"If I'm an owner, I'm in the business of selling tickets and winning games. I don't really care how many 300 yard passing games my quarterback has.
Furthermore, if you draft another top QB.. they need players around them to make the whole system work. Peyton wouldn't be Peyton without Edge, Marvin, and a good o-line. And Daunte and Donovan wouldn't be as great without the two best receivers in the league."
Well, I agree toa point. Culpepper and donovan to a greater extent , mcnabb have won games without the big receiver. don't try and say donovan is a product of owens. today excluded, he has won a hell of a lot of games for the eagles sans owens.
I hate to say it, I think the number one pick woudl be vick -- and I hasten to add that it isn't a football decision, its a marketing one.
Nilmerf wrote:Here's a stat for you: Falcons 12-4 with Vick, 4-12 without Vick.
Show me some proof Vick actually was the factor that made that difference, otherwise it's useless.
If I'm an owner, I'm in the business of selling tickets and winning games. I don't really care how many 300 yard passing games my quarterback has.
Fair enough. From a marketing perspective, sure, Vick is a player you won't. However, if you're trying to build a good solid winning football team, you'd be better off with Big Ben than with a 4th year vet who can't put up the numbers that rookie did and still doesn't think enough to protect the ball.
And Daunte and Donovan wouldn't be as great without the two best receivers in the league. Vick does it with a couple decent running backs, one good tight end, no receivers, and a below average o-line.
Look at your statistics. Donovan McNabb got the job done, produced better statistics than Vick has ever all with Thrash and Pinkston. You can make the claim that Daunte may not be so great without Randy, but McNabb spent his time proving he can win with the worst WR corps in the NFL for about 3 years.
yea, vick does have a big effect. but usually a revamped defense and a new coach can do that too. Those are not insignifcant factors. and given that the o only scored 3 points more than the d let up, I am inlcined that the defense is the thing that really won it for them.
Canadian_Cheesehead wrote:You can't just mark that down to coincidence, obviously Vick has a lot more of an effect on his team than anyone else realises.
I don't chalk it up to coincidence as Vick is clearly better than Doug Johnson, but without any proof you can't give Vick credit for the difference (certainly not the entire difference) when:
a) The defense played substantially better.
b) The team had a new head coach
c) They acquired Denver's O-line coach.
d) Vick's numbers come out to about the same as Quincy Carter's last year. Last time I checked, no one is building a team around him.
Giving Michael Vick no credit for any of those wins would be wrong, but giving him full credit is just as ludicrous.