How did I know that as soon as the Falcons lost a hard fought game to the Pats every Vick supporter would cling onto the flawed and at this point cliche "Vick wins games," argument.
Did you watch this game at all, check out the stats maybe? Your offense did not fail you, your defense did, and last time I checked, Vick doesn't play defense. To suggest that Vick would've won the game for the Falcons is absurd, lets see why:
Vick's average stats this year: 83 QB Rating, 57% completions for 124 yards passing, and 58 yards running with with 1.25 TDs and 1 turnover.
Those are his numbers on average per game. Per game he generates 182 yards on roughly 27 plays, getting roughly 6.7 yards per play in which he passes or runs the ball.
Now let's compare that do what Schaub did:
Schaub had a 112 QB rating, 53% completions for 298 yards passing 3 yards rushing with 3 TDs and 0 turnovers.
So aside from completion percentage, which he was close to Vick's average in his QB rating was 40 points higher, he got roughly 2 more TDs than vick would, 100 more yards of offense, and didn't turn the ball over (Vick's biggest problem).
Furthermore, on 37 plays, he produced 301 yards, averaging out to 8.1 yards per play.
So, without a doubt Schaub played better at QB last week than your average Vick outing will get the Falcons at QB, making it ridiculous to claim that Vick would've won the game for the Falcons.
In the 4 previous games the Falcons played, they did not score more than 30 points, and with their defense letting up 31 points (from a defense that let up an average 14.25 points in its first 4 games) there is no reason to assume Vick would've put up the points to contend with such a defensive fall out.
The main point: Schaub did not lose that game, Vick would not have won it. Vick does not lead this team anywhere, the defense does, and he's just along for the ride.
Bowie wrote:When are people going to realize: Just because Vick is no good on your fantasy team does not mean he isn't very good on Atlanta's team?
When are Vick supporters going to realize, no one in this thread made that argument? No one arguing that Vick is bad is claiming he's bad because he's no good in fantasy football. If you contend, by all means, pull up a quote from this thread where that has been said.
Vick isn't a good NFL QB. That's been the argument for quite some time, and stats whether you're aware or not, mean something in the NFL, not just fantasy football.
The NFL would never allow it. ESPN would shorten SportsCenter to 15 minutes. And EA Sports would finally have to reconsider their most egregious player value mis-ranking ever. But it needs to be said: Matt Schaub gives Atlanta a better chance of winning than Michael Vick. Period. Sure, Vick is a walking highlight film, but Schaub can actually pass. In just his second career start, he threw three touchdown passes last Sunday—something Vick has never done. Does Vick win games with his feet? Sure, sometimes. But a quarterback can win games every week with his arm. Fantasy owners already know that Vick is totally overrated. The rest of the world is beginning to learn the same thing.
I don't have any idea where I could have gotten the idea that this stats based anti Vick argument originated from a fantasy football point of view. Could it have been the original post? You know, the one we are arguing?
Edit: I should probably add that last year I was still arguing against Vick in these threads. At this point, however, I am simply tired of trying to explain away the Falcon's record with Vick vs without. Whatever his stats, and whatever the reason, the Falcons win with Vick and lose without him.
Last edited by Bowie on Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The NFL would never allow it. ESPN would shorten SportsCenter to 15 minutes. And EA Sports would finally have to reconsider their most egregious player value mis-ranking ever. But it needs to be said: Matt Schaub gives Atlanta a better chance of winning than Michael Vick. Period. Sure, Vick is a walking highlight film, but Schaub can actually pass. In just his second career start, he threw three touchdown passes last Sunday—something Vick has never done. Does Vick win games with his feet? Sure, sometimes. But a quarterback can win games every week with his arm. Fantasy owners already know that Vick is totally overrated. The rest of the world is beginning to learn the same thing.
I don't have any idea where I could have gotten the idea that this stats based anti Vick argument originated from a fantasy football point of view. Could it have been the original post? You know, the one we are arguing?
Like thw whole rest of that argument about Schaub actually being able to pass, that has nothing to do with fantasy football. No where does even fanball say that Vick not being a good fantasy QB = not being a good NFL QB. They only insightfully remark that fantasy owners picked up on Vick's flaws earlier than everyone else, which is in my opinion a little bit too big of generalization, considering prior to last year Vick was still the greatest thing since sliced bread to many fantasy owners.
You're obsessing over one line and missing the entire argument. That Vick is not a good NFL QB, hence is overrated.
What are we arguing about, here? My comment was pretty clearly (I thought) disassociating Vick's statistical performance from Vick's effect on the Falcon's record. I apologize if mentioning FF (implying a stats based view) obscured this intent. I can't believe I have let myself be drawn into this argument. I'm not even a Vick fan.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Bowie » Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:57 am 
