Quote :

"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"

I'm not going to go back and find the context, but that was either (a) sarcastic, or (b) one of the stupidest fucking thing ever posted about football. I'm going to assume it's (b). I guess you're one of the people that doesn't think the game has changed over the past 100 years.

It's not played the same fucking way now. Those are INCREDIBLE numbers for the '70s.

8/29/2005 12:17:33 AM

hey strudle did you even bother comparing Bradshaw's statistics to other QB's of his Era?


Or did you just compare them to Trent Green's stats when he's down 17 in the 4th quarter and conclude that Trent Green must be twice the QB that Bradshaw was....?

8/29/2005 12:17:49 AM

^^ beat me by 16 seconds.

8/29/2005 12:20:38 AM

rally...like i said earlier...most people agree Vick is a great QB...but judging a QB's worth is not just their abilities...its how well they lead their team...they're supposed to be the team leader, not just the most exciting player

IT'S ALL ABOUT WINS AND THEN PLAYOFF WINS

the problem "vick bashers" have is not saying he is a great player, its saying OMG HES THE BEST PLAYER EVER IN ANY SPORT...cause he hasnt won any big games since he won at Green Bay years ago...NOBODY is saying Vick isnt a great player...they're mostly saying WIN SOMETHING before you get crowned King Athlete of All Time

8/29/2005 12:20:55 AM

^^^^it was definitely (b)

He posted this later:

Quote :

"have you ever heard of the Steel Curtain? i'm not saying Bradshaw sucks, I'm saying he was not productive or efficient enough to be considered a quarterback god, he was great, but hardly godly. Plus the guy is a fucking moron, so that probably added some bias into my feelings toward him."

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 12:21 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 12:21:09 AM

Quote :

"NOBODY is saying Vick isnt a great player"

Actually, there are quite a few people trying to say that.


I think Turnip pretty much sums up the ignorance in this thread:

Quote :

" He can improve some aspects of his game, but the Falcons got to the playoffs last year in spite of having Vick at QB."

8/29/2005 12:25:50 AM

well maybe so

but here is my KEY point:

Quote :

"WIN SOMETHING before you get crowned King Athlete of All Time"

8/29/2005 12:28:33 AM

Dude, no one is crowning him "King Athlete of All-Time." Yes, there is a lot of talk about him because he's electric, he's good for the NFL and he's taken his team to the playoffs in each of his full seasons, but let's not exaggerate.

8/29/2005 12:33:01 AM

I crowned him a top 5 QB in the NFL, not the greatest ever.


You are completely misrepresenting the argument in this thread.


And i think deep down you know that.

8/29/2005 12:34:40 AM

Quote :

"I crowned him a top 5 QB in the NFL, not the greatest ever."

I can side with that. I'd consider him top-five sheerly because of the matchup problem he prevents to a defense. As for his place in history, well, he has his whole career ahead of him to determine that.

I will say this: I think he's definitely the kind of guy you can build a successful franchise around.

8/29/2005 12:36:29 AM

Quote :

"That all means nothing????"

It can mean something, but certainly not that he's a top 5 QB. Using only the wins argument doesn't prove he's a top 5 QB.

I don't even know why I'm responding to Lil G, but you interpreted my post wrong, and ncWOLFsu interpreted it correctly...and yes the Falcons won in spite of Vick's bad passing.

Quote :

"Vick's the most dangerous QB, I just don't think he's a top 5 QB. I think he has the potential to be one though. If the Vick of 2002 returns this season, then I would definitely say he's top 5."

That's what I wrote in a PM to rallydurham... I was never arguing that he wasn't a good QB. I just don't think he's in the top 5, and I do hesitate to call him great. He hasn't reached Greatness yet. And I still think he's a bad passer. He is a very rare player in that he can be a great QB while being a bad passer.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ;]

8/29/2005 1:03:48 AM

ok since my stats weren't good enough for you guys, we can try someone elses. there's a really good chance that most of you idiots won't understand these concepts, but these stats account for all the points rallydurham brought up. these points include being down late in the 4th quarter and racking up passing yards, being up late in the game and running out the clock, a play on 3rd and 3 vs 2nd and 15, etc.

BEFORE ARGUING THESE STATISTICS, READ THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THEY ARE

Quote :

"WHERE ARE WE COMING FROM Football statistics can't be analyzed in the same way baseball statistics are. After all, there are only 16 games in a season. Baseball has ten times more, and even the NBA offers five times more. The more games, the more events to analyze, and the more events to analyze, the more statistical significance. That is true, but the trick is to consider each play in an NFL game as a separate event. For example, Peyton Manning played only 16 games in 2003, but in those 16 games he had 610 passing plays (including sacks) and 26 rushing plays (including scrambles) for a total of 636 events. Sammy Sosa, in 2002, played 150 games, and had 666 plate appearances. For the most part, a quarterback who plays a full season will have the same number of plays as a baseball hitter who plays in most of his team's games. A running back will have fewer plays than a quarterback, and wide receivers and tight ends will have even fewer. But there should still be enough plays with most starting running backs and receivers to allow for analysis with some significance. As an example, LaDanian Tomlinson ran the ball 383 times in 2002, and was the target of 101 pass targets (including incompletes), for a total of 484 plays. Tomlinson was used a bit more often than the average running back, but in general a starting running back will have 400-500 plays over 16 games. Receivers are used a bit less, and therefore their stats are likely not as accurate. In general, starting wide receivers who are not named "Harrison" have 75-150 pass targets over a full season. We're introducing a lot of new statistics here. We think that these statistics show us new ways to look at the NFL, and new things we may not see through conventional stats that don't take game situations into account. But we also admit that these statistics are new. They are based on only one season of the NFL. They will probably be tweaked numerous times over the next few years. To be honest, we are in the "Bill James mimeographing 25 hand-stapled copies of the Baseball Abstract in his garage" stage right now. But hey, James discovered a lot of important things right from the get go, and thanks to the Internet we can share the things we've discovered with more than 25 people. And we don't have to get mimeograph ink all over our hands. Please feel free to contact us with questions and comments about our new statistics (email Aaron at aaron-at-footballoutsiders.com). DVOA EXPLAINED The majority of the ratings featured on FootballOutsiders.com are based on DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. This stat breaks down the NFL season play by play to see how much success offensive players achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average. (There are a few other statistics, which are explained later on this page.) Let's start the explanation of DVOA with two running backs. One running back runs for three yards. Another running back runs for three yards. Which is the better run? There are a number of questions that need to be asked to figure that out. What is the down and distance? Is it 3rd-and-2, or 2nd-and-15? Where on the field is the ball? Does the player get only three yards because he hits the goal line and scores? Is this player's team up by two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, so that he is running out the clock, or down by two touchdowns so that the defense is playing purely against the pass? Is our running back playing against Baltimore, or Kansas City? All of these variables have an impact on what we should expect from any offensive play in football. Three yards is different depending on the situation. Sometimes it is a success, like when it gets a first down. Sometimes it is a failure, like when it comes on first down with the team losing by two touchdowns with five minutes left. And yet, conventional NFL statistics count plays based solely on their yardage. The NFL determines the best players by adding up all their yards no matter what situations they came in or how many plays it took to get them. That's a problem because football has two objectives that get you closer to scoring: gaining yards, and achieving first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player's value or a team's performance. All the yards in the world aren't useful if they all come in eight-yard chunks on third-and-tens. The popularity of fantasy football only exaggerates the problem. Fans have gotten used to judging players based on how much they help fantasy teams win and lose, not how much they help real teams win and lose. But fantasy scoring skews things by counting the yard between the one and the goal line as 61 times more important than all the other yards on the field. Let's say Keyshawn Johnson catches a pass on 3rd-and-15 and goes 50 yards but gets tackled two yards from the goal line, and then Eddie George takes the ball on 1st-and-goal from the two-yard line and plunges in for the score. Or, let's say that the Giants take a touchback on the opening kickoff, and the Dallas defense stuffs Tiki Barber twice, and on third-and-10 Kurt "Nine Fingers" Warner throws the ball into the arms of Terence Newman, who gets taken down by Jeremy Shockey at the two-yard line. Then on the ensuing 1st-and-goal, George scores a touchdown. Has George done something special? Not really. When an offense gets the ball on 1st-and-goal at the two-yard line, they are going to score a touchdown five out of six times. In the first situation, George is getting the credit that primarily belongs to the passing game. In the second situation, George is getting the credit that primarily belongs to the defense. Can we do a better job of distributing credit for scoring points and winning games? That's the goal of VOA, or Value Over Average. VOA breaks down every single play of the NFL season to see how much success offensive players achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average. It uses a value based on both total yards and yards towards a first down, based on work done by Pete Palmer, Bob Carroll, and John Thorn in their seminal book, The Hidden Game of Football. On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45% of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60% of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success."

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 1:36:42 AM

Quote :

"We then expand upon that basic idea with a more complicated system of "success points." A successful play is worth one point, an unsuccessful play zero points. Extra points are awarded for big plays, gradually increasing to three points for 10 yards, four points for 20 yards, and five points for 40 yards or more. There are fractional points in between. (For example, eight yards on 3rd-and-10 is worth 0.54 "success points.") Losing three or more yards is -1 point, an interception is -8 points, and a fumble is worth anywhere from -2.15 to -6.54 points depending on how often a fumble in that situation is lost to the defense. Red zone plays are worth more, and there is a bonus given for a touchdown. (The system is a bit more complex than the one in Hidden Game thanks to a number of developments, including the larger penalty for turnovers, the fractional points, and a slightly higher baseline for success on first down.) Every single play run in the NFL gets a "success value" based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for the entire season for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and current scoring lead or deficit. Rushing plays are compared to other rushing plays, passing plays to other passing plays, tight ends get compared to tight ends and wideouts to wideouts. Going back to our example of the three-yard rush, if Player A gains three yards under a set of circumstances where the average NFL running back gains only one yard, it can be argued that Player A has a certain amount of value above others at his position. Likewise, if Player B gains three yards on a play where, under similar circumstances, an average NFL back would be expected to gain four yards, it can be argued that Player B has negative value relative to others at his position. Once we have all our adjustments, we can add the differences between this player's success and the expected success of an average running back in the same situation to get V+, a number which represents that back's number of successful plays over an average back. If you divide a player's total success value (V+) by the average success values of all players in the each of the situations he faced, you get VOA, or Value Over Average. Of course, the biggest variable in football is the fact that each team plays a different schedule. By adjusting each play based on the defense's average success in stopping that type of play over the course of a season, we get DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Rushing and passing plays are adjusted based on down and location on the field; receiving plays are also adjusted based on how the defense performs against passes to running backs, tight ends, and wide receivers. (Confusion alert: Originally, we called the adjusted VOA for defense something else, but finally we decided that it was better to call opponent-adjusted VOA the same thing in every instance, and most people thought "DVOA" just sounded better than "OVOA" or "AVOA" even though, yes, when we're talking about defenses the "D" can't stand for defense. Think of it as standing for "dependent on opponent" or something.) The biggest advantage of DVOA is the ability to break teams and players down to find strengths and weaknesses in a variety of situations. In the aggregate, DVOA may not be quite as accurate as some of the other, similar "power ratings" formulas based on comparing drives rather than individual plays, but unlike those other ratings DVOA can be separated not only by player but also by down, or by week, or by distance needed for first down. This can give us a better idea of not just which team is better but why, and what a team has to do in order to improve itself in the future. Some readers have criticized us for using DVOA in too many different ways, but that's the idea behind the number -- since it takes every single play into account, it can be used to measure a player or a team's performance in any situation. And, since it compares each play only to plays with similar circumstances, it gives a more accurate picture of how much better a team really is compared to the league as a whole. The list of top DVOA offenses on third down, for example, is more accurate than the conventional NFL conversion statistic because it takes into account that converting third-and-long is more difficult than converting third-and-short. OTHER THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW One of the hardest parts of understanding a new statistic is grasping the idea of what numbers represent good performance or bad performance. We try to make that easy with DVOA, because it gets compared to average. Therefore, 0% always represents league-average. A positive DVOA represents that the offense is more likely to score, and a negative DVOA represents that the defense is more likely to stop them. This is why the best offenses have positive DVOA ratings (Kansas City: +28.4%) and the best defenses have negative DVOA ratings (Baltimore: -32.0%). Ratings for teams and starting players generally follow that scale, with the best being around 30% and the worst being around -30% (opposite for defense). In team efficiency stats that combine a team's offense and defense, the team total is given by offense minus defense to take into account that better defenses are more negative. With fewer situations to measure, the numbers spread out a bit more, so you'll see more extreme DVOA ratings for part-time players and for measurements of teams in more specific situations (for example, passing on third downs). The charts listing players in order of DVOA have cut-offs for number of attempts, because players with just a handful of plays end up with absurd VOA and DVOA numbers (In 2002, for example, Henry Burris, -103%, Jake Delhomme +52%). Passing statistics include sacks as well as fumbles on aborted snaps. Receiving statistics include all passes intended for the receiver in question, including those that are incomplete or intercepted. At some point, I hope to be able to determine just how much impact different receivers have on completes vs. incomplete passes, but various regression analyses make it clear that both quarterback and receiver have an impact on whether a pass is complete or not. The word passes refers to both complete and incomplete pass attempts."

8/29/2005 1:37:45 AM

Quote :

"AN EXAMPLE OF HOW DVOA WORKS Let's show an example of how the numbers work with one specific play -- and watch out, this gets seriously geeky. In 2002, Week 4, in the third quarter of the Philadelphia-Houston game, Philadelphia faced second-and-10 from their own 39. Donovan McNabb passed the ball to Chad Lewis for a 9-yard gain, but Lewis fumbled the ball at the end of the play and Houston recovered. In general, that play is worth 2.14 to McNabb as a passer, since he's not responsible for the fumble. On average, pass attempts on second-and-10, with the team up by more than a touchdown and the ball in the BACK zone (from the team's own 21 through 39) are worth 0.86. So McNabb on this play is 1.28 over average. But Houston's pass defense is better than league average against tight ends, and better than league average when down by more than a touchdown (heck, they had a lot of practice for it) so that adds 0.15, making McNabb's rating for this play equal 1.43. Things don't rate so well for Lewis. He gets -8.0 for the turnover, no matter how many yards he received for the reception. The average value of this play is a slightly different, .82, since we're only comparing Lewis to other tight ends in this situation. So his rating is -8.82 before we adjust for Houston's defense. For receptions, we compare defenses according to position and down, and Houston allows 0.42 less than the league average on second down TE receptions, so the final rating for the play for Lewis is -8.40. Philadelphia's team offensive efficiency also credits this as a fumble, -8.0. The average for second-and-10 in the BACK zone, for all offensive plays (rushes and passes) is 0.59, so the rating is -8.59 before adjusting for defense. Houston is a tiny .07 better than league average on second down pass plays in the BACK zone, so Philly ends up with -8.52. Turn it around, and we adjust Houston's defensive team efficiency score based on Philly's offense. We start with that same -8.59. The Philly offense is worse than league-average in the BACK zone, but better than league average on second down, and combined that makes Houston's value on this play -8.69. How would different circumstances change things? What if Houston had recovered the same fumble, in the same situation, against the Raiders? Well, the Raider' passing game was much better than league average in the BACK zone, and roughly league average on second down, so if Houston had been facing Rich Gannon and company this play would count for -9.07. DVOA FOR SPECIAL TEAMS What about special teams? The special teams method is different, since each play on special teams has a single goal instead of two goals like rushing and passing plays. Either you want to get the ball through the uprights, you want to kick the ball really far, or you want to return the ball for as many yards as possible. Punts and kickoffs are judged based on the difference in point value between each kick and an average kick from that position on the field. Punt returns and kick returns are judged based on the difference in point value between each return and an average return from the spot where the ball is picked up. Each field goal is compared to the league-average percentage of field goals from that distance. The whole method is described in detail here, although it has recently undergone a major revision, improving the value of touchbacks and adding an adjustment for weather, stadium, and altitude. An article on those revisions is coming later this season. PAR EXPLAINED After dealing with DVOA for a few months, we had to deal with a strange tendency; well-regarded players, particularly those known for their durability, had DVOA ratings that came out around average. Players along these lines included Deuce McAllister, LaDainian Tomlinson (in 2002, not 2003), and Jeremy Shockey. The problem is that DVOA doesn't take into account the value of a player being involved in a greater number of plays, even if his performance is league-average. A player who is involved in more plays can draw the defense's attention away from other parts of the offense. If that player is a running back, he can take time off the clock with repeated runs. And most importantly, nearly every player is a starter for a reason: he is better than the alternative. Let's say you have a running back who carries the ball 300 times in a season. What would happen if you were to remove this player from his team's offense? What would happen to those 300 plays? Well, the player would not be replaced by thin air. This is why you have to compare performance to some kind of baseline; two yards is not two yards better than the alternative. On the other hand, while comparing players to the league average works on a per play basis, it doesn't work on a total basis because a player removed from an offense is not generally replaced by a similar player. Those 300 plays will generally be given to a significantly worse player, someone who is the backup because he doesn't have as much experience and/or talent. To take this into account, we borrowed the concept of replacement level from Baseball Prospectus. Using a scale similar to the scale BP uses to determine baseball's replacement level, we've determined that a replacement level player has a DVOA of roughly -13.3%. (If you want to know why, it is explained in the original article introducing PAR.) Instead of determining value by comparing each play's "success value" to the average, as in DVOA, each play is instead compared to a number roughly 13.3% below the average success value of similar plays. That gives us value over a replacement level player, a better representation of a player's total contribution to his team on all his plays. Actually, while in general replacement level is -13.3%, technically it is different for each position depending on whether we are measuring passing, rushing, or receiving. And, of course, the real replacement player is different for each team in the NFL. Chicago's backup quarterback (Chandler) was better than its starting quarterback (Stewart). Houston's second-team running back (Davis) was better than the guy who began the year as a starter (Mack). Both of Steve McNair's backups performed well. Sometimes, the drop from the starter to the backup is even greater than the general drop to replacement level. Despite being known over the years for depth, Denver last year had a massive drop when they went from their starting running back to his backup, and when they went from the starting quarterback (Plummer) to his backup (Beuerlein). Since you need to generalize for the league as a whole, and no starter can be blamed for the poor performance of his backup, we use the same general replacement level across the league. Of course, giving a number of "success value points over replacement level" would be fairly useless to the average fan and even the non-average fan. If I tell you Tommy Maddox was worth 77 success value points over replacement in 2003, you would have no idea what the heck I was talking about. So we translate those success value points into a number that represents actual points. After working through statistics from the past four seasons, our best approximation is that a team made up entirely of replacement-level players would be outscored 407 to 260, finishing with a 4-12 record. Conveniently, this is close to the average record of the last four expansion teams. But part of the reason this team gives up so many more points than it scores is that it has replacement-level special teams. Those replacement level special teams are worth -27 points, making the actual baseline for determining offensive value 274 points (the baseline for defensive value is 394 points). With a bit of math, it works out that each "success value point" over replacement level is worth about .48 actual points above this offensive baseline. We also adjust this number for the strength of the opponents each player has faced. Now I can tell you that Tommy Maddox was worth 37 points more than a replacement level quarterback in 2003, or 37 DPAR (which stands for Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement). That's nothing compared to Peyton Manning, of course, who was worth 127 points more than a replacement level quarterback in 2003, or 127 DPAR."

8/29/2005 1:38:20 AM

Quote :

"ISSUES WITH DVOA/DPAR You need to have the entire play-by-play of a season in order to compute it, so it is useless for comparing players of today to players of history. As of this writing, we have processed four seasons, 2000-2003. DVOA is limited by what's included in the official NFL play-by-play, so we can't say which teams have the best offensive DVOA when play-faking, or the best defensive DVOA against three-receiver sets. Since play-by-play lists tackles, sacks, and interceptions, but not attempted tackles, or attempted sacks or interceptions, we don't have individual DVOA or DPAR for defensive players at this point. DVOA is still far away from the point where we can use it to represent the value of a player separate from the performance of his ten teammates that are also involved in each play. That means that when we say, "Priest Holmes has a DVOA of 17.6%," what we are really saying is "Priest Holmes, playing in the Kansas City offensive system with the Kansas City offensive line blocking for him and Trent Green selling the fake when necessary, has a DVOA of 17.6%." ADJUSTED LINE YARDS EXPLAINED (Note: The Adjusted Line Yards formula was substantially overhauled in the summer of 2005. Adjusted Line Yards numbers from earlier articles are based on a different formula and will look smaller.) One exception to the use of DVOA/DPAR, and the use of "play success" instead of raw yardage, is the rating system for offensive and defensive lines. Actually, these are only measures of running plays, and of course the defensive numbers don't measure just the defensive line, but the whole front seven against the run. One of the most difficult goals of statistical analysis in football is somehow isolating how much responsibility for a play lies with each of the 22 men on the field. Nowhere is this as obvious as the running game, where one player runs while up to nine other players -- including wideouts, tight ends, and fullback -- block in different directions. None of the statistics we use for measuring rushing -- yards, touchdowns, yards per carry -- differentiate between the contribution of the running back and the contribution of the offensive line. Neither do our advanced metrics DVOA and DPAR. We have enough data amassed that we can try to separate the effect that the running back has on a particular play from the effect of the offensive line (and other offensive blockers) and the effect of the defense. A team might have two running backs in its stable: RB A, who averages 3.0 yards per carry, and RB B, who averages 3.5 yards per carry. Who is the better back? Imagine that RB A doesn’t just average 3.0 yards per carry, but gets exactly 3 yards on every single carry, while RB B has a highly variable yardage output: sometimes 5 yards, sometimes –2 yards, sometimes 20 yards. The difference in variability between the runners can be exploited to not only determine the difference between the runners, but the effect the offensive line has on every running play. We know that at some point in every long running play, the running back has gotten past all of his offensive line blocks. From here on, the rest of the play is dependent on the runner's own speed and elusiveness, combined with the speed and tackling ability of the defensive players. If Tiki Barber breaks through the line for 50 yards, avoiding tacklers all the way to the goal line, his offensive line has done a great job -- but they aren't responsible for most of that run. How much are they responsible for? For each running back carry, we calculated the probability that the back involved would run for the specific yardage on that play, based on that back’s average yardage per carry and the variability of their yardage on every play. We also calculated the probability that the offense would get the yardage based on the team’s rushing average and variability without the back involved in the play, and the probability that the defense would give up the specific amount of yardage based on its average rushing yards allowed per carry and variability. For example, based on his rushing average and variability, the probability in 2004 that Tiki Barber would have a positive carry was 80% while the probability that Giants would have a positive carry without Barber running was only 73%. Yardage ends up falling into roughly the following combinations: Losses, 0-4 yards, 5-10 yards, and 11+ yards. In general, the offensive line is 20% more responsible for lost yardage than it is for yardage gained up to four yards, but 50% less responsible for yardage gained from 5-10 yards, and not responsible for yardage past that. Thus, the creation of Adjusted Line Yards. Adjusted Line Yards take every carry by a running back and apply those percentages. (We don’t include carries by receivers, which are usually based on deception rather than straight blocking, or carries by quarterbacks, which are generally busted passing plays except in Atlanta.) Those numbers are then adjusted based on down, distance, and situation as well as opponent (similar to DVOA) and then normalized so that the league average for Adjusted Line Yards per carry is the same as the league average for RB yards per carry (in 2004, 4.19). Runs are listed by the NFL in seven different directions: left/right end, left/right tackle, left/right guard, and middle. Further research showed no statistically significant difference between how well a team performed on runs listed middle, left guard, and right guard, so we also list runs separated into five different directions. Note that there may not be a statistically significant difference between right tackle and middle/guard either, but until we can research further (and for the sake of symmetry) we do still split out runs behind the right tackle separately. The system is far from perfect. We don't know when a guard is pulling and when a guard is blocking straight ahead. We know that some runners are just inherently better going up the middle, and some are better going side to side, and we can't measure how much that impacts these numbers. We have no way of knowing the blocking contribution made by fullbacks, tight ends, or wide receivers. Other numbers we use to measure the running game: * 10+ Yards gives the percentage of the team's rushing yards that come from double-digit runs, past the first 10 yards of each run. So for a 15-yard run, five yards are counted; for an 80-yard run, 70 yards are counted. This number gives you an idea of how much of a team's running game was based on the breakaway speed of the running backs -- not to mention the opportunity provided by getting past the front seven with a lot of field in front of you. After all, you can only run 80 yards if you're on your own 20. This number is not adjusted in any way. * Power success measures the success of specific running plays rather than the distance. This number represents how often a running attempt on third or fourth down, with two yards or less to go, achieved a first down or touchdown. Since quarterback sneaks, unlike scrambles, are heavily dependent on the offensive line, this percentage does include runs by all players, not just running backs. This is the only stat given that includes quarterback runs. It is not adjusted based on game situation or opponent. * Stuffed measures the percentage of runs that result in (on first down) zero or negative gain or (on second through fourth down) less than one-fourth the yards needed for another first down. Note that this is slightly different from the definition of "stuffed" used by STATS, Inc. A NOTE ON PLAY-BY-PLAY DATA Our data may differ slightly from official NFL numbers due to discrepancies in different play-by-play reports. In addition, we've adjusted clock plays, with kneels no longer counting as rush attempts and spikes no longer counting as pass attempts. We also count most aborted snaps as passing plays, not rushing plays, unless the play-by-play specifies that the play was an aborted handoff."

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/methods.php

8/29/2005 1:38:54 AM

QB Rankings:

PASSING: Minimum 100 passes, 42 players ranked
Player 		Team 	DPAR 	DPAR Rnk PAR 	PAR Rnk DVOA 	DVOA Rnk VOA 	Passes 	Yards 	TD 	TO
18-P.Manning 	IND 	170.1 	1 	189.2 	1 	62.8% 	1 	71.3% 	509 	4451 	49 	11
11-D.Culpepper 	MIN 	136.4 	2 	144.4 	2 	38.9% 	4 	41.9% 	595 	4446 	39 	13
12-T.Brady 	NE 	113.4 	3 	95.6 	6 	41.6% 	2 	33.0% 	499 	3520 	28 	17
5-D.McNabb 	PHI 	107.1 	4 	102.9 	4 	35.8% 	5 	33.9% 	501 	3677 	31 	12
10-T.Green 	KC 	102.9 	5 	114.3 	3 	27.7% 	9 	32.2% 	587 	4360 	27 	20
10-M.Bulger 	STL 	92.6 	6 	85.8 	8 	29.3% 	8 	26.1% 	523 	3672 	21 	18
4-B.Favre 	GB 	83.5 	7 	96.4 	5 	22.0% 	10 	27.4% 	550 	3996 	30 	18
10-C.Pennington NYJ 	77.2 	8 	60.5 	13 	31.6% 	6 	21.9% 	390 	2576 	16 	10
9-D.Brees 	SD 	75.6 	9 	90.7 	7 	29.5% 	7 	38.0% 	420 	3027 	27 	9
7-RoethlisbergerPIT 	75.3 	10 	62.8 	11 	40.3% 	3 	31.5% 	326 	2413 	16 	12
16-J.Plummer 	DEN 	56.4 	11 	72.5 	9 	11.5% 	12 	18.5% 	537 	3983 	27 	21
8-M.Hasselbeck 	SEA 	52.5 	12 	57.7 	14 	10.3% 	13 	12.6% 	502 	3215 	22 	17
8-B.Griese 	TB 	50.4 	13 	60.6 	12 	19.3% 	11 	25.9% 	361 	2460 	20 	12
17-J.Delhomme 	CAR 	49.4 	14 	71.1 	10 	7.5% 	14 	16.7% 	569 	3626 	29 	20
9-C.Palmer 	CIN 	39.0 	15 	15.7 	23 	7.2% 	15 	-5.0% 	452 	2716 	18 	20
16-V.Testaverde DAL 	36.5 	16 	28.7 	18 	3.2% 	17 	-0.3% 	528 	3339 	17 	24
7-B.Leftwich 	JAC 	30.2 	17 	43.6 	16 	2.3% 	18 	9.2% 	466 	2831 	15 	12
8-D.Carr 	HOU 	27.5 	18 	46.3 	15 	-0.6% 	20 	8.1% 	519 	3259 	16 	16
2-A.Brooks 	NO 	23.2 	19 	33.1 	17 	-3.9% 	24 	0.1% 	590 	3552 	21 	16
7-K.Boller 	BAL 	23.1 	20 	3.1 	27 	-2.0% 	21 	-11.7% 	492 	2328 	13 	16
11-D.Bledsoe 	BUF 	22.5 	21 	13.7 	24 	-2.0% 	22 	-6.4% 	481 	2662 	20 	19
13-K.Warner 	NYG 	16.9 	22 	20.1 	20 	-0.5% 	19 	1.9% 	318 	1861 	6 	8
13-T.Rattay 	SF 	13.1 	23 	5.2 	26 	-4.6% 	25 	-9.8% 	362 	1947 	10 	16
5-J.Garcia 	CLE 	11.2 	24 	-4.3 	32 	-2.8% 	23 	-17.1% 	277 	1627 	10 	13
12-J.McCown 	ARI 	10.5 	25 	9.1 	25 	-7.6% 	26 	-8.4% 	440 	2251 	11 	13
3-J.Kitna 	CIN 	8.7 	26 	0.8 	29 	5.9% 	16 	-11.4% 	111 	580 	5 	5
3-J.Harrington 	DET 	6.5 	27 	17.2 	22 	-10.2% 	28 	-5.4% 	520 	2843 	19 	15
7-B.Volek 	TEN 	5.0 	28 	24.8 	19 	-10.2% 	27 	1.3% 	383 	2264 	18 	13
5-K.Collins 	OAK 	4.8 	29 	19.4 	21 	-11.1% 	29 	-4.7% 	540 	3322 	21 	23
11-P.Ramsey 	WAS 	1.0 	30 	-2.1 	31 	-12.4% 	30 	-15.0% 	295 	1520 	10 	11
14-B.Johnson 	TB 	-2.4 	31 	-1.6 	30 	-18.2% 	31 	-16.5% 	111 	618 	3 	4
9-S.McNair 	TEN 	-6.0 	32 	1.9 	28 	-18.9% 	32 	-11.3% 	229 	1254 	8 	11
8-M.Brunell 	WAS 	-10.2 	33 	-8.1 	33 	-22.8% 	34 	-20.9% 	255 	1086 	7 	9
7-K.Dorsey 	SF 	-10.4 	34 	-16.3 	36 	-23.4% 	35 	-29.3% 	240 	1131 	6 	12
7-A.Feeley 	MIA 	-11.6 	35 	-33.0 	41 	-20.5% 	33 	-34.1% 	381 	1765 	11 	20
10-E.Manning 	NYG 	-13.3 	36 	-22.1 	37 	-28.4% 	37 	-38.5% 	208 	961 	6 	10
7-M.Vick 	ATL 	-18.5 	37 	-14.3 	35 	-24.9% 	36 	-22.2% 	366 	2058 	14 	17
12-J.Quinn 	CHI 	-19.4 	38 	-23.3 	38 	-56.6% 	40 	-65.2% 	113 	318 	1 	3
12-L.McCown 	CLE 	-20.0 	39 	-26.9 	39 	-58.0% 	41 	-73.5% 	112 	474 	4 	7
9-J.Fiedler 	MIA 	-22.9 	40 	-27.2 	40 	-39.0% 	38 	-43.9% 	215 	1021 	7 	11
9-C.Hutchinson 	CHI 	-25.0 	41 	-13.9 	34 	-46.0% 	39 	-31.5% 	187 	741 	4 	6
16-C.Krenzel 	CHI 	-41.7 	42 	-38.1 	42 	-82.6% 	42 	-76.6% 	151 	542 	3 	12

RUSHING: Minimum 10 rushes, 29 players ranked
Player 		Team 	DPAR 	DPAR Rnk PAR 	DVOA 	DVOA Rnk VOA 	Runs 	Yards 	TD 	FUM
7-M.Vick 	ATL 	29.3 	1 	29.0 	25.9% 	3 	25.6% 	106 	919 	3 	2
D.Culpepper     MIN     11.7 	2 	11.3 	7.4% 	9 	6.5% 	70 	418 	2 	2
5-D.McNabb 	PHI 	8.7 	3 	7.6 	40.4% 	1 	33.5% 	30 	231 	3 	2
2-A.Brooks 	NO 	6.8 	4 	7.3 	8.9% 	7 	10.8% 	40 	210 	4 	0
8-D.Carr 	HOU 	5.8 	5 	6.2 	-0.5% 	14 	0.5% 	55 	315 	0 	0
10-C.Pennington NYJ 	5.2 	6 	4.3 	15.3% 	6 	9.4% 	24 	135 	1 	1
5-J.Garcia 	CLE 	4.8 	7 	4.3 	7.6% 	8 	5.4% 	29 	175 	2 	1
9-D.Brees 	SD 	4.6 	8 	4.7 	3.8% 	12 	4.6% 	29 	104 	2 	0
10-T.Green 	KC 	4.3 	9 	4.2 	37.2% 	2 	35.7% 	14 	94 	0 	0
9-S.McNair 	TEN 	3.9 	10 	4.0 	18.5% 	5 	20.1% 	19 	131 	1 	1
B.RoethlisbergerPIT 	3.5 	11 	3.2 	2.0% 	13 	0.4% 	28 	173 	1 	0
9-D.Garrard 	JAC 	2.8 	12 	3.3 	20.0% 	4 	26.7% 	11 	77 	1 	0
10-M.Bulger 	STL 	2.6 	13 	3.1 	7.2% 	10 	11.8% 	16 	92 	3 	0
17-J.Delhomme 	CAR 	2.5 	14 	2.3 	7.1% 	11 	5.1% 	16 	78 	1 	0
7-K.Boller 	BAL 	1.5 	15 	0.5 	-11.8% 	17 	-16.8% 	37 	206 	1 	2
12-T.Brady 	NE 	1.2 	16 	1.1 	-7.5% 	15 	-8.3% 	16 	52 	0 	1
8-M.Hasselbeck 	SEA 	0.8 	17 	1.0 	-7.8% 	16 	-6.0% 	15 	105 	1 	1
16-V.Testaverde DAL 	0.6 	18 	0.2 	-12.3% 	18 	-18.0% 	12 	48 	1 	0
12-J.McCown 	ARI 	0.3 	19 	1.0 	-15.6% 	19 	-11.5% 	26 	124 	2 	1
7-B.Leftwich 	JAC 	0.1 	20 	0.5 	-17.8% 	20 	-15.3% 	30 	156 	2 	0
3-J.Harrington 	DET 	-0.1 	21 	1.1 	-18.6% 	21 	-12.4% 	35 	185 	0 	0
16-C.Krenzel 	CHI 	-0.4 	22 	-0.9 	-24.9% 	22 	-32.3% 	11 	45 	0 	0
11-D.Bledsoe 	BUF 	-1.4 	23 	-1.4 	-41.5% 	25 	-42.0% 	11 	53 	0 	1
8-M.Brunell 	WAS 	-1.6 	24 	-1.4 	-38.6% 	24 	-36.8% 	13 	64 	0 	0
16-J.Plummer 	DEN 	-2.6 	25 	-1.7 	-27.5% 	23 	-24.1% 	44 	223 	1 	2
8-B.Griese 	TB 	-6.6 	26 	-6.4 	-93.9% 	26 	-92.7% 	14 	26 	0 	1

8/29/2005 1:41:53 AM

I'll be the first to say three things.


1) That study is very interesting and seems likely to hold some merit. They have gone to great lengths to produce meaningful results.

2) Nowhere does it combine Vicks rushing and passing stats. You can't just say he's #36 in passing and #1 in rushing so it averages out to ~#18 overall.

3) Good job copying & pasting what you found. Next time just read it first before you claim that it proves your point. It didn't take me long to find this:

Quote :

"DVOA is still far away from the point where we can use it to represent the value of a player separate from the performance of his ten teammates that are also involved in each play. That means that when we say, "Priest Holmes has a DVOA of 17.6%," what we are really saying is "Priest Holmes, playing in the Kansas City offensive system with the Kansas City offensive line blocking for him and Trent Green selling the fake when necessary, has a DVOA of 17.6%.""

So basically those rankings say. "Michael Vick while playing in the Atlanta offensive system with the Atlanta offensive line blocking for him, Atlanta WR's catching passes for him, and Warrick Dunn selling the run when necessary, has a DVOA of -14.3%"


At no point does this model suggest that Peyton Manning, Daunte Culpepper, Jay Davis, or myself would have a higher DVOA% than Michael Vick.


Does it suggest that the Indianopolis Colts had a more effective passing game than the Atlanta Falcons last year? Absolutely it suggest that. Unfortunately, that brings all 11 offensive players into consideration.

ANd Im sure you aren't ready to go to war with the notion that Atlanta's receivers parallel those in Indy.

Once again, you're just going to have to watch the games because there's not a formula available to bail you out on this one.


I'll give you some credit, it looks like you dug hard for this one and did a little research... but when it comes down to it you missed the boat.

Not only does that study not prove who is the best QB, it doesn't even attempt to... and the people behind the formula admit as much...

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:16 AM. Reason : a]

8/29/2005 2:04:26 AM

hahaha I wonder if he read his own article

8/29/2005 2:21:45 AM

^i read it

^^you're correct in that it does not combine rushing and passing statistics. the DVOA is basically your average value per play, and you saw his rankings for rushing and passing. i posted these stats to illustrate his poor ranking as a passer.

i don't really know what the best way to combine the rushing and passing to get an overall ranking would be, i guess you could try adding up the rankings for the players and score them like 1st=#of players on list, and last would = 1. all players not on that list receive a 0. that would take a little bit of work and i'm tired right now, so i can try that tomorrow or something.

i'm out for the night

and it should be noted that Turnip introduced me to that site. i read it and found the information interesting enough to include in this thread.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:34 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 2:29:10 AM

^ that's not the only thing I was right about.

I was also right about the fact that that entire 3 post series doesn't prove what you were looking to prove.


Now quit posting you are interrupting my fight song.

8/29/2005 2:31:05 AM

the whole point of this thread was that vick sucks at passing (you know, that thing quarterbacks are supposed to do). based on average value per play, vick ranked 36th at passing. and despite the fact that the stats don't factor in who the receivers are, these are the most relevant rankings you can get because it is extremely unlikely that these players with huge contracts are going to do any team-shifting. vick will remain in atlanta and manning will remain in indianapolis for the forseeable future.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 2:43 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 2:39:09 AM

Quote :

" Now quit posting you are interrupting my fight song."

Hahaha.

8/29/2005 2:43:05 AM

Based on average value per post, ncWOLFsu ranks pretty damn low in this thread.

Here, I even found a chart comparing his AVPP with that of
rallydurham:

Average Value Per Post
rallydurham - really high
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ncWOLFsu - really low

No one can dispute stuff that I type and crunch onto a chart!

8/29/2005 2:47:44 AM

Quote :

" the whole point of this thread was that vick sucks at passing "

If that's the whole point of this thread, I'm confused as to why you had a problem with the following.

Quote :

" Based SOLELY on passing he is not one of the top 15 Quarterbacks in the game, no doubt. But when you factor in his rushing ability, his big play ability, his ability to come up with drive-saving plays, he is one of the top 5 QB's in the game"

If you are ready to agree that Vick is a top 5 QB at this point, then I'm willing to accept your concession speech.

If you wanna keep mulling over the numbers for another 6 weeks and grow a ridiculous looking beard like you're Al Gore or something thats fine too.

Quote :

"and it should be noted that Turnip introduced me to that site."

Lol, nice touch monkey boy, blame it on someone else. When you thought it contained the goods an hour ago you woulda slit your own mothers throat just to post it. So go ahead and wash your hands of that 5,000 word three part post, it's a shame it's too late to edit it altogether.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 3:40 AM. Reason : a]

8/29/2005 3:37:05 AM

im not washing my hands of anything. i read the whole thing before i posted it and still found ir worthy of posting. i mentioned that he showed me the site because you "gave me credit" for digging it up. the whole point of making the thread was that vick is a horrible passer, then you came in and started calling him a top 5 quarterback, and that's why i continued to argue. vick is not a top 5 quarterback right now.

there's 35 other quarterbacks in the NFL that have a higher average value per pass play, which i find hilarious considering that there's only 32 starting quarterbacks in the NFL. the fact that vick can run does not make up for how bad at passing he is right now. if he improves his passing enough, i will admit at that point that he could be a top 5 qb. he is nowhere near that level yet though.

8/29/2005 8:54:21 AM

To sum up the intelligent and semi-intelligent posts:

Despite amazing arm strength, Vick is a below average passer.
Vick is very talented and is a threat to run and make a big play

Main dispute has turned into: Is Vick a top 5 QB

FOR Vick being top 5 says: his ability to run and create mismatches makes him top 5

AGAINST Vick being top 5 says: He needs to improve his passing mechanics (reading coverage, looking at receivers, not forcing the ball), and use his legs to help buy time to create openings downfield more often.

Regardless of your opinion on that matter, Vick needs to protect himself. In more ways than one. But most importantly, he needs to avoid getting hit hard while fighting for a yard or two. He also needs better receivers and a better O-line. You can't be a top 5 QB from the sidelines. He showed signs of wanting to get out of bounds late last season, hopefully he wasn't just resting before the playoffs.

Interesting fact: Atlanta outscored opponents by 3 points last year, making their pythagorean record 8.1-7.9. With 11 wins, only Tampa had as big a variance from their pythagorean record. (Tampa was outscored by 3 points (7.9-8.1), and finished 5-11.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ok]

8/29/2005 10:39:10 AM

Does anyone disagree that Manning, Brady, McNabb and Culpepper are better QB's than Vick?

If we all agree on that, then Vick is AT BEST the 5th best QB in the league...so for starters, calling him a Top 5 QB is misleading cause he obviously isnt a Top 4 QB

In addition to that, there are PLENTY of people that could argue that Drew Brees, Trent Green, Jake Delhomme, Chad Pennington, etc are better QUARTERBACKS than Vick...not necessarily better PLAYERS, but better QUARTERBACKS

now if only ONE of those QBs are a better QB than Vick, then that knocks Vick out of the Top 5

now obviously some people in here are gonna argue that theres no way Green is better, even though he LED his team to a 13-3 season 2 years ago...or theres no way Delhomme is better even though he LED his team to the Superbowl 2 years ago...or Pennington who last year LED his team to nearly play the Pats in the AFC Title game...sure none of them present the matchup problems that Vick does, but one part of being a QB is being a team leader...and Vick hasn't led his team far enough for me to think he's a top 5 QB...hell when did he pass Favre and McNair?

8/29/2005 12:50:03 PM

Yes, I agree! Jeuss, this whole argument is that Vick is a top 5 QB, so I guess based on that I would put him at #5. Nobody in this argument who is in favor if Vick is saying he is the best QB in the league.




[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 12:54:01 PM

They are all QBs, so wouldnt you want the one who is the better player?? I would. Like we have posted before, stats can be very misleading. Vick makes the right plays at the right time to get the job done and win the games. And he passed Favre when as a rookie he went into Lambo and kicked tha Packers ass. No coach in the league is gonna take Favre, McNair, Green, or Breese over Vick. And dont even put Breese in there please. He has had ONE good year. So I guess that must make him better than Vick, who has had a good year every year he has played. And yes, even the year he almost entirely missed, the games he did play he was good in. And I guess Trent Green having a good year 2 years ago must make him better than Vick too huh?

8/29/2005 1:02:17 PM

Manning has: Re-written the NFL passing books
Brady has: Led his team to 3 Superbowl wins in the last 4 years
McNabb has: Led his team to 4 straight NFC Title games, and last year's Superbowl appearance
Culpepper has: Consistently been a top QB in the league, built like a linebacker, can scramble as good or better than anyone but Vick, and can clearly pass well

if you think Vick is that good, just say he's the 5th best...dont come with some Top 5 shit cause thats misleading as fuck...he's not a Top 4 QB...most people would have him top 10...Vick is OVERRATED

Quote :

"And dont even put Breese in there please. He has had ONE good year."

And don't even put Vick in there please. He has had TWO good years.

Quote :

"Vick makes the right plays at the right time to get the job done and win the games"

Win WHAT games? A playoff game 3 years ago? What the fuck else has he won????

8/29/2005 1:02:42 PM

I personally think Vick and Culpepper can be interchangable at times. Lets just see how he does this year without Moss and then we can talk.

8/29/2005 1:04:33 PM

^at times...like when they're running...but not at times...like when Dante is clearly the better passer...gimme a break man...you probably think that Powerade commercial was real

8/29/2005 1:06:01 PM

Quote :

"In addition to that, there are PLENTY of people that could argue that Drew Brees, Trent Green, Jake Delhomme, Chad Pennington, etc are better QUARTERBACKS than Vick...not necessarily better PLAYERS, but better QUARTERBACKS"

i disagree with that wording. i don't like taking the words "player" and "quarterback" and making them seem like different things. vick IS a quarterback. quarterbacks ARE players. if one quarterback is better than another quarterback, he's a better player. and there is no way vick ranks higher than favre, not even this year, at the beginning of vick's career and the end of favre's. mcnair has durability issues. if he doesn't miss significant time this year like he did last year, i'd say he was better than vick, but vick is better than a sidelined mcnair any day, assuming he doesn't have a broken leg.

what vick needs to do to become a better quarterback is use his legs to buy him time in the pocket. he needs to convert his scrambles for short yardage into completed passes downfield. when he can do that consistently he will be much better. for an example of what i'm talking about, see the eagles play on monday night last year where mcnabb scrambled around for like 10 minutes and then hit pinkston for 80 yards or something. now i'm in no way saying that has to happen consistently on that level, because that would be idiotic. that's just a great example of using your legs to buy you time in the pocket so you can pass the ball.

^^were you not paying attention last year when moss went down with hamstring problems? nate burleson is a good receiver, and marcus robinson showed some flashes of greatness. throw troy williamson into the mix and you have a solid receiving corps, made better by culpepper's ability to get them the ball. this is not at all interchangable with vick.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2005 1:06:21 PM

Quote :

"Win WHAT games? A playoff game 3 years ago? What the fuck else has he won????"

Ummm, they made it to the NFC Championship game last year. But I guess that doesnt really mean anything.

8/29/2005 1:10:39 PM

It's like trying to say LeBron is better than Jordan...just cause he has the ability to one day be better, doesnt mean he's already better

^what about Delhomme then...he actually BEAT THE EAGLES in the NFC Championship game

8/29/2005 1:11:16 PM

Quote :

"NFC"

Quote :

"But I guess that doesnt really mean anything."

correct

8/29/2005 1:12:00 PM

So even though Vick is a running QB, and that clearly is his type of play and he uses that to win and sometimes dominate games, he is only gonna be good in your mind if he becomes a better passer? Obviously he would be a better player than he is now, but he is a GREAT player as it is being an OK passer and a badass runner. Thats just his style, to run. Nobody is claiming him to be a good passer. So what if he isnt that good at passing, he wins games with his legs.

^So McNabb winning the NFC Championship game must be meaningless to. Ok, I get it now. You are a complete idiot. Im not even gonna argue with you people anymore, I'll just let Vicks play on the field this year back me up. And I am not saying he is gonna rack up monster stats, but I guarantee he is gonna make the plays happen to win games.

[Edited on August 29, 2005 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2005 1:13:09 PM

vick didnt make it to the nfc championship 4 years in a row

8/29/2005 1:18:58 PM

Quote :

"And I am not saying he is gonna rack up monster stats, but I guarantee he is gonna make the plays happen to win games."

can you be any more vague? Its a QBs job to make plays happen to win games...hell even the 9ers did it some last year...you gonna guarantee the Falcons get back to the NFC Title game? You gonna guarantee the Falcons win the NFC South? I will guarantee you something...I guarantee you Vick is still gonna be in the bottom half of passing stats

Hell I'd rather have Chris Weinke than Vick

ok im obviously kidding about the Weinke part

Quote :

"So what if he isnt that good at passing, he wins games with his legs."

so what is how is he gonna complete a 4th and 26 like McNabb did for example if he really needs to, with his legs? You know, call me crazy, but a quarterback needs to be able to pass pretty well if they want to win the big games...I might be way off with that "QBs should be able to pass" concept...I dunno, maybe I'm old school

8/29/2005 1:24:24 PM

Quote :

"vick didnt make it to the nfc championship 4 years in a row"

Neither has any other QB in the past I dont know how long.

And I will guarantee Vick is in the bottom half of passing stats too. HE IS NOT A PASSING QB AND WE HAVE NEVER CLAIMED HE IS.

Quote :

"so what is how is he gonna complete a 4th and 26 like McNabb did for example if he really needs to, with his legs? You know, call me crazy, but a quarterback needs to be able to pass pretty well if they want to win the big games...I might be way off with that "QBs should be able to pass" concept...I dunno, maybe I'm old school "

Yeah, I guess he would have too, since every single pass he throws is incomplete. Its not like Vick is a TERRIBLE passer, he is an ok one. He can make some clutch passing plays when he needs to.

8/29/2005 1:28:34 PM

^not every single pass, every other pass (statistically).

but yeah, on 3rd and long vick can't run for the first every time. you have to be able pass the ball to be a "great" quarterback. his running ability is the only thing that keeps him in the top half of NFL quarterbacks.

8/29/2005 1:41:45 PM

Quote :

" "And dont even put Breese in there please. He has had ONE good year." ______ And don't even put Vick in there please. He has had TWO good years."

Vick has been the starter in ATL for two full seasons

Brees has been the starter in SD for three full seasons


2/2 > 1/3

8/29/2005 1:45:20 PM

Quote :

"but yeah, on 3rd and long vick can't run for the first every time. you have to be able pass the ball to be a "great" quarterback. his running ability is the only thing that keeps him in the top half of NFL quarterbacks."

No shit dumbass, the guy can pass though, so thats just a stupid statement.

8/29/2005 1:53:13 PM

no he can't pass, not consistently, that's the point of this thread.

8/29/2005 1:54:53 PM

^^^How can you take the injuries out of the equation for Vick? That's a big and non-trivial "what-if". They have a bit to do with the success of his team. Might as well say: "When TA was healthy and hung onto the ball, he was the greatest running back ever at NC State."


On another note, remember in the Falcons-Chargers draft trade the Chargers were able to get Tomlinson and Brees. Is Vick better than Tomlinson + Brees?

8/29/2005 2:03:43 PM

most definitely not, and with $100 million dollars he makes more than both of them combined

8/29/2005 2:05:40 PM

Is Vick better than TOMLINSON

8/29/2005 2:06:48 PM

[no]

8/29/2005 2:09:13 PM

Quote :

"i disagree with that wording. i don't like taking the words "player" and "quarterback" and making them seem like different things. vick IS a quarterback. quarterbacks ARE players. if one quarterback is better than another quarterback, he's a better player. "

All I'm saying is that maybe Ray Lewis is the best defensive player out there or at least the best linebacker...but is he the best pass coverage linebacker at running deep down field with a tight end? thats an example of my differences in best PLAYER and best player at doing a certain thing

8/29/2005 2:12:59 PM

Quote :

"so what is how is he gonna complete a 4th and 26 like McNabb did for example if he really needs to, with his legs?"

ACUTALLY WHILE IN COLLEGE AGAINST WVU I THINK IT WAS 4TH AND ABOUT 35 IN THE 4TH QUARTER WITH ABOUT 25 SECONDS LEFT AND HE RAN IT 53 YARDS ON A PLAY THAT LOOKED LIKE A SACK....NEXT PLAY FIELD GOAL.....VT WINS 20-19.....PISSED ME OFF......BELIVE ME I HATE VT MORE THAN ANYTHING BUT FUCK THE STATS VICK AND FLAT OUT PLAY!

8/29/2005 2:16:50 PM