Quote :

"i don't care if it's been said before. it's a ridiculous statement."

No one said it was valid. I'm pretty sure Woodfoot was making a joke (at least that's how I read it).

It dates from the days when a Heisman-winning QB could have as many (or more) INTs than TDs.

8/26/2005 2:13:55 PM

when you snap the ball you can:
Good: get some yards
Bad: fumble the snap, get a fasle start penalty, get an illegal motion penalty, have the qb fumble after the snap, have the rb run backwards for a safety....

better not snap the ball then

8/26/2005 2:16:49 PM

i think everyone can agree theres different ways to move the ball and win games

but ive never seen a team led by a scrambling quarterback WHO COULDNT PASS win a superbowl

notice i said WHO COULDNT PASS so you didnt mention people like steve young

8/26/2005 2:17:10 PM

yeah but vick threw 29 less incompletions than culpepper and 21 less incompletions than manning, so that makes him a top 5 quarterback. i mean, drives were stopped by those extra incompletions those guys threw.

vick and his awesome 56.4% completion rate...

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2005 2:44:31 PM

You can hide behind stats all day, but eventually you just have to watch the game yourself. You can only spout off so much ignorance...

ANd oh yeah fumbles are just as common as INT's lol.... an averagel RB fumbles about 3 times a season, a QB throws 10-20 INT's. Not to mention that many QB's fumble when they attempt to pass...

8/26/2005 7:09:51 PM

i love how every post it seems you dismiss stats and then post stats of your own

8/26/2005 11:45:37 PM

Quote :

" 1. reception 2. incompletion 3. interception when you run OR CATCH A PASS heres what can happen: 1. gain positive yards 2. lose yards 3. fumble "

Actually, you stats misunderstanding fags, the correct what to *begin* to compare these is by multiplying each item by its probability of occurring, but it's hard to expect morons to know how to use stats for good, not idiocy.

8/27/2005 1:41:46 AM

Quote :

"but ive never seen a team led by a scrambling quarterback WHO COULDNT PASS win a superbowl"

Mike Vick has one of the strongest arms in the league.

And he is probably the most dangerous runner in the league.


If he "couldn't pass" don't you think a team would have tried him at RB or WR? Think about it. If he COULD NOT pass then wouldn't he be playing a position that doesn't require passing?


He's been a starter for two years.


Did you think Michael Jordan sucked in 1987 after two years? He couldn't even go .500 his first two years in the league.

Did you think Troy Aikman sucked in 1990? He couldn't even win TWO games that year.

Did you think Daunte Culpepper sucked in 1998? He didn't even take a snap his rookie year.

Did you think Shaquille O'Neal sucked in 1993? He didn't even make the playoffs his first year.


Give me a freaking break already. THe Atlanta Falcons are a below-average team sans Vick. If you replace him with a totally average QB you are looking at a 6-10 team. Instead, they have won a playoff game each year.

When it comes down to it, Vick is an awesome QB.

Statistically, it appears that he doesn't measure up. THat is why I provided reasons that show why his statistics can't be taken strictly at face value.


If you watch the game it is obvious that Vick is the best player on the field nine times out of ten.

So when the games take place, try watching them.

8/27/2005 2:17:29 AM

I can't believe this has made 5 pages now. C'mon folks, he's only 25. He will never put up Peyton Manning numbers or throw 30 TD's in a year but it's all about the W.

8/27/2005 4:17:00 AM

Quote :

" and since Lil G wants to talk about the steelers, we can. last year the steelers had one of the top run defenses in the NFL, if not THE top (since you don't want stats). yet in the AFC championship game, they got burned deep for scores and that's what killed them. they were an awesome rushing defense, and they got their asses HANDED to them because of a good passing attack from brady. rushing isn't everything, the game is not that one-dimensional."

Wait...the Steelers lost that game? I only remember you posting stats for a solid week, showing that the Patriots had no chance against them. So, wait...I'm confused. I mean, your stats showed that they were going to win. But. They didn't. And....man, I'm just............confused.

Seriously, rallydurham owns you.

And it's so funny how all these NFL defensive coordinators that have all these years of experience can't seem to beat a quarterback that can't pass. Maybe some GM's need to look to the wolfweb for some qualified DC's.

8/27/2005 6:11:15 AM

show me where i posted stats for a solid week saying the patriots had no chance. i never once said the patriots had no chance.

8/27/2005 11:52:22 AM

how come Tampa Bay straight OWNS Vick and the Falcons? I thought Vick was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ?

by the way, The Falcons went 16-0 the last couple years right? I mean, since nobody knows how to stop Vick right? Forgive me, I havent been keeping up with the league, Ive just heard people in this thread say how he is unstoppable and basically just gets wins

He probably wasnt even sacked at all last year since he is so good

8/27/2005 8:38:32 PM

So I guess Manning isnt all that either since he has lost games right? And how long did it take him to make/win a playoff game? Yep, thats right.

8/27/2005 9:03:35 PM

brady is the best QB in the league right now...seriously...he does enough to win SBs...considering its a team sport and all

8/27/2005 9:04:35 PM

^best team QB, not individual

8/27/2005 9:26:12 PM

well he gets the job done, thats all i know...he makes the right 8 yard pass and the right 18 yard pass...sure he has a great team around him but he also makes the right decisions...he has 3 rings vick has 0

8/28/2005 4:44:09 AM

Quote :

"how come Tampa Bay straight OWNS Vick and the Falcons?"

Tampa is 3-2 agianst the Falcons with Vick as the starter. That's not all that ridiculous, dude.

I think you mean how come Vick straight OWNS the Panthers who he happens to be 5-0 against.

Quote :

"The Falcons went 16-0 the last couple years right?"

This is where it becomes pointless to even continure this discussion. You were grasping for straws already, but this is just too much...

8/28/2005 4:48:38 AM

Quote :

"This is where it becomes pointless to even continure this discussion. You were grasping for straws already, but this is just too much..."

hey that reminds me of that time when you said vick was a top 5 quarterback

8/28/2005 5:05:14 AM

^you're right. No NFL analyst, scouting service, or general manager could possibly believe that Michael Vick is one of the top 5 QB's in the game.

I mean his results might suggest that he is, but surely they are smart enough to look up his stats and then use your formula to rank the QBs.

Passing yards+Rushing yards = how good a QB is.


That is one hell of a system you derived, and I'm sure people all over the country are thankful.

Maybe you could work on deriving a formula to replace the BCS with next.

8/28/2005 5:20:29 AM

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/positional-rankings/OFF

Pete Prisco ranks the NFL's top offensive players at each position.

Quarterback
Peyton Manning Player
1. Peyton Manning, Colts How much more can he do from a statistical standpoint? Now it's time to win the ring.
2. Tom Brady, Patriots He doesn't put up big numbers, but he gets it done when it counts. The guy is a legitimate star.
3. Daunte Culpepper, Vikings If not for Manning's amazing season, we'd all be talking about what Culpepper did. Now comes the hard part: Doing it without Randy Moss.
4. Donovan McNabb, Eagles When he finally got a legitimate weapon in Terrell Owens we saw how good McNabb can be. He elevated his game last season.
5. Michael Vick, Falcons He's a magical player at times, but he has to improve his passing. When that happens, look out.
6. Brett Favre, Packers He can still make some amazing plays with his arm, but he's not the same player he was a few years back. But we're glad he's back for another season.
7. Steve McNair, Titans Injuries crippled him last season, but he decided to keep playing instead of retiring. He's lost some weight and he's healthy again. But his team is crumbling around him.
8. Trent Green, Chiefs He had another huge year in 2004 from a numbers standpoint. He knows how to move the chains.
9. Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks He started slow in 2004, but he came on in the end. With a new, fat contract, he's the man in Seattle. With no more worries, he should play more relaxed.
10. Chad Pennington, Jets The one concern with Pennington is his rotator cuff injury. Will he get his velocity back? If not, the Jets are in trouble.





Holy christ how did i miss this gym at the bottom of page 3

Quote :

" ^^^ this thread is basically people who understand statistics vs people who don't All that bullshit ncWOLFsu is trotting out wholly ignores what it actually means to be a good qb. It proves that X had more passing yards than Y, but that is a completely different thing than proving X is a better qb than Y. The bottom line is that great quarterbacks are determined by the consensus of fans, media, and players, not some faggy, haphazard collection of stats. These people (rightfully) trust their own observation of a QB's performance and base their opinions on actual, logical reasons (i.e. This QB is clutch when it matters the most). Stats, especially the moronic model that ncWOLFsu seems to be employing, are an *abstraction* of a QB's performance. Hence, they can (and clearly do in this thread) abstract what it means to be a good QB. If you even want to start using stats to prove who is the better QB, you have to start coming up with metrics for "clutchness," "playmaker," "matchup nightmare," etc before you can get a reliable model. Picking and choosing 2 or 3 categories such as passing yards is idiotic. I'd also note that fags do this same shit to prove that J Davis didnt suck balls last year. "

Dude he just completely ripped you a new one. This sounds like a fucking research paper he just dropped on you. Get off this guy's knutesac

[Edited on August 28, 2005 at 5:32 AM. Reason : a]

8/28/2005 5:28:05 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "but ive never seen a team led by a scrambling quarterback WHO COULDNT PASS win a superbowl" Mike Vick has one of the strongest arms in the league. And he is probably the most dangerous runner in the league. If he "couldn't pass" don't you think a team would have tried him at RB or WR? Think about it. If he COULD NOT pass then wouldn't he be playing a position that doesn't require passing? "

Congratulations, passing ability is obviously only a function of throwing power and not accuracy...and Mark Wohlers was one of the best pitchers of all time.

Quote :

"And it's so funny how all these NFL defensive coordinators that have all these years of experience can't seem to beat a quarterback that can't pass. Maybe some GM's need to look to the wolfweb for some qualified DC's."

If Vick/the Falcons offense was unstoppable I imagine they'd score more points. Maybe their winning has something to do with the defense. While Vick is very difficulty to completely shut down, that can be said for many NFL QBs that are hardly "great".

8/28/2005 7:49:32 AM

hey rally did Pete Prisco invite you up for coffee after your date?

8/28/2005 12:52:23 PM

the problem is, everybody knows Vick is a good QB, probably a great QB...but some people deify him as the future best football player ever...and its way too fucking early for any of that shit...way too fucking early...sure he's a great player but my problem is with the people who think he's the greatest in the league and that he is unstoppable...he's a great athlete...but he hasn't proven to anyone he is a legitimate NFL passing quarterback...plus I dont know why some of you faggots show so much love for a fuckin VT Hokie...I'm sure you'll be pulling for them next Sunday

8/28/2005 2:23:02 PM

when vick manages to throw double the touchdowns than he does INTs then I might call him a good quarterback.

8/28/2005 2:28:26 PM

i dont know if even that would convince me. with as little as he throws, he could throw like 8 TD's and 4 INT's in a season lol.

8/28/2005 2:37:31 PM

Yeah, I don't even see how Vick starts in the NFL. How the guy isn't 2nd string somewhere I have no clue

8/28/2005 6:37:49 PM

I don't get it.

Donovan McNabb isn't one of the top 15 QB's in terms of passing accuracy.

Where is all the fuss about how he can't pass?

If it wasn't for McNabb's ability to scramble and buy time he might not even be starting in the NFL.


Yet no one is talking about the fact that he sucks at QB.

8/28/2005 7:01:07 PM

that's because he uses his legs to help his arm

8/28/2005 7:07:21 PM

ANd Vick uses his legs to help his arm.


THe difference?

McNabb is a notably better passer.

Vick is a notably better runner.


When it comes down to it you could make a case for either one being a better QB. I'm not even saying which one I prefer.

Certainly it depends on the system.

If I had Philadelphia's defense, and TO to throw to I'd prefer McNabb because he is a better game manager and can make better use of TO than Vick.

If I had Atlanta's team with little surrounding talent I'd rather have Vick who can create his own offense.

8/28/2005 7:31:32 PM

^ show me all this offense he creates

the numbers fail to show Vick's top 5 ability to create offense

8/28/2005 8:08:44 PM

Sure thing.


Check the offense when Vick doesn't play.


The difference between the offense ATL has when he is in & not in is a pretty fair assessment of the "offense he creates"

8/28/2005 8:32:00 PM

^ because I expect Doug Johnson or Matt Schaub, who are hardly good enough to be 3rd string, to be as effective as Vick

8/28/2005 8:44:05 PM

Well then explain the following.


When McNabb went down: The Eagles still won every week with 3rd string QB AJ Feeley. The same AJ Feeley who can barely make the Dolphins roster.

When Culpepper went down: The Vikings went undefeated with Gus Frerotte. The same Gus Frerotte that couldn't hold down a starting job in Washington.

When AIkman went down: The Cowboys went undefeated with Steve Beuerlein and Jason Garrett.

When Tommy Maddox went down: The Steelers went 15-0 behind Ben Roethlisberger. A fucking rookie QB.


When Mike Vick went down: The Falcons went 2-10. When he returned: They went 3-1.

You see, when other teams lose their QB, they have other weapons on offense that can help them win ball games.

When Mike Vick goes down its game over. There's no 'reset' button in the NFL.


You will never beat me in this argument.

Part of it is that I'm pretty good at backing shit up.

But I can't take all the credit. It's easy to look smart when you defend the logical side of the argument.

[Edited on August 28, 2005 at 8:57 PM. Reason : a]

8/28/2005 8:56:09 PM

Daaaayum, rallydurham keeps bitchslapping you little bitches, but you little bitches keep coming back for more.

Hilarious.

8/28/2005 9:32:39 PM

^^HAHA that post just ended this thread

8/28/2005 10:21:25 PM

oh, i was still waiting for evidence on how Vick is a top 5 QB at creating offense

8/28/2005 10:27:30 PM

I'm gonna try to be an unbiased 3rd party here

Vick is one of the best athletes alive

he's not a phenomenol QB, in terms of the conventional standards

however, he is slowly changing the standards

8/28/2005 10:30:26 PM

Quote :

"changing the standards"

exactly

8/28/2005 10:31:21 PM

i hardly agree with rallydurham

but that last post was a pwnt extraordinaire

8/28/2005 10:33:52 PM

There has to be a better argument than wins, which is not a QB stat. Especially when the games Atlanta won came with the removal of Reeves. And especially when the games Atlanta lost came after hearing that their extremely hyped QB was lost for most of the season, before the season even began. I would just point to his great 2002 performance, and find a copout to write off how bad he was last year. It's a more convincing argument than wins.

8/28/2005 10:40:31 PM

Wow, this is just too fucking easy.

Quote :

"There has to be a better argument than wins, which is not a QB stat. Especially when the games Atlanta won came with the removal of Reeves."

Quote :

"I would just point to his great 2002 performance"

Reeves was the Falcons coach in 2002 when Vick and the Falcons became the first team to ever beat Green Bay at Lambeau Field in the playoffs.

The more you post, the more you show your ignorance.

8/28/2005 10:55:16 PM

you idiot, that's what he is saying. he is saying point to the 2002 performance INSTEAD of 2003. he is calling you a fucktard for thinking the 3-1 performance means something. he's saying use the 2002 performance to argue vick's worth.

8/28/2005 11:15:12 PM

Keep digging.

8/28/2005 11:25:33 PM

^^No, you idiot, that's NOT what he was saying. Of course, you're blinded by stupidity, so I don't expect you to actually catch on to any of this.

8/28/2005 11:33:53 PM

So going 3-1 with a team who is 5 games out of the playoff race means nothing?

When the team went 2-10 without you?????


And in your first season as a starter you led the team to a road victory in the playoffs?


And in your 2nd full year you won a playoff game by THIRTY points and clinched the #2 seed with two weeks to go????

That all means nothing????

8/28/2005 11:45:07 PM

Quote :

"Donovan McNabb isn't one of the top 15 QB's in terms of passing accuracy. Where is all the fuss about how he can't pass? "

its real fucking simple...he has consistently led his team far in the playoffs...its not rocket science that MOST PEOPLE JUDGE A QB'S WORTH ON HOW WELL AND HOW FAR HE LEADS HIS TEAM...is it really that hard to understand?

8/28/2005 11:54:25 PM

This is just like watching John Clayton and Sean Salisbury argue on ESPN

Clayton is forever constructing valid arguments with sound evidence while Salisbury unprofessionally squawks some opinion without foundation.
(and you know who you are)

Here is a funny poll to look at. On the NFL.com [ http://www.nfl.com/ ] frontpage there is a poll asking which NFC South team will have the best offense
53.8% Atlanta
23.7% Carolina
15.2% New Orleans
7.3% Tampa Bay

Funny since last season the total offense rankings were
Carolina(13th), New Orleans(15th), Atlanta(20th), Tampa Bay(22nd)
[ http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TOTAL/2004/regular?sort_col_1=4 ]
and the total scoring offense rankings were
Carolina(13th), New Orleans(14th), Atlanta(16th)
[ http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-SCORING/2004/regular ]

I would be surprised if Atlanta had the better offensive season, given that they weren't the best (if only in the division) when only playing against a total of 3 winning teams last season.

Just another example of uneducated people associating victory with offensive prowess.


Considering that many of the points I made (with tangible evidence and links to sources) were left standing without any substantiated rebuttals and many of my requests for evidence remained unsatisfied, I believe that my points remain clearly justified. Thus, I am leaving this thread without any regrets, knowing that my argumentative adversaries think that they have pwned me, even though they have failed to convince anyone but their own egos.

8/28/2005 11:59:02 PM

^dont worry...a lot of people would rather look at how talented an athlete a player is, as opposed to how far he has led his team in the playoffs and trivial things like wins and advancing in the postseason consistently

8/29/2005 12:02:30 AM

Quote :

"its real fucking simple...he has consistently led his team far in the playoffs...its not rocket science that MOST PEOPLE JUDGE A QB'S WORTH ON HOW WELL AND HOW FAR HE LEADS HIS TEAM...is it really that hard to understand?"

Oh, so you switched positions.

Now you are arguing that Vick is a great QB.

SInce he fits the criteria you just listed with a vastly inferior team to McNabb.

Thanks man.

8/29/2005 12:08:35 AM

^^^No one cares if you leave this thread. We quit giving your opinions any consideration after you posted

Quote :

"you are probably one of those people that think Terry Bradshaw is a quarterback god just because was on the Steelers and won 4 superbowls and a bunch of games look at his productivity: http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/05110003 3339 + 111 Total yards in his best season => not that great 28 + 1 Total TD's in his best season => not that great 212:210 career TD:INT ratio => pretty terrible 51.9% career completion percent => not very good 70.9 career passer rating => hardly Hall of Fame quality after looking at that, i wonder how he got voted into the hall of fame"

Oh, and we all know that you'll keep reading this thread. The only reason you said you were going to "leave this thread" is so you don't have to keep posting and keep getting called out on your shit.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 12:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 12:11:40 AM