QBs forever.

 

Cunningham was a much better passer than Vick.  You are comparing passing stats from 2 different times in the NFL when the rules are/were different.  To say nothing of the state of sports medicine when Vick played compared to Cunningham, and boy could Cunningham have used modern technology.  

 

In other words, Cunningham would have better numbers today than he had in the early 90s.  Vick's passing numbers would be even worse than they already are.

Certainly, if Cunningham had Vick-era sports medicine he would have returned far stronger after getting his ACL ripped apart.  For most players, back then, it meant the end of their careers.  That, and other injuries, ended Cunningham's dominance as a runner.  That Vick had other advantages is not addressed by simply comparing 2 sets of numbers, as though they both played at the same time or in remotely similar circumstances in general.

 

And what is this "compare the first 11 seasons" nonsense that blatantly removes Cunningham's best year as a passer, when he led the NFL in passer rating, with more TDs than Vick typically throws in 2 seasons next to fewer turnovers than Vick usually has in less than 1 (since he never makes it through a full season)? What does that prove? Is there any reason to expect, in year 13 of his career, that Vick would be a better passer than he ever was and have a year similar to Cunningham's 1998 season? C'mon, man.

 

Why bother to compare 2 careers, leaving in the career year of one but eliminating the career year of the other? You look at the first x-number of years of someone's career when they're coming into the league because players get better after their first few seasons (typically). Or when one had

 

In a passing league with rules now skewed to make it easier than ever before, Vick has had a pathetically low number of touchdowns (as well as his other passing stats).  He didn't have to deal with the short leash that Cunningham had as a black QB in the late 80s and early 90s (particularly a mobile one at that to feed into any moronic stereotype).  But what you're really missing is that Vick's numbers put him towards the bottom of passers for his time, but that his legs or arm strength somehow made up for this shortcoming. Cunningham was considered a very good passer in his time with or without the running around.  You don't throw 30 TDs in a season - in the 1990s no less - with your feet.  Particularly not when both of your starting WRs are rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he's revolutionary because of his consistency with it. Cunningham never got nowhere close to that 942 ever again. Vick almost ran for 1000 yards multiple times.  In Vick's first 6 years his rushing average was higher than Cunningham's highest rushing season outside of that 942. And please, stay on topic. 

 

Cunningham got his ACL ripped apart and had 1991 medicine to put it back together and rehab it.  That's why he never came close to that number again, not because he wasn't as dangerous a runner in the first place.

 

Also when he did it not only was 30 TDs rare, but so was 1000 rushing yards.  Cunningham was 10th in the NFL in rushing yards that year.

 

Why am I even bothering? I don't even like Cunningham. I just despise Vick.  And the notion that he was as good (let alone a better or more revolutionary) QB than the guy that paved the trails Vick rode on, is ridiculous.

With all his talent, and a media that excused every turnover he committed, Vick SHOULD have been this revolutionary player that changed the game or something.  He wasn't because he's a piece of garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am staying on topic. Vick rushing for lots of yards numerous times has not been revolutionary, it's been an anomaly. Simple as that. Others did what he has done before (-58 yards), and no one really seems all that interested in duplicating it. When someone in the NFL is revolutionary, it usually means that player altered the game as a result of his play. Michael Vick has rushed for more yards than any QB before or since, I'm failing to see the revolution. Or the playoff wins. Or the championships. If he was a revolution, it was a pretty damn lame one.

And he's a herpes spreading dog killer, but that's besides the point.

No one has done what Vick has done (-97 yards for the record actually) consistently. In those years Vick was averaging close to 700 yards a season, guys getting close to his average in just one season was a ridiculous accomplishment. For a QB to rush for over 1000 yards was unheard of, and he almost did it twice. 

 

Now lets talk about anomalies. No QB has ran for over 1000 yards besides Vick. From my knowledge, only Cunningham and Vick have ran for over 900 yards and Vick is the only QB to do that twice. Vick is the only QB to rush for over 700 yards 3 times (and was 24 yards shy of doing it 4 times), the only QB to rush over 600 yards 4 times (in which he was 3 yards shy and 11 yards shy of making it 6 times). Vick owns the the most yards per attempt in a season record (8.5 yds per carry) and most yards per attempt in a game with at least 10 rushes with 17.3 yards per rush. He owned the record of the most rushing yards by a QB in a game (173 yards) for over a decade until Colin Kaepernick broke it with 181 yards. This wasn't an anomaly, this was revolutionary back then, and its quickly becoming the standard today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has done what Vick has done (-97 yards for the record actually) consistently. In those years Vick was averaging close to 700 yards a season, guys getting close to his average in just one season was a ridiculous accomplishment. For a QB to rush for over 1000 yards was unheard of, and he almost did it twice. 

 

Now lets talk about anomalies. No QB has ran for over 1000 yards besides Vick. From my knowledge, only Cunningham and Vick have ran for over 900 yards and Vick is the only QB to do that twice. Vick is the only QB to rush for over 700 yards 3 times (and was 24 yards shy of doing it 4 times), the only QB to rush over 600 yards 4 times (in which he was 3 yards shy and 11 yards shy of making it 6 times). Vick owns the the most yards per attempt in a season record (8.5 yds per carry) and most yards per attempt in a game with at least 10 rushes with 17.3 yards per rush. He owned the record of the most rushing yards by a QB in a game (173 yards) for over a decade until Colin Kaepernick broke it with 181 yards. This wasn't an anomaly, this was revolutionary back then, and its quickly becoming the standard today.

No, it's not. There is no revolution. If you wanna praise Vick up and down for his rushing prowess, god bless, but the league is not following suit. Colin Kaepernick is your big example, but he has yet to cross 600 yards rushing - and those totals are far more likely to go down than up if he continues to prove to be a much better passer than the one-dimensional Michael Vick.

Again, this is another post demonstrating Vick as an anomaly rather than a revolution. No team anywhere wants their QB averaging 700 yards rushing over a number of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has done what Vick has done (-97 yards for the record actually) consistently. In those years Vick was averaging close to 700 yards a season, guys getting close to his average in just one season was a ridiculous accomplishment. For a QB to rush for over 1000 yards was unheard of, and he almost did it twice. 

 

Now lets talk about anomalies. No QB has ran for over 1000 yards besides Vick. From my knowledge, only Cunningham and Vick have ran for over 900 yards and Vick is the only QB to do that twice. Vick is the only QB to rush for over 700 yards 3 times, the only QB to rush over 600 yards 4 times (in which he was 3 yards shy and 11 yards shy of making it 6 times). Vick owns the the most yards per attempt in a season record (8.5 yds per carry) and most yards per attempt in a game with at least 10 rushes with 17.3 yards per rush. He owned the record of the most rushing yards by a QB in a game (173 yards) for over a decade until Colin Kaepernick broke it with 181 yards. This wasn't an anomaly, this was revolutionary then and its quickly becoming the standard today. 

 

You keep using this 1000 yards thing as though it makes one a better player.  I don't know how many times to explain that it is evidence of his failings as a passer.  If he could throw better, he'd have run less.

 

In Vick's 1000 yard season, here are his rushing days above his average per game, and his passing numbers in those games:

 

127 rushing yards:  Passing: 10/15 for 92  yards, 1 TD, 1 INT  

 

101 rushing yards:  Passing: 13/22 for 153 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT

 

80 rushing yards:  Passing: 17/32 for 163 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT

 

74 rushing yards:  Passing: 16/40 for 197 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT

 

166 rushing yards:  Passing:  9/24 for 84 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT

 

 

Are you seeing any pattern here, more or less? I am. If he could pass worth a hill of beans he wouldn't have sniffed 800 yards, let alone 1000.  No game like Cunningham with 124 rushing yards while throwing 250 in the air and 4 passing TDs.  When Vick did have good passing games, and he did have some, he didn't reach Cunningham's average rushing game (in his banner rushing year), let alone his own.

Vick is/was a vastly inferior QB. The only thing he revolutionized is fan tolerance for someone who distributes herpes, who tortures canines and enjoys every moment of it, and who sucked at hitting his receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion is that 6 additional yards per game (65 vs 59) is what made him a "revolutionary" figure in changing the way we look at QBs forever.

 

Cunningham was a much better passer than Vick.  You are comparing passing stats from 2 different times in the NFL when the rules are/were different.  To say nothing of the state of sports medicine when Vick played compared to Cunningham, and boy could Cunningham have used modern technology.  

 

In other words, Cunningham would have better numbers today than he had in the early 90s.  Vick's passing numbers would be even worse than they already are.

Certainly, if Cunningham had Vick-era sports medicine he would have returned far stronger after getting his ACL ripped apart.  For most players, back then, it meant the end of their careers.  That, and other injuries, ended Cunningham's dominance as a runner.  That Vick had other advantages is not addressed by simply comparing 2 sets of numbers, as though they both played at the same time or in remotely similar circumstances in general.

 

And what is this "compare the first 11 seasons" nonsense that blatantly removes Cunningham's best year as a passer, when he led the NFL in passer rating, with more TDs than Vick typically throws in 2 seasons next to fewer turnovers than Vick usually has in less than 1 (since he never makes it through a full season)? What does that prove? Is there any reason to expect, in year 13 of his career, that Vick would be a better passer than he ever was and have a year similar to Cunningham's 1998 season? C'mon, man.

 

Why bother to compare 2 careers, leaving in the career year of one but eliminating the career year of the other? You look at the first x-number of years of someone's career when they're coming into the league because players get better after their first few seasons (typically). Or when one had

 

In a passing league with rules now skewed to make it easier than ever before, Vick has had a pathetically low number of touchdowns (as well as his other passing stats).  He didn't have to deal with the short leash that Cunningham had as a black QB in the late 80s and early 90s (particularly a mobile one at that to feed into any moronic stereotype).  But what you're really missing is that Vick's numbers put him towards the bottom of passers for his time, but that his legs or arm strength somehow made up for this shortcoming. Cunningham was considered a very good passer in his time with or without the running around.  You don't throw 30 TDs in a season - in the 1990s no less - with your feet.  Particularly not when both of your starting WRs are rookies.

 

Sperm, you are a very smart football guy. But to call my comparison nonsense is certainly disagreeable when people want to compare a completed career to one that is still on going. What I did was compared their first 11 seasons. Cunningham had his best passing season years after being in the league for 13 seasons, yes. No one is trying to take that away from Cunningham nor am I trying to play you for some dummy football guy who couldn't figure that out. What I'm saying is that in that season he had Cris carter and Randy Moss with Jake Reed as his 3rd option. Thats a ridiculous trio in any era. As for Vick basically never playing a full season, that was Cunninghams M.O. as well. Randall played 16 years and only played all 16 games 3 times, he played in 15 or more games 6 times. Randall played less than half the season 8 out of his 16 years, he played in 6 or less games 6 times, had a season where he only played 1 game and I believe missed 2 complete years. 

So yes, Cunningham threw for over 30 TD's with a world class WR trio around him and led the league in passer rating. Mike Vick also broke over the 100 passer rating himself when he finally got a guy like Desean Jackson to throw to and he did it in his 8th year, not his 13th,. I've already said that I thought that Cunningham was the better passer, though by a slight margin, so its not like I'm disagreeing. What I'm saying is that they're pretty similar in that department, the difference was the consistency from Mike Vick in the running game especially during his ATL years before being sent to prison. Not comparing the two talent wise, but circumstance wise.....I believe that Mike Vicks prison time  during his prime impacted his career regarding what he could have ultimately done on the field like Mohammed Ali's ban from Boxing during his prime. Neither one came back to their craft the same. 

Im going to say it again, I'm not comparing Mick Vick to Ali, only the time spent away from their craft during their prime years.

 

I respect what you're saying, I simply think that Vick's ability was much more of a force on the field than he's given credit for. Thats not going to change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing he revolutionized is fan tolerance for someone who distributes herpes, who tortures canines and enjoys every moment of it, 

^^^^^ Like I said earlier...

 

Now that its out, I've said my point of view so no need for me to continue. I'd rather debate with a person who isn't personally affected by Vicks personal dealings off the field but can deal with what he's done on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cunningham got his ACL ripped apart and had 1991 medicine to put it back together and rehab it.  That's why he never came close to that number again, not because he wasn't as dangerous a runner in the first place.

 

Also when he did it not only was 30 TDs rare, but so was 1000 rushing yards.  Cunningham was 10th in the NFL in rushing yards that year.

 

Why am I even bothering? I don't even like Cunningham. I just despise Vick.  And the notion that he was as good (let alone a better or more revolutionary) QB than the guy that paved the trails Vick rode on, is ridiculous.

With all his talent, and a media that excused every turnover he committed, Vick SHOULD have been this revolutionary player that changed the game or something.  He wasn't because he's a piece of garbage.

I know brother. We'll discontinue the convo. I dont want you to relive the dog fighting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. There is no revolution. If you wanna praise Vick up and down for his rushing prowess, god bless, but the league is not following suit. Colin Kaepernick is your big example, but he has yet to cross 600 yards rushing - and those totals are far more likely to go down than up if he continues to prove to be a much better passer than the one-dimensional Michael Vick.

Again, this is another post demonstrating Vick as an anomaly rather than a revolution. No team anywhere wants their QB averaging 700 yards rushing over a number of years.

Cam Newton was my big example being drafted #1 overall (Which grew up a Mike Vick fan). RG3 was my big example being drafted #2 overall. Cam has rushed over 700 yards twice and RG3 was hurt last year but rushed for over 800 his rookie year. Lets see what a healthy RG3 can do in his 3rd season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cam Newton was my big example being drafted #1 overall (Which grew up a Mike Vick fan). RG3 was my big example being drafted #2 overall. Cam has rushed over 700 yards twice and RG3 was hurt last year but rushed for over 800 his rookie year. Lets see what a healthy RG3 can do in his 3rd season.

Newton's rushing numbers dropped last year as his passing improved. It's likely that number will drop again next year. RGIII is looking like a one year wonder right now, which would be a shame. Neither player is an example of Michael Vick revolutionizing the game, which is my primary issue here. Both of them, very early in their careers, are better passers than Vick. In no way, shape, or form is any team in the league looking to have a Michael Vick clone at QB. Vick had one really good year passing the ball. One. He's only played 16 games in a season once. Once. This is not what any team wants at the QB position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton's rushing numbers dropped last year as his passing improved. It's likely that number will drop again next year. RGIII is looking like a one year wonder right now, which would be a shame. Neither player is an example of Michael Vick revolutionizing the game, which is my primary issue here. Both of them, very early in their careers, are better passers than Vick. In no way, shape, or form is any team in the league looking to have a Michael Vick clone at QB. Vick had one really good year passing the ball. One. He's only played 16 games in a season once. Once. This is not what any team wants at the QB position.

You're talking about anticipation for the most part. Im talking about what has happened for the most part.  Yes, Cam Newton rushing dropped....to 585 yards. Let me say it again, 585 yards! And it wasn't like Cam had terrible passing issues, he's averaging 60% passing. What you didnt mention is that Cam's stats in general dropped. His first season he threw for over 4,000 yards, 2nd for 3,800 and last year for 3,300. This year he has no WR's on that team and I personally dont like Kelvin Benjamin, what do you think Cam is going to do with the ball....HONESTLY? Let me tell you, he's gonna run dude lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about anticipation for the most part. Im talking about what has happened for the most part.  Yes, Cam Newton rushing dropped....to 585 yards. Let me say it again, 585 yards! And it wasn't like Cam had terrible passing issues, he's averaging 60% passing. What you didnt mention is that Cam's stats in general dropped. His first season he threw for over 4,000 yards, 2nd for 3,800 and last year for 3,300. This year he has no WR's on that team and I personally dont like Kelvin Benjamin, what do you think Cam is going to do with the ball....HONESTLY? Let me tell you, he's gonna run dude lol.

Again... Cam Newton running the football =/= Michael Vick revolutionizing the NFL. You keep typing, but you're failing to prove your case that Vick revolutionized the game. Probably because he really hasn't. Also again, no one wants a Michael Vick clone as their QB. In fact, the actual Michael Vick was available this year, and no one was willing to give him a job as a starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again... Cam Newton running the football =/= Michael Vick revolutionizing the NFL. You keep typing, but you're failing to prove your case that Vick revolutionized the game. Probably because he really hasn't. Also again, no one wants a Michael Vick clone as their QB. In fact, the actual Michael Vick was available this year, and no one was willing to give him a job as a starter.

Its not about proof, its about perception. Im not here to change your mind, just to explain my reasoning. Proof is something much more concrete and less about popularity. I didnt say that Vick revolutionized the NFL, I never once said that. I've stated that he revolutionized the QB position in respects to rushing the football and what is to be expected of QB's today. THAT is what i've been saying all along. You, Sperm and everyone else have either taken my position out of context (Check the highlighted part of your quote) or are pissed that Ron Mexico, aka Mike Vick has allegedly distributed herpes to them as well as killed their dog lol (joking). 

 

Seriously, Mike Vick revolutionized the position and what is to be expected from the position, especially since we no longer put in the time in developing guys at that position so QB's must also possess a quality to their game that can get them on the field earlier, keep them on the field, and win football games. 

 

I can't show you proof of what I agree with because its only based on perspective. Thats like the debate of Tony Gwynn. Many people believe that Ted Williams is the best hitter of all time, Some, including myself, believe that it was Tony Gwynn by a f'ing mile. No one can prove the other wrong.....its a debate on one's perspective. 

 

And for the record, you keep typing too. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not about proof, its about perception. Im not here to change your mind, just to explain my reasoning. Proof is something much more concrete and less about popularity. I didnt say that Vick revolutionized the NFL, I never once said that. I've stated that he revolutionized the QB position in respects to rushing the football and what is to be expected of QB's today. THAT is what i've been saying all along. You, Sperm and everyone else have either taken my position out of context (Check the highlighted part of your quote) or are pissed that Ron Mexico, aka Mike Vick has allegedly distributed herpes to them as well as killed their dog lol (joking). 

 

Seriously, Mike Vick revolutionized the position and what is to be expected from the position, especially since we no longer put in the time in developing guys at that position so QB's must also possess a quality to their game that can get them on the field earlier, keep them on the field, and win football games. 

 

I can't show you proof of what I agree with because its only based on perspective. Thats like the debate of Tony Gwynn. Many people believe that Ted Williams is the best hitter of all time, Some, including myself, believe that it was Tony Gwynn by a f'ing mile. No one can prove the other wrong.....its a debate on one's perspective. 

 

And for the record, you keep typing too. lol

Vill,Ted Williams served almost 5 yrs in WW2 and Korea during what should have been his prime years in baseball and still managed to hit over 500 home runs and win 2 triple crowns. Gwynn is an all time great no doubt but was not of Teds caliber. Gwynn was a great contact hitter with little power compared to Ted. Rod Carew would be a better comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm, you are a very smart football guy. But to call my comparison nonsense is certainly disagreeable when people want to compare a completed career to one that is still on going. What I did was compared their first 11 seasons. Cunningham had his best passing season years after being in the league for 13 seasons, yes. No one is trying to take that away from Cunningham nor am I trying to play you for some dummy football guy who couldn't figure that out. What I'm saying is that in that season he had Cris carter and Randy Moss with Jake Reed as his 3rd option. Thats a ridiculous trio in any era. As for Vick basically never playing a full season, that was Cunninghams M.O. as well. Randall played 16 years and only played all 16 games 3 times, he played in 15 or more games 6 times. Randall played less than half the season 8 out of his 16 years, he played in 6 or less games 6 times, had a season where he only played 1 game and I believe missed 2 complete years. 

So yes, Cunningham threw for over 30 TD's with a world class WR trio around him and led the league in passer rating. Mike Vick also broke over the 100 passer rating himself when he finally got a guy like Desean Jackson to throw to and he did it in his 8th year, not his 13th,. I've already said that I thought that Cunningham was the better passer, though by a slight margin, so its not like I'm disagreeing. What I'm saying is that they're pretty similar in that department, the difference was the consistency from Mike Vick in the running game especially during his ATL years before being sent to prison. Not comparing the two talent wise, but circumstance wise.....I believe that Mike Vicks prison time  during his prime impacted his career regarding what he could have ultimately done on the field like Mohammed Ali's ban from Boxing during his prime. Neither one came back to their craft the same. 

Im going to say it again, I'm not comparing Mick Vick to Ali, only the time spent away from their craft during their prime years.

 

I respect what you're saying, I simply think that Vick's ability was much more of a force on the field than he's given credit for. Thats not going to change. 

 

Cunningham also threw 30 TDs when his two starting WRs were rookies and 10 bucks says you've never heard of either one.  Nor any RB like Warrick Dunn to take pressure off the passing game either.  A TE and a FB.  The odds of Vick tossing 30 TDs in that environment is lower than Mark Sanchez doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vill,Ted Williams served almost 5 yrs in WW2 and Korea during what should have been his prime years in baseball and still managed to hit over 500 home runs and win 2 triple crowns. Gwynn is an all time great no doubt but was not of Teds caliber. Gwynn was a great contact hitter with little power compared to Ted. Rod Carew would be a better comparison.

You just made my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton's rushing numbers dropped last year as his passing improved. It's likely that number will drop again next year. RGIII is looking like a one year wonder right now, which would be a shame. Neither player is an example of Michael Vick revolutionizing the game, which is my primary issue here. Both of them, very early in their careers, are better passers than Vick. In no way, shape, or form is any team in the league looking to have a Michael Vick clone at QB. Vick had one really good year passing the ball. One. He's only played 16 games in a season once. Once. This is not what any team wants at the QB position.

 

What I've been trying to explain is that any of them will see their rushing numbers drop as they become better passers.  Like McNabb.  Once he became a QB more than just a runner with an arm, he never saw 300 rushing yards again. Ditto Steve McNair. 

 

The only ones who were truly top 10 passers and dangerous runners at the same time, in the 3 decades pre-2010, were Cunningham and Young.  Before that there was Tarkenton, but I never watched him live.  Since 2010 there have been a few.

 

Put it this way, for all his arm strength, if not for his feet no team would want Michael Vick as their QB.  And IMO there's nothing revolutionary about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cunningham also threw 30 TDs when his two starting WRs were rookies and 10 bucks says you've never heard of either one.  Nor any RB like Warrick Dunn to take pressure off the passing game either.  A TE and a FB.  The odds of Vick tossing 30 TDs in that environment is lower than Mark Sanchez doing so.

I guess the only thing for me to do here is to say what I've already said at least twice. Randall Cunningham was a better passing QB than Vick. I'll leave off everything else that I've said because I think when I present my point of view that favors vick then people forget that I started off saying that Cunningham was a better passer than Vick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know brother. We'll discontinue the convo. I dont want you to relive the dog fighting. 

 

I like Sanchez better than Vick.  I knew Sanchez sucked, but I could/would at least root for him.  Vick is garbage, and not just because of dog fighting.  It's because of dog torturing (not that dog fighting isn't torture in and of itself, but Vick went a bit further with it).

 

Now that I've gotten my last word in, we can discontinue the convo.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've been trying to explain is that any of them will see their rushing numbers drop as they become better passers.  Like McNabb.  Once he became a QB more than just a runner with an arm, he never saw 300 rushing yards again. Ditto Steve McNair. 

 

The only ones who were truly top 10 passers and dangerous runners at the same time, in the 3 decades pre-2010, were Cunningham and Young.  Before that there was Tarkenton, but I never watched him live.  Since 2010 there have been a few.

 

Put it this way, for all his arm strength, if not for his feet no team would want Michael Vick as their QB.  And IMO there's nothing revolutionary about that.

haha....man! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the only thing for me to do here is to say what I've already said at least twice. Randall Cunningham was a better passing QB than Vick. I'll leave off everything else that I've said because I think when I present my point of view that favors vick then people forget that I started off saying that Cunningham was a better passer than Vick. 

 

Cunningham was a dramatically better passer than Vick.

Vick was not a dramatically better runner than Cunningham.  The only thing that makes it seem so are rule changes, medical changes, and Cunningham's somewhat-repaired knee from 1992+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...