Vick changes the game in so many ways. Most notably the fact thet defenses have to spend so much time planning to contain him that they're simply unprepared against that lethal run attack. With Schaub in there, you put 8 in the box and you win.
The "Jeter is just a winner" stuff is absurd. Baseball is almost completely about numbers.
Kensat30 wrote:Michael Vick wins game, it's as simple as that.
No offense, but I can't stand it when people say Mike Vick wins games.
These same people say that defenses win championships and discredit Trent Dilfer. There's a lot of hypocrisy.
First of all, Atlanta had a pretty sick defense last year. #1 in sacks, #9 in INTs, #8 in rush defense, #8 in forced fumbles, tied for 3rd in defensive TDs. They were turnover machines.
Second of all, they had the best rushing attack in the NFL (I know Vick is part of that).
You simply don't know how a good pocket QB would do in Atlanta with that defense and that running game (a QB who doesn't turn the ball over much). No one really knows.
But to say that Mike Vick wins games is a slap in the face to that defense, that O-Line Coach, Dunn & Duckett, and the others in that organization. A football team wins games. And judging from Vick's stats, he's not really helping all that much. That's just my opinion.
I'm gonna have to agree.
The Falcons are 26-13-1 with Vick as the starting QB. Without him, they have a losing record. I'm not a huge Vick fan, but you have to give credit where credit is due. Besides that, Shraub had one good game... ONE!!! I can't believe people are talking about trading Vick because his backup had one decent game. That seems awfully premature to me. But hey... you guys are the experts, not me.
josebach wrote:The Falcons are 26-13-1 with Vick as the starting QB. Without him, they have a losing record. I'm not a huge Vick fan, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
You're right give credit where credit is due.
In the 39 games Vick has started since 2002 the Atlanta defense has allowed an average 18.6 points per game.
During the 14 games others have QBed for Atlanta since 2002, the defense has allowed an average 27 points per game.
In 2003 the 16th ranked (the average) offense scored 19.6 points per game, and 20 teams total averaged more than 18.6 points per game.
In 2004 the 16th ranked offense scored 21.2 points per game, and 23 teams averaged more than 18.6 points per game.
This year, 19 teams are scoring more than 18.6 points per game.
Now, the majority of the NFL's offense year to year are able to post enough points that they should have a winning record (offense scoring more on average than the defense lets up) if they had Atlanta's defense.
Rather than saying "Oh, so-and-so is in the lineup, he must be the reason why they win," wouldn't it make sense to look at why they win, and see what correlations exist.
The correlation is simple, when Atlanta's defense performs, they often win. When Atlanta's defense does not, they often lose. Give the credit where the credit is due, this team is carried by that defense.
In the 39 games Vick has started since 2002 the Atlanta defense has allowed an average 18.6 points per game.
During the 14 games others have QBed for Atlanta since 2002, the defense has allowed an average 27 points per game.
After reading this stat, I thought you were gonna go the opposite direction with your argument, Maddog. I know you can't prove correlation, and I'm a bit up in the air about the whole Vick matter, but it sure looks to me like the defense sucks when Vick isn't in there. Maybe he inspires them, or maybe (more likely) the fact that the running game is so good when he's in there keeps the defense off the field, but that's a huge difference in points. The team allows 50% more points when Vick doesn't play! It's hard to explain that away by chance...
Anyway, no matter what you think of Vick, there's a huge overreaction to Schaub here. Remember when Kelly Holcomb went off for a game in the playoffs a few years ago? I know the Browns fans do, because it won him the starting job and he hasn't done a worthwhile thing since.
josebach wrote:The Falcons are 26-13-1 with Vick as the starting QB. Without him, they have a losing record. I'm not a huge Vick fan, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
You're right give credit where credit is due.
In the 39 games Vick has started since 2002 the Atlanta defense has allowed an average 18.6 points per game.
During the 14 games others have QBed for Atlanta since 2002, the defense has allowed an average 27 points per game.
In 2003 the 16th ranked (the average) offense scored 19.6 points per game, and 20 teams total averaged more than 18.6 points per game.
In 2004 the 16th ranked offense scored 21.2 points per game, and 23 teams averaged more than 18.6 points per game.
This year, 19 teams are scoring more than 18.6 points per game.
Now, the majority of the NFL's offense year to year are able to post enough points that they should have a winning record (offense scoring more on average than the defense lets up) if they had Atlanta's defense.
Rather than saying "Oh, so-and-so is in the lineup, he must be the reason why they win," wouldn't it make sense to look at why they win, and see what correlations exist.
The correlation is simple, when Atlanta's defense performs, they often win. When Atlanta's defense does not, they often lose. Give the credit where the credit is due, this team is carried by that defense.
What's your point? Are you saying the Falcons are only carried by the defense when Vick is playing? That it's pure coincidence that they perform better when Vick is starting? That he's good luck or something? Like I said, I'm no expert. Please elaborate.
Kensat30 wrote:Michael Vick wins game, it's as simple as that.
No offense, but I can't stand it when people say Mike Vick wins games.
These same people say that defenses win championships and discredit Trent Dilfer. There's a lot of hypocrisy.
First of all, Atlanta had a pretty sick defense last year. #1 in sacks, #9 in INTs, #8 in rush defense, #8 in forced fumbles, tied for 3rd in defensive TDs. They were turnover machines.
Second of all, they had the best rushing attack in the NFL (I know Vick is part of that).
You simply don't know how a good pocket QB would do in Atlanta with that defense and that running game (a QB who doesn't turn the ball over much). No one really knows.
But to say that Mike Vick wins games is a slap in the face to that defense, that O-Line Coach, Dunn & Duckett, and the others in that organization. A football team wins games. And judging from Vick's stats, he's not really helping all that much. That's just my opinion.
I'm gonna have to agree.
Besides that, Shraub had one good game... ONE!!!
Once upon a time, Rob Johnson turned 1 good game into around a $25 million contract with the Bills.
I argee, no way should they trade Vick. And I'd argue that Atlanta got no worse in that LT deal (How many AFC Championships have the Chargers been to since that trade??)
But their will be teams this offseason (not in line for Leinhart), offering their 1st round pick for Schaub.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Dr. Duran Duran » Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:48 pm 
