Vick

[FRANKIE_IS_MY_FRIEND]

hurt his shoulder i think

[Lowend]

Snap!

[eddierulesVH]

yeah it was on espn this morning

[Your Mom, B*tch]

Most underserving quarterback to ever make it to the pro bowl? Yep.

[croniun]

Most underserving quarterback to ever make it to the pro bowl? Yep.

You can't be serious.

[eddierulesVH]

Most underserving quarterback to ever make it to the pro bowl? Yep.
1234

[croniun]

Just looking at his stats on nfl.com isn't going to make him seem that great of a QB as everyone makes him out to be. But after watching just about every Falcons game this year and watching Vick, I have to say that he is most deserving of the pro bowl selection.

[looozer]

Vick = McNabb. Both are poor passers, but can move freely outside the pocket if necessary. Vick can make stuff from broken plays, but he often tries to force throws. He's like the Kobe of football. The Falcons are worthless without him, but the same athletic abilities that allow him to make spectacular plays are the same ones that he considers when forcing himself to do things he is incapable of.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Just looking at his stats on nfl.com isn't going to make him seem that great of a QB as everyone makes him out to be. But after watching just about every Falcons game this year and watching Vick, I have to say that he is most deserving of the pro bowl selection.

You've seen him play a lot more than I have, so I'm sure you know his abilities better than I do. But a QB who is completeing 55% of his passes for about 160 yards passing per game, with 13 TD's and 12 picks doesnt really seem like a great choice for the pro bowl to me.

Talk about his running if you want. He still only has 3 rushing TD's....and besides that hes a QUARTERBACK. If I wanted someone running for 1,000 yards in a season, I would give the ball to my running back.

Brett Favre should have been the third QB chosen for the NFC, not Vick. I would even say that Jake Delhomme possibly should have gotten that third NFC spot instead of Vick.

[Your Mom, B*tch]

You can't be serious.

Let me be very serious. Are you telling me a QB with a rating of 75.5 is going to go to the pro bowl? Let me put this into perspective for you...Tim Rattay, quarterback for the worst team in the NFL, the 49'ers has a QB rating of 80, 5 points higher than Vick. Out of 16 teams in the NFC, the Falcons are ranked #15 in passing, and overall offense they are only middle of the pack at #8. I don't care what kind of pretty moves he is making, because he is not only not the #3 QB in the NFC, I wouldn't even say he's in the top 10.

If people's reasoning for him going to the probowl is his running ability then he should have been nominated as a RB, because he is not a good passer. Even at RB his stats aren't anything great though.

Michael Vick: Most undeserving quarterback to ever make the pro bowl.

[Vaya]

vick is just a scramble QB, his new contract is only gonna hurt the falcons, once vicks legs are no good he will suck, he is not a pocket passer, he isnt much of a passer at all. The only reason he made it to the pro bowl was because his popularity there are a number of quarterbacks in the nfc doing better then him. He is also not electrifying, he runs wow! he gets hit and does a flip on accident and its on sportscenter every day now. you want to talk about an electrifying quarterback look at quarterbacks that can throw, i bet you cant throw 50 yards down field for a perfect catch, but you sure can run from a bunch of linemen. Vick is very over rated, his stats arent good, heck i bet the backup of the falcons matt schaub could bring this team to a good record, they have a good defensive, running backs, recievers and they play in the NFC.

[looozer]

In Vick's defense, look at how the Falcons have fared when he is healthy vs when he is injured...

[MattSharpIsCool]

In Vick's defense, look at how the Falcons have fared when he is healthy vs when he is injured...

Ya I know. Mike Vick pretty much IS the Atlanta Falcons.

But how well do you think the Packers would do with Doug Pedersen starting? A few years ago when Favre was having some not so good years, the Packers we're always hovering around 8-8.

And Jake Delhomme has been on fire throughout this whole streak the Panthers have gone on. If he wasnt playing as well as he is, I dont think they would be in the playoff hunt right now.

I'm not saying Mike Vick is bad, because hes not. But pro bowl? This year? No.

[3074326]

Vick = McNabb. Both are poor passers, but can move freely outside the pocket if necessary. Vick can make stuff from broken plays, but he often tries to force throws. He's like the Kobe of football. The Falcons are worthless without him, but the same athletic abilities that allow him to make spectacular plays are the same ones that he considers when forcing himself to do things he is incapable of.

Vick = McNabb? McNabb a poor passer?

McNabb is one of the best passing QB's in the NFL this year.

McNabb - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4650
Vick - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5448

Not even remotely similar. Vick's stats are horrendous, aside from the rushing aspect. He should be a running back. Put Matt Schaub in there, he's a better-suited QB for Atlanta's "west-coast offense," and put Vick in as a back.

I think the Falcons would improve greatly. They have receiving talent, but it's hard to see.

[NS_Joker]

agreed. definately not a probowl season. yes, he's invaluable to the falcons, but that doesn't make him a probowl QB.

[Vaya]

vick is just a pro bowler because his popularity, he kinda reinvented the term scramble qb, and now he is the latest and greatest thing and always makes espn which is ++ votes for fans voting on the pro bowl

[looozer]

Vick = McNabb? McNabb a poor passer?

McNabb is one of the best passing QB's in the NFL this year.

McNabb - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4650
Vick - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5448
Statistically, McNabb is way better. However, he has a tendency to throw in a downward motion, and to throw too low. His passes aren't too pretty from what I've seen. Don't get me wrong. I've loved McN since I saw him at Syracuse when I was 10 or 11. I just don't think his passing is all that great. For example, Daunte Culpepper has phenomenal stats, but I didn't see him make a good throw in the second half vs the Packers. You can throw a pass that's a net of 5 yards and still get credit for 25 or more if your receivers are good at running.

[3074326]

I know what you're saying, but McNabb is a great passer in most cases.

He looked terrible against Dallas though..

[rhcp_r_gods]

Most underserving quarterback to ever make it to the pro bowl? Yep.


Vick is the flacons

[DeLonge_1_8_2]

Vicks had a great year, can he keep it up thought without a first rate passing game?

[3074326]

He's running well, but he's not having a great year in any other aspect of the game...

[DeLonge_1_8_2]

Hes passed good enough in the games ive seen!!!!!
you only have to beat the defence thay through out infron of you!

[3074326]

13 TD's
12 INT's
76.5 passer rating
2278 yards
55.7 completion %

Those are average, at best.

[Yamaha2k3]

That sucks for the Falcons. They just suck without Vick.

[Your Mom, B*tch]

Vick is the flacons

And Brett Favre is the Packers, Donovan McNabb is the Eagles, Peyton Manning is the Colts. You can say that for every single team in the NFL. Your quarterback usually is a direct corrolation to how well your team is doing, unless your defense just rocks. Obviously the position that handles the ball most is going to be a major backbone of the team. The reality is, however, that the Falcons defense has actually carried the team this far. Like I've said, their offense is in the middle of the NFC, and as for the overall NFL, they're not even in the top 50%. If their defense was as good as their offense they wouldn't even be a .500 team.

[looozer]

Just bumping this to point out that however bad Vick's stats may or may not be, he could have given the Aints a better game than Matt Schaub did... or so I think. Discuss.

[3074326]

Truth.

I like Matt Schaub and I'll agree with that one.

[ElephantThugtastic]

Take Baltimore, for example. Kyle Boller sucks, but the defense is awesome. Baltimore D rocks fantasy leagues. But anyways, I think Vick is overrated.

[3074326]

Boller isn't as bad as everyone is making him sound.

He's an average QB.

[MattSharpIsCool]

Peyton Manning would be a pretty average QB too if Kevin Johnson was his number 1 receiver.

[3074326]

Manning has a bit more ability than Boller, got to give him credit.. Haha

[eddierulesVH]

they gonna get killed by the patriots i say he gets hurt

[3074326]

The Patriots have to beat the Steelers first, and the Falcons have to beat the Eagles first.

[FatStrat2]

Man I get this kind of stuff from the stat-obsessed Europeans where I live. Shouldn't any NFL fan know that stats & records don't make a great tea/ quarterback? The only thing that is truly important, or at least should be, is winning games. Say, hypothetically, that peyton throws for 300 yards/game and 55 TD's next year, then loses to the Falcons in the Super Bowl against the falcons where Vick has thrown 90 yards/game and 10 TD's. Who is the better quarterback? The one who can throw the ball downfield everyplay to his set of recievers that is the best in the NFL, or the one that can win a Super Bowl? For example, to whoever said that Vick had only 3 rushing TD's: that is a distorted stat. How many times this season did Vick run to the 5 or so yard line and then give it to Dunn to score? Nobody knows, but that's the important thing, your team scoring, not you scoring. I can throw out as many of those stats as I want, that don't tell the whole story, just like all stats. For example, if anyone watched NFL Sunday Countdown on Wildcard Weekend would know this one. Jerome Bettis was on the show, and they asked him his stats after his first game of the season. His stats were: 5 carries, 2 TD's, 1 yard. That is a worthless stat, but people still feel the need to judge people by what they have done on paper. That is why you have to actually watch the games not just check the score the next morning. I'm pretty sure nobody would bother to read this whole thing, but my rant is over.

[Reaganista]

Vick = McNabb. Both are poor passers, but can move freely outside the pocket if necessary. Vick can make stuff from broken plays, but he often tries to force throws. He's like the Kobe of football. The Falcons are worthless without him, but the same athletic abilities that allow him to make spectacular plays are the same ones that he considers when forcing himself to do things he is incapable of.

McNabb = 63.9 4161 33 8 105.2

Vick = 57.3 2395 16 12 80.4

As a passer, Vick isn't anywhere close to McNabb.

Also, McNabb was 3rd in the league among starting QB's in passer rating. So, if by poor passer you mean "He didn't do as good as Manning and Culpepper", you're right.

But if you meant what you actually said then you're an idiot.

[Reaganista]

Donovan McNabb is the Eagles

Brian Westbrook is the Eagles.

[3074326]

Man I get this kind of stuff from the stat-obsessed Europeans where I live. Shouldn't any NFL fan know that stats & records don't make a great tea/ quarterback? The only thing that is truly important, or at least should be, is winning games. Say, hypothetically, that peyton throws for 300 yards/game and 55 TD's next year, then loses to the Falcons in the Super Bowl against the falcons where Vick has thrown 90 yards/game and 10 TD's. Who is the better quarterback? The one who can throw the ball downfield everyplay to his set of recievers that is the best in the NFL, or the one that can win a Super Bowl? For example, to whoever said that Vick had only 3 rushing TD's: that is a distorted stat. How many times this season did Vick run to the 5 or so yard line and then give it to Dunn to score? Nobody knows, but that's the important thing, your team scoring, not you scoring. I can throw out as many of those stats as I want, that don't tell the whole story, just like all stats. For example, if anyone watched NFL Sunday Countdown on Wildcard Weekend would know this one. Jerome Bettis was on the show, and they asked him his stats after his first game of the season. His stats were: 5 carries, 2 TD's, 1 yard. That is a worthless stat, but people still feel the need to judge people by what they have done on paper. That is why you have to actually watch the games not just check the score the next morning. I'm pretty sure nobody would bother to read this whole thing, but my rant is over.

In Manning's case, he's done about everything he can to win. The Colts' defense is what prevents them from winning.

You can't blame him for not scoring against the Patriots either. They're basically unstoppable in the playoffs.

I'd take Manning over any QB in the game today, even if he hasn't won a Super Bowl. It's not the QB that makes the game, it's the team. The team who wins the Super Bowl will be a good team, not a few good players.

Manning has shown that he can play well in the playoffs, so it's not a matter if him choking, it's a matter of his team playing well.

[Illmatic]

Man I get this kind of stuff from the stat-obsessed Europeans where I live. Shouldn't any NFL fan know that stats & records don't make a great tea/ quarterback? The only thing that is truly important, or at least should be, is winning games. Say, hypothetically, that peyton throws for 300 yards/game and 55 TD's next year, then loses to the Falcons in the Super Bowl against the falcons where Vick has thrown 90 yards/game and 10 TD's. Who is the better quarterback? The one who can throw the ball downfield everyplay to his set of recievers that is the best in the NFL, or the one that can win a Super Bowl? For example, to whoever said that Vick had only 3 rushing TD's: that is a distorted stat. How many times this season did Vick run to the 5 or so yard line and then give it to Dunn to score? Nobody knows, but that's the important thing, your team scoring, not you scoring. I can throw out as many of those stats as I want, that don't tell the whole story, just like all stats. For example, if anyone watched NFL Sunday Countdown on Wildcard Weekend would know this one. Jerome Bettis was on the show, and they asked him his stats after his first game of the season. His stats were: 5 carries, 2 TD's, 1 yard. That is a worthless stat, but people still feel the need to judge people by what they have done on paper. That is why you have to actually watch the games not just check the score the next morning. I'm pretty sure nobody would bother to read this whole thing, but my rant is over.

You do have some point (that stats don't tell the whole story), but to say Mike Vick is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning is, at best, ridiculous.

[Dr Funkenstein]

"There are three types of lies; lies, d.amn lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli.

I would definitely agree that Vick needs to improve a lot as a passer. He needs to get sacked less as well. But I think it's foolish to completely disregard the running game. Quarterback scrambles are part of the game. He has a talent at it that no other QB has. 3rd and 8 on a broken play can be salvaged by precious few in the league and Mike Vick is one of them.

I don't think he deserves a trip to the Pro Bowl this year, but he's not as bad as people make out. His legs are just another weapon in his arsenal, one that no other QB can currently match on the ground. You could argue that fullbacks are meant to be blockers, so if a fullback receives for 500 yards on a season, would that be taken into consideration for the pro-bowl, even if he was an average blocker? Of course it would. Same goes for Mike Vick and running.

[3074326]

Nobody is disregarding the running game, but wouldn't you much rather have a passing QB than a running QB?

Especially with Atlanta's running game aside from Michael Vick.

[Illmatic]

Passing is more important than running for a quarterback.

[Reaganista]

I would rather have Randall Cunningham. He was the ultimate weapon. Vick is just a decent weapon.

[looozer]

McNabb = 63.9 4161 33 8 105.2

Vick = 57.3 2395 16 12 80.4

As a passer, Vick isn't anywhere close to McNabb.

Also, McNabb was 3rd in the league among starting QB's in passer rating. So, if by poor passer you mean "He didn't do as good as Manning and Culpepper", you're right.

But if you meant what you actually said then you're an idiot.
I think McNabb is a better passer in Culpepper. I'm talking about how McNabb throws balls at receivers' feet and such, and how Vick often guns uncatchable bullets. It's not just that you throw it, but where you throw it. I've seen McNabb miss easy completions under slight pressure (which he could evade) because he's thrown at the receiver's shins.

[Reaganista]

McNabb's completion percentage is 63.9. You're right that that's the worst part of his game, but there's no way that he's a poor passer.