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

[slats]

The only thing this thread has me convinced of is that Villain does not fully understand the definition of "revolution".

 

You're essentially disproving your own argument by acknowledging the facts presented by others that there were multiple players who came before Vick who were successful runners.  The key difference is Vick having a greater degree of dependency on running due to his inferior skills as a passer.  Regardless if everyone were to concede that Vick is a superior and more successful runner, the fact that there were others before him who did the same long before he showed up means that it, by definition, cannot be considered "revolutionary".  Someone cannot be responsible for starting something that already existed before them.  It also doesn't help when pointing out how nobody else has had such heavy reliance on running at the QB position.  When you're the only one to do something, it also cannot be considered a revolution.

Yup. There's simply nothing revolutionary about Michael Vick. He started nothing, he changed nothing.

[T0mShane]

What he did revolutionized the game and made ways for the Cam Newtons, Colin Kaepernicks, RG3's that we see today in the NFL.

Less than zero truth to this. In fact, those teams are using Vick as a cautionary tale with implementation of those players.

[Thor99]

An extensive collection of useless movie quotes committed to memory.

Orange whip? Orange whip? Three Orange whips!!

[Sperm Edwards]

I think the point we're trying to make is that any team - ANY TEAM - would rather have a great pure passer at QB than a great pure runner at QB.  And in this regard, Vick was not revolutionary.  He was a bad passer (for all his ability) for most of his career, particularly when his rushing numbers were higher.

 

What teams are looking for is a true passer who can also hurt the opposition with his feet (not to mention just flat-out gain yards on otherwise broken pass plays).  Gaining 100 yards looks great on a stat sheet, but you'd take 30 rushing yards from an accurate passer at 200-250 yards per game (even in today's game), who protects the football and throws 30 TDs, any day over a 150-yard/game passer with 60-65 yards on the ground (Vick's 900-yard and 1000-yard seasons) who turns the ball over (over 3% interception rate).

 

What makes Vick's passing numbers so much worse, ultimately, is comparing them to the best passers of his time.  Cunningham was no HOF passer (save a couple of great seasons), but I think a lot of that reason was circumstance. The state of sports medicine, having Kotite as his OC and then HC, and then Gruden, who was inexplicably infatuated with Rodney Peete to run his WCO.  

 

Cunningham got a lot of publicity for the time, but sports media game wrap-ups in the mid-late 80s and early 90s is nothing compared to the era in which Vick has played.  So while you saw highlights from Cunningham here & there, you really didn't get to watch him play much unless you lived in Philadelphia's TV market.  In NY we got to see him twice a year for a while, as in Washington, Dallas, St. Louis and then Phoenix markets).  But Vick's entire career was in the DirecTV/Satellite TV sportsbar era where either at home or in any sportsbar in town you could see Vick every week, and could replay or pull up stats on demand on the internet from work or a few years later, from wherever you were on your cellphone.  He was just seen more.

 

But this is a fans' perspective of what was seen.  Throughout time, football GMs and coaches got to see everything.  They saw Cunningham and saw Vick.  And when a draft with a pure passer who could move a bit was in the running with a true Vick/Cunningham ground threat, Andrew Luck still goes #1 to RGIII. And RGIII's knee is a lot of the reason why.  

 

In other words, a GM still wants a passer first and foremost.  Vick had the talent to be this, but he generally wasn't one.  Despite playing the passing heyday of NFL history, he's had more starts with under 150 passing yards than he's had with over 250.  And NO team wants that, no matter how many rushing yards he piled up.

[T0mShane]

Scott Baio paved the way for Daniel Day Lewis. Discuss.

[dbatesman]

I also don't think Vick is a Hall of Famer at this point, but we should revisit this discussion in a few years, when his athletic ability has allowed the NFL to schedule two games on the moon.

[jgb]

Yup. There's simply nothing revolutionary about Michael Vick. He started nothing, he changed nothing.

 

he revolutionized the pooch kick. oh wait we're talking about his football contributions.

[Bleedin Green]

The definition of "Revolutionize": To change something radically or fundamentally. 

 

Me acknowledging that there were people on a football field who ran the ball with success doesn't change the fact that Vick did it on a much higher level. What you and others are doing is trying to discredit his overwhelming success as a runner by saying that his passing was inferior. His passing was rather similar to Randall Cunningham in his first 11 years, and certain aspects of his passing game (completion % and INT's) were better than Cunninghams. A QB being a threat to rush for over 1000 yards in a season didn't happen before Vick, to average almost 700 yards rushing for a QB didnt happen before Vick, being a threat on that level in the running game with the ability to make all the throws did not happen before Vick. If it has then show me. You can't. Everyone brings up Randall Cunningham and Cunningham's running wasn't no where as good a running threat as Michael Vick. He wasn't nearly as fast as Michael Vick, he wasn't nearly as explosive as Michael Vick. Michael Vick had Randy Moss speed with a  Brett Favre cannon. It was never seen before Michael Vick. Randall Cunningham didnt have Randy Moss speed and a Brett Favre-like Cannon. Michael Vick did. Steve Young didnt have Randy Moss speed either, he didnt rush for over 5000 yards in his first decade playing. None of these people scratched the surface of 5000 yards in their complete career yet Vick did it in his first 11 years in the league. He has just about every major rushing record from the QB position. 

 

What he did revolutionized the game and made ways for the Cam Newtons, Colin Kaepernicks, RG3's that we see today in the NFL. He's not a Hall of Famer, he was not friendly to dogs at one time, his alias is Ron, he may have an STD....or two (Sperm said), but none of this takes away the fact that for his first 6 years in the league he's averaged close to 700 yards and in 11 years averages almost 550 yards, and thats with him having 3 years where he had  just 289 yards, 255 yards and 95 yards. So if you take out those 3 years when he didnt play then that means in just 8 years Vick amassed 5,218 which gives him a career average of  652 yards a season. There is no QB dead or alive that statistically compete with this dude on that level. Yet in the passing game Vick can surely be compared to Randall Cunningham. 

 

 

I'll say it again since it was hard to read it when Vick said it. Michael Vick revolutionized the QB position when it comes to running the football and what is to be expected of QB's today. You dont have to believe it, its happening whether you'd like to accept it or not. Now you can read this and jump through all the hoops on how I spoke about a Favre cannon but he wasn't as good as favre with that cannon etc. Let me save you and others the trouble and tell you that its all true. But Mike Vick was good enough to ve a starter in this league for a career even with everyone's criticisms. His ability was good enough that he could go to jail, come out and have teams looking for his services to start for them no matter the criticism of his game or the love people have for dogs. Vick is good enough to be a Jet right now and be the starter if its felt that Geno isn't ready. So talking about how crummy a passer he is and this is why he rushed for so many yards is frivolous, so save yourself the trouble of typing because the NFL has disagreed with that for the past 11 years and Defensive Coordinators have said that its been dreadful having to plan for this guy, especially when he played in Atlanta. 

 

The word Revolutionized is relevant when it comes to Michael Vick and the QB rushing game. No one did it like he did it, before he did it. 

 

Being better at one particular skill that has been done for decades prior in absolutely no way qualifies as a "revolution".  That's not up for debate, it is simply a fact based upon the meaning of the word.  You can believe whatever you like about his skills as a football player, that's your prerogative, but none of that will change that the circumstances which existed in the NFL before Vick arrived makes it impossible for this claim to be true.

 

Besides, teams don't tell scouts to ignore a QB's passing ability for their running prowess, because it is simply considered a nice secondary skill to have at the position.  If running QBs were what the NFL was all about today, you wouldn't see top pocket passers still routinely getting drafted ahead of top runners with regularity.  You also wouldn't have guys like Tim Tebow completely run out of the league.

 

Trying to dismiss over 27% of Vick's NFL career as some sort of outlier is kind of ridiculous considering you make no such effort for the players to which you are comparing him.  If you similarly look at only Cunningham's best years as a runner, his rushing average comes in at over 630 yds per season.  Sure, his running success didn't last as long as Vick's (although it's still 6 seasons, only 2 short of the numbers you're attempting to use for Vick), but it was still a comparably significant contribution for a number of years.  If you look at it from another angle,  through his first 7 years (before his injury), Cunningham rushed for 3,986 yds.  Vick's first 7 seasons?  3,954 yards.  Funny how that works out, huh?  All Vick really did was do it a little better and for a bit longer.  Once again, that is not what "revolution" means, no matter how you try to twist it.

 

And while you cite what a scumbag he is as some sort of defense for Vick, many folks who weren't enamored with a QB pretending he was a RB (or was it a RB pretending he was a QB?), already thought he was a crappy passer long before he got sent to jail.

[GenoandtheJets]

Jets are closer to winning onion rings then they are to ever winning a super bowl ring. Thats for damn sure.

[Villain The Foe]

Gold, pure gold.

S

 

But you said it was the greater amount of rushing yards that separates Vick from all others.  Then you show me a comparison game where Cunningham's rushing #s outgain Vick's by over 50%? 

 

I'm not certain I understand your original argument, then, where 45 yards in his best game ever is valued equivalently when Vick comes up short, but Vick being ahead by an additional SIX yards per game is to be considered very significant and, even more, revolutionary.

 

Further, it was his 1000-yard season that you weighed so heavily, and every above-the-mean rushing game he had that year accompanied by a below average (if not outright horrid) passing performance.

But you said that Vick never had such a performance like Cunningham and he was a lesser passer, Then I show you a comparison game where he outperformed your game comparison passing wise by almost 100 yards, equalled the 4 passing TD's and though he rushed just 80 yards in the game he did avg. 10 yards per rush and adding 2 more rushing TD's that Cunningham didnt do. So I assume that the multiple rushing TD's can make up for rushing for 80 yards and not 124. On top of the fact that Vick is the only person on the planet to ever do such a thing. Yet this means nothing. 

 

Look, we've spoke for about 4 pages yesterday. I dont think I could put something together that would have or make you understand, and thats cool. We simply look at Vick differently and I respect your point of view bro. You dont think he's revolutionary. Im only expressing why I think that aspect of his game was. I dont know what else to do but to just agree to disagree. I present a game that has never been done in history and thats not even respectable to you, theres nothing else for me to present then. 

[Villain The Foe]

Less than zero truth to this. In fact, those teams are using Vick as a cautionary tale with implementation of those players.

Sure. 

[Villain The Foe]

Being better at one particular skill that has been done for decades prior in absolutely no way qualifies as a "revolution".  That's not up for debate, it is simply a fact based upon the meaning of the word.  You can believe whatever you like about his skills as a football player, that's your prerogative, but none of that will change that the circumstances which existed in the NFL before Vick arrived makes it impossible for this claim to be true.

 

Besides, teams don't tell scouts to ignore a QB's passing ability for their running prowess, because it is simply considered a nice secondary skill to have at the position.  If running QBs were what the NFL was all about today, you wouldn't see top pocket passers still routinely getting drafted ahead of top runners with regularity.  You also wouldn't have guys like Tim Tebow completely run out of the league.

 

Trying to dismiss over 27% of Vick's NFL career as some sort of outlier is kind of ridiculous considering you make no such effort for the players to which you are comparing him.  If you similarly look at only Cunningham's best years as a runner, his rushing average comes in at over 630 yds per season.  Sure, his running success didn't last as long as Vick's (although it's still 6 seasons, only 2 short of the numbers you're attempting to use for Vick), but it was still a comparably significant contribution for a number of years.  If you look at it from another angle,  through his first 7 years (before his injury), Cunningham rushed for 3,986 yds.  Vick's first 7 seasons?  3,954 yards.  Funny how that works out, huh?  All Vick really did was do it a little better and for a bit longer.  Once again, that is not what "revolution" means, no matter how you try to twist it.

 

And while you cite what a scumbag he is as some sort of defense for Vick, many folks who weren't enamored with a QB pretending he was a RB (or was it a RB pretending he was a QB?), already thought he was a crappy passer long before he got sent to jail.

Then I guess its not up for debate. You shouldn't have even typed all thats stuff after saying that its not up for debate. Didnt even read after that......because its not up for debate

[Villain The Foe]

I think the point we're trying to make is that any team - ANY TEAM - would rather have a great pure passer at QB than a great pure runner at QB.  And in this regard, Vick was not revolutionary. 

Yet this isn't the point that I'm arguing. My point was simply the fact that Vick revolutionized the running game from the QB position. You guys are looking at it like I'm saying that teams would prefer a running QB over a pure passing QB. I never said or alluded that. If someone said, "he revolutionized the rushing game but his passing game wasn't sh*t", then I could work with that. People are hating on his impact level of his running at the position because of their feeling on passing game and his love for pit bulls. 

[Sperm Edwards]

S

 

But you said that Vick never had such a performance like Cunningham and he was a lesser passer, Then I show you a comparison game where he outperformed your game comparison passing wise by almost 100 yards, equalled the 4 passing TD's and though he rushed just 80 yards in the game he did avg. 10 yards per rush and adding 2 more rushing TD's that Cunningham didnt do. So I assume that the multiple rushing TD's can make up for rushing for 80 yards and not 124. On top of the fact that Vick is the only person on the planet to ever do such a thing. Yet this means nothing. 

 

Look, we've spoke for about 4 pages yesterday. I dont think I could put something together that would have or make you understand, and thats cool. We simply look at Vick differently and I respect your point of view bro. You dont think he's revolutionary. Im only expressing why I think that aspect of his game was. I dont know what else to do but to just agree to disagree. I present a game that has never been done in history and thats not even respectable to you, theres nothing else for me to present then. 

 

I was referring to what you considered his definitive season (1000 rushing yards) since that was the season you felt separated Vick from all others before him.  Every above-the-mean rushing game he had in that defining rushing season was accompanied by poor passing numbers.  

 

Your whole argument was that the quantity of rushing yards - and only the quantity of rushing yards - was what made him a revolutionary player.  Then your comparison game (to compare to the one I used) is one in which he had nearly 50 rushing yards less than the guy he was so much better than it was revolutionary.  It is a contradiction in your argument.

 

If there's anything that made him revolutionary, it's the media rather than his actual play.  Because for most of his career, for all his innate talent, he was a pretty mediocre QB. 

 

Also, you don't need to pander to me.  I don't think either of us worries about what the other thinks of us.  You're one of my favorite posters of all-time here.  I don't quite know why.  You aren't a revolutionary type of poster, even if you're expecting a revolution imminently, which would make your horde of gold worth what you paid .  FYI, if that happens, I'm crashing at your place for a while.

[Sperm Edwards]

Then I guess its not up for debate. You shouldn't have even typed all thats stuff after saying that its not up for debate. Didnt even read after that......because its not up for debate

 

Lol.  Literally the most devastating response you could have written to him. 

[#27TheDominator]

Lol.  Literally the most devastating response you could have written to him. 

 

Yeah.  Nobody tells BG too long did not read.

[Sperm Edwards]

Yet this isn't the point that I'm arguing. My point was simply the fact that Vick revolutionized the running game from the QB position. You guys are looking at it like I'm saying that teams would prefer a running QB over a pure passing QB. I never said or alluded that. If someone said, "he revolutionized the rushing game but his passing game wasn't sh*t", then I could work with that. People are hating on his impact level of his running at the position because of their feeling on passing game and his love for pit bulls. 

 

He did NOT revolutionize the game is our point.  There were mobile QBs before and after him.  Teams are searching for the next Steve Young (right-handed Steve Young), not the next Michael Vick.  A guy who is a deadly passer, but who can beat you with his legs now & then.  Not a guy who is a great runner first and a mediocre passer.  

[Sperm Edwards]

Yeah.  Nobody tells BG too long did not read.

 

I think it was the style in which Villain did it.  It seemed particularly cold to me.  The tl;dr thing isn't as biting.

[Bleedin Green]

Then I guess its not up for debate. You shouldn't have even typed all thats stuff after saying that its not up for debate. Didnt even read after that......because its not up for debate

 

Glad to see you're not acting like a scorned preteen about it.

 

To be clear, I opted to address your remaining points about Vick and the blatant fallacies that existed in them.  I have no issue in still debating your man-love inspired praising of Vick, even despite your clear misuse of a particular word in your attempted praise.

[Bleedin Green]

Lol.  Literally the most devastating response you could have written to him. 

 

Yeah.  Nobody tells BG too long did not read.

 

I think it was the style in which Villain did it.  It seemed particularly cold to me.  The tl;dr thing isn't as biting.

 

While I can admit I may find it grating, I also know it generally is just a defense mechanism used as an excuse not to respond.  We all know that he still read every word of it, despite what he claims, which just leads me to believe that he was incapable of forming a valid response to the points made.

 

So I'll just go ahead and assume I've won the argument until he can prove otherwise.

[#27TheDominator]

Look at Bleedin' paring his responses down in the hope to keep things brewing!

[Bleedin Green]

Look at Bleedin' paring his responses down in the hope to keep things brewing!

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

[RutgersJetFan]

6,000 and counting.

[Villain The Foe]

I was referring to what you considered his definitive season (1000 rushing yards) since that was the season you felt separated Vick from all others before him.  Every above-the-mean rushing game he had in that defining rushing season was accompanied by poor passing numbers.  

 

Your whole argument was that the quantity of rushing yards - and only the quantity of rushing yards - was what made him a revolutionary player.  Then your comparison game (to compare to the one I used) is one in which he had nearly 50 rushing yards less than the guy he was so much better than it was revolutionary.  It is a contradiction in your argument.

 

If there's anything that made him revolutionary, it's the media rather than his actual play.  Because for most of his career, for all his innate talent, he was a pretty mediocre QB. 

 

Also, you don't need to pander to me.  I don't think either of us worries about what the other thinks of us.  You're one of my favorite posters of all-time here.  I don't quite know why.  You aren't a revolutionary type of poster, even if you're expecting a revolution imminently, which would make your horde of gold worth what you paid .  FYI, if that happens, I'm crashing at your place for a while.

Brother, you are seriously not following what I've been saying. I never considered his one season the definitive moment that defines him as revolutionary. It was his CONSISTENCY that defined it for me. I will go back up and read the rest of what you wrote but I had to respond right after your statement in the first sentence. 

[Villain The Foe]

He did NOT revolutionize the game is our point.  There were mobile QBs before and after him.  Teams are searching for the next Steve Young (right-handed Steve Young), not the next Michael Vick.  A guy who is a deadly passer, but who can beat you with his legs now & then.  Not a guy who is a great runner first and a mediocre passer.  

Teams are looking for the next gen of Steve youngs as well. Teams will most definitely be looking for the next Michael Vick and will draft such guys with the 1st overall pick just like Vick was drafted, just ask cam newton. 

[Villain The Foe]

Glad to see you're not acting like a scorned preteen about it.

 

To be clear, I opted to address your remaining points about Vick and the blatant fallacies that existed in them.  I have no issue in still debating your man-love inspired praising of Vick, even despite your clear misuse of a particular word in your attempted praise.

I'm glad you have no issue, but I don't feel like debating it with you. You stated your point and your point isn't worth debating against. 

[RutgersJetFan]

I also don't think Vick is a Hall of Famer at this point, but we should revisit this discussion in a few years, when his athletic ability has allowed the NFL to schedule two games on the moon.

 

See, now that's revolutionary.

[RutgersJetFan]

Scott Baio paved the way for Daniel Day Lewis. Discuss.

 

[Bleedin Green]

I'm glad you have no issue, but I don't feel like debating it with you. You stated your point and your point isn't worth debating against. 

 

The definition of one particular word is all that cannot be debated, if you have an issue with that, I suppose you can take it up with the folks over at merriam-webster.  The points I made beyond that were making note of logical fallacies and distorted facts that existed throughout your arguments.  You of course could have attempted to defend your points, but it seems you instead opted to take it as some great injustice to be proven wrong.  After all, if it was simply a matter of ending the debate, you could have just left the thread, not felt the need to make multiple pouty posts in response.

[jack48]

[Villain The Foe]

The definition of one particular word is all that cannot be debated, if you have an issue with that, I suppose you can take it up with the folks over at merriam-webster.  The points I made beyond that were making note of logical fallacies and distorted facts that existed throughout your arguments.  You of course could have attempted to defend your points, but it seems you instead opted to take it as some great injustice to be proven wrong.  After all, if it was simply a matter of ending the debate, you could have just left the thread, not felt the need to make multiple pouty posts in response.

Okay Green, yes I've noticed the "scorned preteen" and now "pouty posts" comment of yours. Now that I've pacified you let me say this, I'm not sure if you're seeking some knee jerk reaction from these passive-aggressive comments of yours but let me try this again in a way where you feel like I'm not being pouty or a scorned preteen. 

 

I dont like they way you've presented yourself to me with your last few post. I find it disrespectful and I dont care for it. Historically this doesn't end well and I dont feel like getting into the messiness in the public forum to then turn around and have people want to kiss and make up in private messages. I was doing that here on Jetnation 6 years ago. Im beyond that. I dont come here for that and I dont expect that you come here for that. I dont want to put you on some ignore list, that sucks, but understand that I'm telling you for the third time that I'm not interested in your comments because it comes with unnecessary jabs that makes me smirk, shake my head and further confirm why I knew not to entertain you to begin with. We can talk about something else in another thread, but this topic is dead between you and I. And If there's any part of this that you dont understand Merriam-Webster should help. 

[pdxgreen]

If he has any legacy, it will sadly being Ron Mexico with the floozes.  I wish he did have a chance to win a SB as a backup for the team,

but we just ain't the Seahawks yet.

[slats]

Teams are looking for the next gen of Steve youngs as well. Teams will most definitely be looking for the next Michael Vick and will draft such guys with the 1st overall pick just like Vick was drafted, just ask cam newton.

Cam Newton doesn't go first overall if he's Michael Vick's size, just ask Johnny Manziel. Cam went number one as a QB, a much better one than Vick so far, not a runner. Vick's accomplishments on the field never met the hype surrounding him during his draft, or since.

[Bleedin Green]

Okay Green, yes I've noticed the "scorned preteen" and now "pouty posts" comment of yours. Now that I've pacified you let me say this, I'm not sure if you're seeking some knee jerk reaction from these passive-aggressive comments of yours but let me try this again in a way where you feel like I'm not being pouty or a scorned preteen. 

 

I dont like they way you've presented yourself to me with your last few post. I find it disrespectful and I dont care for it. Historically this doesn't end well and I dont feel like getting into the messiness in the public forum to then turn around and have people want to kiss and make up in private messages. I was doing that here on Jetnation 6 years ago. Im beyond that. I dont come here for that and I dont expect that you come here for that. I dont want to put you on some ignore list, that sucks, but understand that I'm telling you for the third time that I'm not interested in your comments because it comes with unnecessary jabs that makes me smirk, shake my head and further confirm why I knew not to entertain you to begin with. We can talk about something else in another thread, but this topic is dead between you and I. And If there's any part of this that you dont understand Merriam-Webster should help. 

 

This sounds like a great story, but doesn't really have much basis in reality considering my comments were in response to you acting like you were above responding to a series of points that identified numerous holes in your arguments.  Not to mention, before my comment that one point was not really up for debate, you were throwing out remarks such as "so save yourself the trouble of typing", and that's just one example.  You're the one who opted to take the discussion in this direction, making the same snide remarks you falsely claim that you're above.  If what you're claiming was true, you simply would have responded to the points that were initially being made.

 

But rather then continue on with this unnecessary exchange, I'm still curious to see if you have any response to the main point made.  You wanted to discount Vick's worst seasons as outliers, but doing the same for Cunningham actually brings their numbers remarkably close to another one.  When looking at each of their respective primes in rushing, the difference in those seasons works itself to 23 yards per season, which is just over 1.4 yards per game.

[Villain The Foe]

Cam Newton doesn't go first overall if he's Michael Vick's size, just ask Johnny Manziel. Cam went number one as a QB, a much better one than Vick so far, not a runner. Vick's accomplishments on the field never met the hype surrounding him during his draft, or since.

I'll skip asking Johnny Manziel and I'll ask Michael Vick, a guy that went 1st overall himself in 2001 by the Atlanta Falcons. And as for the hype, if you look at Mick Vick's college stats they look like the team got exactly what they drafted. Mike in the pros averages a 56% completion rate, in college he averaged 56%. He averaged 650 yards a season in the pros and he averaged 600 yards a season in college.