Canadian_Cheesehead wrote:He had like 170 yards rushing or something, and it went into OT. You call that hard to watch?
He must mean the Houston game.
In all seriousness, why are some of you act like people are projecting Troy Hambrick to rush for 2500 yards? All this talk about unproven and injury risk are bogus. He broke his leg, it's unfortunate, it happens. The only thing about Vick that should put people off is the length of time it took him to heal. Either he was sandbagging because the Falcons were losing, the injury was worse than reported, or he wasn't rehabbing it correctly (being lazy). If he's healthy now, none of those previous reasons matter at all.
Also, passing for 3000 and rushing for 1000 isn't exactly a huge stretch of the imagination. He almost did that in 15 games during the 2002 season (3000 and 800). He's young, explosive and still learning the game. Like other young QBs in the past with the speed to turn it upfield, his first instinct is to run when things go wrong. You can put 600-800 rushing yards in the BANK. He will at LEAST equal his 2002 numbers (although I'm projecting him for more INTs) which would make him worth a high round draft pick. If he performs up to his (lofty) expectations, he'd be worth almost a middle first round pick, but I'm not advocating that.
Azrael wrote:The only knock on Vick has to be injury. If you could convince yourself that Vick is going to play 16 games, there is no question he is the No. 2 QB. Culpepper still beats him out because he also runs pretty well and is in a better offensive situation.
So you completely ignore the fact that McNabb averages more points per game than him every season? Injury is the only knock on Vick? The numbers clearly prove there is at least one more QB who is a better fantasy option than Vick, but that somehow doesn't matter when ranking him?
I didn't compare Vick to McNabb at all. I was comparing Vick and Manning. But if you want to compare Vick and McNabb then I'd still say if I can disregard injury then I would take Vick. Why, well, McNabb stunk the whole first half of last year, not scoring more than 12 fantasy points until week 9. He did well the 2nd half of the year but I can't rank a QB No. 2 who can go into a funk for half the year. The only reason he outscored Vick last year is because Vick was hurt 3/4 of the year.
How can you use that argument that he outscored him every year? You make it sound like they've both played a number of years. The only year you can compare was 2002 when McNabb played out of his mind for 10 games. We would have thought that McNabb established himself as the top fantasy QB after 2002 but then proved himself to be sporadic with a lackluster 2003 year. The talent around McNabb, especially at the WR position, has been stagnant. Maybe now with the addition of Owens and Andrews to the offense he'll get better.
There really hasn't been enough time to compare the 2. So that's why I say, if I can throw out Vick's injury issue, I take Vick. Because I don't think Vick will go into a huge funk like McNabb may.
All that being said, I'd probably rather have McNabb because
A. I can't throw out Vick's injury issue until he proves otherwise B. I know I can get McNabb probably 1 1/2 to 2 rounds later and there's a possibility he can perform better all things considered.
You're saying it like the guy totaled the points for each year. He did an average per game point total. And McNabb averages more points per game played. Even last year when Vick was healthy he didn't play all that great. And McNabb was outscoring him. I really believe Vick is highly overrated for a guy that hasn't proven anything. I think you guys watched too many ESPN broadcasts and started to believe the hype. My god Vick's first game back was really hard to watch. I had to mute it after a while.
Here's the thing and I'm not going to say it anymore.
A. The only season you can really compare is 2002. Vick didn't play a substantial amount of games in 2001 or 2003 to make a comparison. You can't take Vick's 4.something games last year and compare it to McNabb's entire year, especially since Vick hadn't stepped foot on the field for 3 months. That being said, comparing only one year doesn't prove anything to me.
B. Considering Vick an injury risk IS a valid concern, because he willfully puts himself in precarious positions and subjects himself to punishment 95% of other QB's aren't subject to because he runs all over the damn field. It's true anyone can get injured on any given play, but he runs around with reckless abandon and takes hits above and beyond what even Culpepper and McNabb do. These guys atleast know when the jig is up on a scramble. I don't think Vick has figured out when to cut his losses, which (1) turns into amazing plays and (2) puts a good foot forward towards him getting his block knocked off.
People who rank Vick ahead of McNabb do so because (1) they desperately want him on their team because they want to root for him or (2) they think his potential exceeds McNabb's and are willing to take him ahead of McNabb because of this potential.
Vice versa, people rank McNabb ahead because (1) They think the real McNabb is the one that showed up in 2002 (2) They think Vick is overrated or (3) Vick's injury risk drops him below McNabb.
I think it's that simple.
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 20)
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Yards this season: 24
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Keeping da cafe sucka free for 9 years straight
Okay I havent read every reply here, but if anyone i splaying ina league consistin gof bonuses at the landmark yardages, 100 for rb and 300 for qb, then Vick is barely a top 5 qb. H eiwll never put up more then 300 yards passing an donly over 100 running maybe 4 times a year.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:Comparing Vicks first 3 yrs in the league to McNabbs MVP seasons in his prime shows what?
How about comparing McNabbs first 3 yrs to Vick first 3 yrs?
That comparison would be about as valid and usefull as the one currently being used - basically neither is worth the energy being used to type the argument - they are both useless.
Because comparing McNabb's first 3 years wouldn't give you an indication of his current performing level. His most recent 3 years however, gives you a much clearer idea.
If Vick's lack of experience at the helm of a football team is the reason why McNabb outperforms him, that's fine. It doesn't justify ranking him above McNabb in fantasy football, because the guy that performs better logically should be ranked higher. If any, Vick being less experienced is all the more reason McNabb should be ranked above him. Especially when you consider that McNabb is still fairly young for a QB, and its not like you're picking up McNair who may be going into his last season.
I think my example was more tongue in cheek than serious.
The real point I was making is that there are so many flaws in this comparison that to draw any conclusions from it would be erroneous. Seriously - what do you want people to say? OMG - The NFL MVP had a better yr than an injured rookie QB?
Again - Im not advocating Vick's ranking or McNabbs for that matter. My argument is that using stats from the last 3 yrs to challenge Vicks lofty status isnt a true measure. Obviously the guy is ranked on potential - he DOES have potential to go 3000, 1000 - as he has already shown.
Further - using previous yrs stats to predict future performance is negligent at best in this game. What about situation - are you factoring that in or ignoring it? Apparantly from the face value of your analysis, you have chosen to ignore it. Dont get me wrong - this is fantasy and its all about the stats - just use them correctly is all I am saying. Looking at past performance with no room for situational analysis is not using them correctly. Thats my argument.
People are willing to take shots at potential breakout players. Why? Because players that perform better than their value based on the draft are what win championships. If everyone got the value in terms of stats associated with the players draft pick the league would end up in one giant tie. Players that perform better than their draft status indicates are what wins championships.
It's no fluke that Randy Moss (2nd round), Torry Holt (4th), Chad Johnson (6th), Steve Mcnair (7th), Dominick Davis (undrafted), and Stephen Davis (3rd) were on the teams that played in the championship game of my league last year. They all played better than their draft status indicated.
While none put up near the numbers of guys like Priest or LT (except maybe Moss), they represent greater value because of their draft position. Last year, LT put up 2000 total yds and 17 tds, which is great. Problem is, to get that, you probably had to use the #1 or #2 overall pick to get it. Moss' 1630yds and 17td's at the #21 overall pick represent far greater value despite slightly lower stats. Even Holt's 1700yds and only 12td's represent better value since you could get him with around the 40-45th overall pick, and still have a "bonus" 1st round pick to boot.
If Vick gets taken in the 2nd/3rd round, and plays like a top 7 overall player that people feel he is, you will see a large number of championship teams with Vick. People feel Mcnabb has peaked, so even if he puts up the numbers that you expect him to, that works out nicely, but it's not gonna carry you to the championship like the guys listed above did last year, and people don't feel like Mcnabb has the potential to be top 7 overall.
Vick top 7 overall? Thats a joke. And the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Until Vick plays like a 2nd round pick I'll let the rest of you have him. In the top 7 I'll let you have him and laugh all the way to the championship.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!