Your thoughts on the top 15 quarterbacks in the NFL

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 02:24 PM
Given overall ability, I'd like to know you guys consider to currently (Not taking into account their entire career, not taking into account amount of future potential) be the 15 best quarterbacks in the NFL.

I figured the best way to do this and come to a decision as a whole is to have people PM me their votes for their top 15. I will then use those as weighted votes, and use that to create the top 20 or so quaterbacks list.

Some quick and simple rules:

-The lists have to be ordered, otherwise I won't count them.
-You guys have 24 hours to send your votes in to me through PM.....the sooner, the better. I'll put up the results once the period ends and I've caculated all the votes.

Also, just to compare, I'm going to ask the same thing at the conclusion of the Super Bowl next year in Jacksonville.

---------------------------------------------------

Just to refresh your memory, here are all the guys that should be kept in mind:

Drew Bledsoe
Kyle Boller
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Aaron Brooks
Mark Brunnell
Marc Bulger
David Carr
Kerry Collins
Daunte Culpepper
Jake Delhomme
Brett Favre
Jay Fiedler
Rich Gannon
Jeff Garcia
Joey Harrington
Matt Hasselbeck
Trent Green
Brad Johnson
Byron Leftwich
Tommy Maddox
Peyton Manning
Josh McCown
Donovan McNabb
Steve McNair
Carson Palmer
Chad Pennington
Jake Plummer
Tim Rattay
Michael Vick
Kurt Warner

Thanks in advance to anyone who decides to take the time to PM their votes to me. If you have any questions, just ask.

PhoPhan
08-29-2004, 02:42 PM
If you want my list, here it is:

Michael Vick
Daunte Culpepper
Peyton Manning
Donovan McNabb
Tom Brady
Chad Pennington
Matt Hasselbeck
Brett Favre
Trent Green
Steve McNair
Drew Bledsoe
Mark Brunell
Brad Johnson
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger

That's my list, including a few guys you left off of yours.

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 02:46 PM
Well, at least you can be sure your list won't count...thanks for reading. ;)

And for the record, I intentionally left off rookies. There is no way of knowing how guys who have never taken a snap in the NFL will actually preform.

PhoPhan
08-29-2004, 03:12 PM
I was just throwing my list out there...whether or not you want to include it in your project, I don't care either way. There is no way of knowing how anyone will perform, to be honest. I ranked them the way I would select them if I was building a team that would be broken apart at the end of the season.

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-29-2004, 04:00 PM
If you want my list, here it is:

Michael Vick
Daunte Culpepper
Peyton Manning
Donovan McNabb
Tom Brady
Chad Pennington
Matt Hasselbeck
Brett Favre
Trent Green
Steve McNair
Drew Bledsoe
Mark Brunell
Brad Johnson
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger

That's my list, including a few guys you left off of yours.

oy... drugs are bad kids

Peyton Manning
Steve McNair
Tom Brady
Daunte Culpepper
Matt Hasselbeck
Donovan McNabb
Trent Green
Brett Farve
Aaron Brooks
Michael Vick
Chad Pennington
Jake Delhomme
Marc Bulger
Drew Bledsoe
Byron Leftwich

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 04:14 PM
Seriously though....Vick and Culpepper as #1 and #2? :joker:

Anyway, try not to post your lists on the actual thread, guys.

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-29-2004, 04:35 PM
Anyway, try not to post your lists on the actual thread, guys.

Awww... that takes all the fun out of it

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 04:39 PM
Nah, makes the final results a bit more interesting when they're revealed.

Porn*
08-29-2004, 05:05 PM
oy... drugs are bad kids

Peyton Manning
Steve McNair
Tom Brady
Daunte Culpepper
Matt Hasselbeck
Donovan McNabb
Trent Green
Brett Farve
Aaron Brooks
Michael Vick
Chad Pennington
Jake Delhomme
Marc Bulger
Drew Bledsoe
Byron Leftwich
Looks good to me!! but i'd swap bledsoe with Culpepper for positioning.

Count of DannyKristo
08-29-2004, 05:08 PM
Looks good to me!! but i'd swap bledsoe with Culpepper for positioning.

Bledsoe? :eek:

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 05:23 PM
Alright guys, I've gotten 6 votes so far....keep 'em coming!

Ive decided to just make it a 24 hour period to vote instead of 48....so votes need to be in by tomorrow afternoon.

Liquidrage*
08-29-2004, 05:40 PM
Manning
Brady
McNair
McNabb
Pennington
Vick
Culpepper
Green
Favre
Brooks
Delhomme
Hasslebeck
Garcia
Gannon
Bulger

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 05:42 PM
The PM system isn't that hard to use, Liquid. ;)

Liquidrage*
08-29-2004, 05:42 PM
By the end of the year I think Leftwich will be on the list, Carr might be. Gannon will be off the list and Garcia might be.

Liquidrage*
08-29-2004, 05:44 PM
The PM system isn't that hard to use, guys. ;)


Hey, it's your fault for tucking it in under your list in the very last sentence of your post. :)

Really, if you wanted to be sure no one read it, that was a good place to put it.

in the hall
08-29-2004, 05:48 PM
Bledsoe over Culpepper, Vick #1? Not even questionable.

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 05:52 PM
:joker:

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-29-2004, 06:04 PM
I think McNair and Manning are locks to be 1 and 2...

the order of those two depends on what you like better...

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 06:07 PM
I have 8 votes so far, and I gotta admit, there are a few suprises in here....that's all I'm gonna say for now though.

JCD
08-29-2004, 09:00 PM
1- Manning. Reads defenses better than anybody.

2- McNair. Closest thing to a young Favre since Favre.

3- Culpepper. Best physical tools of any QB. If he continues to progress (ala McNair), he will be the best.

4- Brady. Doesn't have any outstanding measurable, just best clutch performer in the NFL.

5- McNabb. Sometimes gets a bad rap, not in the ideal system.

6- Favre. Still a gamebreaker, but the skills are fading. Doesn't know how to play within his limitations.

**I think their is a notable division between those top six and the rest of the field**

7- Pennington. Kinda like Brady-lite. No outstanding measurable, just knows how to get the job done. Cerebral game manager.

8- Green. Savvy vet, knows limitations and how to run an offense.

9- Vick. Still more athlete than QB. Held back by being a sub-par passer.

10- Hasselbeck. Has tools and confidence, may just be a good player in a great situation.

11- Brunnel. Never put up the gaudy stats, but a quality all-around QB.

12- Bledsoe. Might be the best pure pocket passer in the league. The beatings in Buffalo might have sapped his confidence in the pocket. If he regains that, he is back in the top-10. Could very well retire before that happens though.

13- Brad Johnson. Never had a great arm and always painfully slow. Efficient game manger who makes the most of his skills.

14- Delhomme. Had a great year, but looks like a glorified game manager to me.

15- Collins. Another pure pocket passer. Big arm, good confidence. Stands fearless. Limited as an athlete though and can't improvise.

Others:
Gannon- Pure WCO QB with great accuracy and timing, but a weak arm. If he gets into another system, he could be effective. Tough call at his age.

Leftwich- Love this guy, Bledsoe-esque upside. Will take a year or two to reach it.

Brooks- Similar to a modern day George IMO. Great stats, but those mask woeful inconsistency and an inability to lead his team.

Garcia- Another pure WC QB. Might have the weakest arm in the NFL, but a great dink and dunk passer who can throw on the run. Short range and short height really limit what offenses he can run and plays he can execute. Very productive when in the right situation though.

Bulger- In arguably the most QB-friendly offense in the NFL. Streaky QB with limited skills. Looks better due to the talent around him, I wouldn't count on him as a starter long-term.

Plummer- Still not sold on him, but went a long way towards improving his standing last year.

guinness
08-29-2004, 09:15 PM
1- Manning. Reads defenses better than anybody.

2- McNair. Closest thing to a young Favre since Favre.

3- Culpepper. Best physical tools of any QB. If he continues to progress (ala McNair), he will be the best.

4- Brady. Doesn't have any outstanding measurable, just best clutch performer in the NFL.

5- McNabb. Sometimes gets a bad rap, not in the ideal system.

6- Favre. Still a gamebreaker, but the skills are fading. Doesn't know how to play within his limitations.

**I think their is a notable division between those top six and the rest of the field**

7- Pennington. Kinda like Brady-lite. No outstanding measurable, just knows how to get the job done. Cerebral game manager.

8- Green. Savvy vet, knows limitations and how to run an offense.

9- Vick. Still more athlete than QB. Held back by being a sub-par passer.

10- Hasselbeck. Has tools and confidence, may just be a good player in a great situation.

11- Brunnel. Never put up the gaudy stats, but a quality all-around QB.

12- Bledsoe. Might be the best pure pocket passer in the league. The beatings in Buffalo might have sapped his confidence in the pocket. If he regains that, he is back in the top-10. Could very well retire before that happens though.

13- Brad Johnson. Never had a great arm and always painfully slow. Efficient game manger who makes the most of his skills.

14- Delhomme. Had a great year, but looks like a glorified game manager to me.

15- Collins. Another pure pocket passer. Big arm, good confidence. Stands fearless. Limited as an athlete though and can't improvise.

Others:
Gannon- Pure WCO QB with great accuracy and timing, but a weak arm. If he gets into another system, he could be effective. Tough call at his age.

Leftwich- Love this guy, Bledsoe-esque upside. Will take a year or two to reach it.

Brooks- Similar to a modern day George IMO. Great stats, but those mask woeful inconsistency and an inability to lead his team.

Garcia- Another pure WC QB. Might have the weakest arm in the NFL, but a great dink and dunk passer who can throw on the run. Short range and short height really limit what offenses he can run and plays he can execute. Very productive when in the right situation though.

Bulger- In arguably the most QB-friendly offense in the NFL. Streaky QB with limited skills. Looks better due to the talent around him, I wouldn't count on him as a starter long-term.

Plummer- Still not sold on him, but went a long way towards improving his standing last year.

Jeez, JCD, you wouldn't be a Vikes fan, would you? ;) I like your list, except Culpepper at #5, and bump the others up one, so that Brady would be at #3.

GKJ
08-29-2004, 09:22 PM
Brooks- Similar to a modern day George IMO. Great stats, but those mask woeful inconsistency and an inability to lead his team.



The "modern day Jeff George" is sitting at home (Ryan Leaf). This is like the 16th time you used this analogy and for the 16th time it makes absolutely no sense.

JCD
08-29-2004, 09:40 PM
The "modern day Jeff George" is sitting at home (Ryan Leaf). This is like the 16th time you used this analogy and for the 16th time it makes absolutely no sense.

Do you even know who Jeff George was? Since you compare him to Ryan Leaf, I am guessing you do not.

Jeff George was a guy who (unlike Leaf), put up fantastic numbers. His career statistics are very impressive:
QB rating over 80
Completion % over 57% (played in verticle offenses)
>27,000 yards
154 TDs to 113 INTs

Guy only had 3 seasons with more INTs than TOs. He put together some All-Pro Caliber seasons with three different teams. He had awesome numbers for Minnesota, had a nearly 4000 yard season with 29 TDs (versus only 9 INTs) for Oakland and a >4100 yard, 24 TD season. Statistically, this guy should be trying to get into Canton.

That is the problem: his numbers didn't tell the story. The guy was a terrible QB that routinely led his team nowhere. Who routinely was unwelcome with teammates.

Now, compare him to Brooks. Brooks has some gaudy numbers, but that is all Brooks has. His team routinely underachieves. His offense routinely sputters out when it is needed most. His locker room is frought with in-fighting. Brooks, like George, looks better on a stat sheet than he does a playing field.

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 09:42 PM
Can't the same be said about Trent Green to a lesser extent....especially given how the Chiefs have not even reached the conference championship with one of the best offenses over the last few years?

JCD
08-29-2004, 09:43 PM
Jeez, JCD, you wouldn't be a Vikes fan, would you? ;) I like your list, except Culpepper at #5, and bump the others up one, so that Brady would be at #3.

I think those top crew are quite close. I like Brady, but think he is in an ideal situation for his skills. Where would you drop Culpepper back too?

ObeySteve
08-29-2004, 09:50 PM
I don't want to spoil the results, but I will say one thing....people voted certainly agree with JCD that there is a big drop-off after those 6 elite quarterbacks.

Liquidrage*
08-29-2004, 09:56 PM
The difference is Brooks came out of nowhere and wasn't a hot shot pick with a legendary arm.

Brook's isn't considered someone that just has amazing tools and his head isn't on right like George was.

I just don't think Brooks is a great QB. He's a good QB, but not a great QB.

I really don't see any real similarities to Jeff George. George was a much better QB talent wise and just never seemed to have the desire to take it a team and lead it and he had many injury problems.
Brooks just doesn't have talent of a Jeff George.


Hell, you don't seem to hold all those same team problems of the Vikings to Duante.

That one just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

guinness
08-29-2004, 09:57 PM
I think those top crew are quite close. I like Brady, but think he is in an ideal situation for his skills. Where would you drop Culpepper back too?

#5, behind McNabb, but ahead of Farve (only because Farve is getting older and GB goes as he goes). Culpepper has a knack for fumbling too.

JCD
08-29-2004, 10:03 PM
Can't the same be said about Trent Green to a lesser extent....especially given how the Chiefs have not even reached the conference championship with one of the best offenses over the last few years?

I would disagree. Green has proven to be a respected leader for his team. And he wins games.

JCD
08-29-2004, 10:11 PM
The difference is Brooks came out of nowhere and wasn't a hot shot pick with a legendary arm.

Brook's isn't considered someone that just has amazing tools and his head isn't on right like George was.

I just don't think Brooks is a great QB. He's a good QB, but not a great QB.

I really don't see any real similarities to Jeff George. George was a much better QB talent wise and just never seemed to have the desire to take it a team and lead it and he had many injury problems.
Brooks just doesn't have talent of a Jeff George.


Hell, you don't seem to hold all those same team problems of the Vikings to Duante.

That one just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Brooks got a fair bit of hype after taking over for the injured Blake. He even went on to claim that he was the best QB from the '98 class. Brooks has great tools, he is a fantastic athlete. His biggest knock is consistency and inability to lead his team. Not physical skills or lack of production.

Culpepper has started 4 years, had a winning record while starting the Pro Bowl for two of them. The other two, he had virtually no talent around him, playing for a dreadful team. During that 2-year span, he notched all of his team's wins. Never, has Culpepper been called a bad influence in the locker room. Vikes locker room problems stemmed from a couple vets that became very egocentric in their fading years. They were a divisive influence, their tirades were for all to see on national TV. The locker room problems ended as soon as they both left. Since them, the team chemistry has been exceptional.

Since Culpepper took over as QB, Vikes have failed to meet expectations once. In 2000, he took them to the NFC Championship when they were expected to drop-off having rebuilt both lines on the verge of Cap Hell. 2001 was the disappointing year, but the death of Stringer and loss of Steussie played pivotal roles. 2001 was when Cap Hell hit and the locker room turmoil erupted. 2002 was rebuilding and shedding of the bad seeds, the team improved more than their record indicated. Last year, the Vikes were in play-off contention until the final play of the season. While failing to build on their 6-0 start, they met their pre-season expectation. There has been absolutely no locker room friction the past 2 seasons.

JCD
08-29-2004, 10:15 PM
#5, behind McNabb, but ahead of Farve (only because Farve is getting older and GB goes as he goes). Culpepper has a knack for fumbling too.

He does fumble quite a bit, but it is also a factor of how he plays. A little known tidbit, Brady had almost as many fumbles as Culpepper did last year. Only he didn't handle the ball on the run like Culpepper.

Culpepper does not protect the ball well enough though, no denying that.

in the hall
08-29-2004, 10:58 PM
Payton Manning
Brett Favre
Steve McNair
Dante Culpepper
Chad Pennington
Matt Hasselbeck
Donovan McNabb
Trent Green
Tom Brady
Aaron Brooks
Marc Bulger
Jake Delhomme
Jeff Garcia
Michael Vick
Kerry Collins

in the hall
08-29-2004, 11:03 PM
Tom Brady is overrated and yes I'm Pennington gets some points for being a Jet :D

... really though, Pennigton is underrated by most, look at his numbers the last two years, factor last year's numbers minus 4 picks he threw in one throw away game against the pats in the last game of the season and his QB rating is over 90

I understand people need to see complete results however, I gaurantee he will be thought to be a top 5 QB after this season provided he stays healthy

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-29-2004, 11:20 PM
The thing about Chad is that he really isn't as young as most people think he is... The guy is 28 (6 months older then McNabb) but everyone is still talking about his *potential*. IMO, it's his make or break year... If he doesn't perform then he really doesn't have much of a future. Fortunately, though, he has some great options to throw too and I think he'll emerge as a quality starter for the next couple of years (a la Garcia) but never become a franchise QB.

Gibsons Finest
08-29-2004, 11:48 PM
Brooks got a fair bit of hype after taking over for the injured Blake. He even went on to claim that he was the best QB from the '98 class. Brooks has great tools, he is a fantastic athlete. His biggest knock is consistency and inability to lead his team. Not physical skills or lack of production.

Culpepper has started 4 years, had a winning record while starting the Pro Bowl for two of them. The other two, he had virtually no talent around him, playing for a dreadful team. During that 2-year span, he notched all of his team's wins. Never, has Culpepper been called a bad influence in the locker room. Vikes locker room problems stemmed from a couple vets that became very egocentric in their fading years. They were a divisive influence, their tirades were for all to see on national TV. The locker room problems ended as soon as they both left. Since them, the team chemistry has been exceptional.

Since Culpepper took over as QB, Vikes have failed to meet expectations once. In 2000, he took them to the NFC Championship when they were expected to drop-off having rebuilt both lines on the verge of Cap Hell. 2001 was the disappointing year, but the death of Stringer and loss of Steussie played pivotal roles. 2001 was when Cap Hell hit and the locker room turmoil erupted. 2002 was rebuilding and shedding of the bad seeds, the team improved more than their record indicated. Last year, the Vikes were in play-off contention until the final play of the season. While failing to build on their 6-0 start, they met their pre-season expectation. There has been absolutely no locker room friction the past 2 seasons.

He seriously said that? I wonder if he knew got picked first overall that year....

PhoPhan
08-30-2004, 12:20 AM
To justify my list:

Michael Vick- I watched every game he played at VTech. He is a great passer. He can put the ball anywhere he wants to.
Daunte Culpepper- Granted, he has some great weapons, but he is a great quarterback. Has just about every tool you could want.
Peyton Manning- Not a mobile threat, obviously, but the best pure passer in the league, and perhaps the smartest. They could fire the offensive coordinator and he wouldn't miss a beat at this point.
Donovan McNabb- Lacked consistency at times, but now that he has a legit #1 receiver, rather than guys like Torrance Small and James Thrash, he will likely be able to thrive.
Tom Brady- No "spectacular" numbers, but you can't argue with W's.
Chad Pennington- Give him a possession receiver, he might be able to get his completion % up to 70. He doesn't have the mobility of some of his superiors nor the leadership of the others.
Matt Hasselbeck- One good season does not a great quarterback make, but it likely wasn't a fluke. He is a genuinely talented QB.
Brett Favre- His skills are slipping, period. The media won't let you know, but he can't make all the throws he used to.
Trent Green- He'll put up great numbers in a greater offense, but I'm not convinced yet that he is a clutch quarterback.
Steve McNair- Overrated. I watched him complete under 50% of his passes one game, only to have Chris Berman say "like an old school quarterback, completing less than half of his passes". If that's not special treatment, I don't know what is.
Drew Bledsoe- Great numbers, but way too slow sometimes, and makes poor decisions for a seasoned vet.
Mark Brunell- Always a respectable winner, he has some mobility, too. Never underestimate a mobile southpaw.
Brad Johnson- Has a lot of weaknesses and flaws, but he also has a cannon for an arm.
Drew Brees- Despite the San Diego Savior breathing down his neck (whose poor delivery and worse reading will prevent him from becoming a superstar), he has had a suberb preseason. I honestly don't think the Chargers should have gone after a quarterback in the draft. LT would've been happier with Robert Gallery. Brees to Fitzgerald sounds a lot better than Rivers to Caldwell.
Ben Roethlisberger- Much better than Manning and Rivers. After hyping him up for his whole college career, I'm willing to live (and hopefully not die) by my bold prediction. He has near perfect mechanics, a strong arm, great mobility, and a good head for a quarterback.

chris_dub
08-30-2004, 01:52 AM
In no particular order:

Mike Vick
Peyton Manning
Daunte Culpepper
Brett Favre
Donovan McNabb
Matt Hasselbeck
Tom Brady
.
.
.

The rest

JCD
08-30-2004, 06:37 AM
Vick was a great passer in college? Since when? Guy's best is under a 60% completion, under 2000 yards and only 12 TDs. As a passer, this guy has yet to show he is even average. At any level. He has a big arm, but has not shown touch at all. Even Kordell Stewart was a more accomplished passer coming out of college.

BTW, I have seen Vick fail to complete even half is passes in MANY games, 11 of 28 and counting...

Liquidrage*
08-30-2004, 07:03 AM
Vick was a great passer in college? Since when? Guy's best is under a 60% completion, under 2000 yards and only 12 TDs. As a passer, this guy has yet to show he is even average. At any level. He has a big arm, but has not shown touch at all. Even Kordell Stewart was a more accomplished passer coming out of college.

BTW, I have seen Vick fail to complete even half is passes in MANY games, 11 of 28 and counting...


You are just stubborn not to mention one of the biggest homers. And we've been hree before.

You haven't watched Vick enough obviously because you are wrong. You've done this before and it still never makes sense.

We both love Leftwich as a passer right? You said it before that he looks like he will be the real deal. Well, in his 1st year as a starter Leftwich managed a QB rating of 73. Or about 8 points behind Vick in his first year.

Did it ever occur to you that Vick is always going to have a lower completion % because he throws on the run more then anyone else. It should have. Why are you so obsessed with completion percentage anyways? In a WCO it will be higher then a big play offense like Vick's always been in.

Why not just put Vick's freshman year stats all on the table.
In the 10 games which he appeared (he didn't start them all until the end of the year) he threw 90 of 152 for 1,840 yards and 12 TD's.
He was great passing that year. Total aren't everything. Yards per attempt were high, completion percentage was high. He will never get the gross totals of other QB's not because of a lack of passing skill but because his attempts will be lower because he will run often. And it obviously works for him since everywhere he's gone he's helped his team win more games.

in the hall
08-30-2004, 07:19 AM
The thing about Chad is that he really isn't as young as most people think he is... The guy is 28 (6 months older then McNabb) but everyone is still talking about his *potential*. IMO, it's his make or break year... If he doesn't perform then he really doesn't have much of a future. Fortunately, though, he has some great options to throw too and I think he'll emerge as a quality starter for the next couple of years (a la Garcia) but never become a franchise QB.
Man, what's up with everyone on this board being nuts about age?

This thread especially, AGE is irrelevant, in football and in this thread. Chad already REACHED HIS POTENTIAL when he first started. He was set from the get go because he had 3 years of tutoring prior to getting snaps.

Rick Middleton
08-30-2004, 07:21 AM
Tom Brady is overrated and yes I'm Pennington gets some points for being a Jet

That explains your list then.

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-30-2004, 08:08 AM
To justify my list:
Steve McNair- Overrated. I watched him complete under 50% of his passes one game, only to have Chris Berman say "like an old school quarterback, completing less than half of his passes". If that's not special treatment, I don't know what is.
.

I hope thats a joke... McNair is the best QB in the league. For the past 3 years he's had to survive through countless injuries, salary cap hell, and NO running game...

If anything he's underrated. He plays on a team that barely gets any national attention despite having the best cumalative record in the NFL since 1999... believe it or not, look it up.

The only reason in hell that anybody could be placed ahead of him is if your concerned about his injuries and his ability to keep his body together for the duration of the season. I'll admit, despite being a huge Titans fan, that should McNair get rattled around alot early in the season, then it may lead to an early playoff exit and maybe early retirement in a year or two.

But a QB with his passing, running, and physical package can't be surpassed at this moment and his ability to win games no matter the circumstances make him that much better.

Man, what's up with everyone on this board being nuts about age?

This thread especially, AGE is irrelevant, in football and in this thread. Chad already REACHED HIS POTENTIAL when he first started. He was set from the get go because he had 3 years of tutoring prior to getting snaps.

Well if the proof that he has reached his potential was his great HALF season, then I guess we should judge all players on HALF seasons...

If he does well this year, then I'll consider him a bonafide starter with an outside chance of becoming a premiere QB...

Age matters because when a player is in his *prime* age (28-32 for QB's) he should of played more then a handful of games to be considered a good NFL player.

JCD
08-30-2004, 08:49 AM
You are just stubborn not to mention one of the biggest homers. And we've been hree before.

Huh? How is pointing out Vick's flaws as a passer make me a homer?

Stubborn? That goes both ways. Vick has done nothing as a passer to prove me wrong. His fans are not going to convince me otherwise. For me to believe Vick is an effective passer, he will actually have to go play like an effective passer. Yet you claim he is, based off what? You are a logical person, support that statment. Show me how Vick has proven to be a dangerous throwing QB.

You haven't watched Vick enough obviously because you are wrong. You've done this before and it still never makes sense.

We have gone through this before. Since then, Vick has done nothing to show he is a decent passer. It doesn't make sense to you because it contradicts you idea of Vick as a quality passer. If you keep an open mind and just look at the facts, the conclusion is pretty clear: Vick is lacking as a throwing QB.

We both love Leftwich as a passer right? You said it before that he looks like he will be the real deal. Well, in his 1st year as a starter Leftwich managed a QB rating of 73. Or about 8 points behind Vick in his first year.

Psst!!! Where did I say Leftwich is already a good passer? I said I loved his upside, but think he is a year or two from reaching the big-time. Here is some food for though, as a rookie, Leftwich has already passed Vick's career highs for completion % and TDs. If he started more than 13 games, would have passed him in yards as well. Leftwich showed me more in the pocket than Vick has already, though I don't consider Leftwich a dangerous passer yet either (still learning and making mistakes). Between the two, I called Vick the better QB overall because he can compensate for sub-par passing with great running. Leftwich offers only passing.

Did it ever occur to you that Vick is always going to have a lower completion % because he throws on the run more then anyone else. It should have.

Did it ever occur to you that Vick's low completion % everywhere he has played may just be because he is not an accurate QB? That one of the reason he is on the move so much is because he has poor pocket awareness? That his low % may just be bacause he doesn't throw an accurate ball?

Why are you so obsessed with completion percentage anyways?

Obsessed? Not quite. Just using facts to back up my opinion that Vick has a lot to prove as a passer. I can use all sorts of measures to show that: Completion %, TDs, yards per game. Take you pick. You have to search long and hard to find ANY passing statistic where Vick performs well. Take away his running, Vick is a marginal back-up.

In a WCO it will be higher then a big play offense like Vick's always been in.

You make a major, and flawed, assumption. That Vick will effectively execute the WCO.

The WCO offense is based on timing routes and crisp, accurate throws. Two areas in which Vick has shown little aptititude. In the NFL or college.

Vick's skills are better suited for the big-play vertical offense where receivers can adjust to poorly thrown balls downfield. In the WCO, the distance is too short and their isn't enough time to make an adjustment. Those poorly throw balls will end up on the ground. Or worse.

Why not just put Vick's freshman year stats all on the table.
In the 10 games which he appeared (he didn't start them all until the end of the year) he threw 90 of 152 for 1,840 yards and 12 TD's.

Are those supposed to be impressive or something? 1.2 TDs and 180 yards per game in college? Like I said, even Kordell Stewart produced better than that.

He was great passing that year.

Define great. Your standards seem quite a bit lower than mine.

Total aren't everything.

No. But the individual statistics are not impressive either.

Yards per attempt were high,

Few attempts played into that, attempted only 15 passes per game. Repeat, 15 throws per game. That is barely one series of downs throwing per quarter. It greatly skews the number. Though I do concede, this is one good statistic.

completion percentage was high.

Not for college. 59% is not impressive in college. Decent, yes. But not great. 60% is your typical cut-off, you find several QBs per year pushing 70%.

He will never get the gross totals of other QB's not because of a lack of passing skill but because his attempts will be lower because he will run often.

McNair, McNabb and Culpepper can run too. Only they have also shown the ability to throw. Vick is a QB, not a RB. His job is to throw first, run second. Vick has yet to show that he can beat a team with his arm.

His speed won't last forever, so unless he wants the shelf-life of an undersized RB, he needs to polish up his passing game. He is already having problems with injuries, that won't get better until he starts forcing teams to respect his arm and gets 8-men out of the box.

And it obviously works for him since everywhere he's gone he's helped his team win more games.

Winning is a team effort. Falcons had a good defense that year, which reduced the pressure on Vick to rack up numbers. Last year, the team not only lost Vick, they tried to pull off a 3-4 without the personnel to do it. Both played into the decline, not just Vick.

In college, you can be a dominate team with an option QB. Which is effectively what Vick was, running as much or more than he was passing. Option QBs that have NFL success are few and far between. In the current NFL, they are non-existant.

Eric Crouch, Antowain Randel-El and Seneca Wallace were all extremely successful college QBs that ran as much as they threw. Like Vick. None of them are playing QB anymore. To be a great starting NFL QB, you have to be dangerous with your arm.

Loo, Vick is a tremendous athlete with fantastic upside, he just has not reached it yet. He is vital to the success of the Falcons, but lets wait until he does something before voting him into Canton. Vick is young and improving, so the jury is still out. As of now, he has a lot to prove with his arm before taking the next step. Unless he does progress as a passer, he will never match the hype. Worse, if injuries sap him of his speed and/or defenses learn his cues, he could fall well short of expectations.

PhoPhan
08-30-2004, 09:46 AM
Vick was not an option QB. There were many drawn up running plays for him, but rarely an actual "option." His completion percentage was lowered for the same reason Roethlisberger's was lower than it could have been last year: dropped balls. If you remember, Emmit Johnson and Browning Wynn both had very poor hands, and Andre Davis, though he has improved vastly since entering the NFL, wasn't much better. Vick makes poor throws sometimes, but there are very few quarterbacks who don't. The reason receivers often have trouble catching his balls is because of how much zip he puts on them. McNabb had the same problem for a while. Very rarely does he have to lob it; he can almost always effectively throw a rope, on target. Watch the kid play, don't just look at his statistics, and you'll see that he truly is a very good passer. Add to that he is one of the most elusive runners in the league, and you have a perfect weapon, if used right.

He is a true winner. As a freshman, he took Virginia Tech all the way to the National Championship. His performance in that game was the sole reason Tommy Polley and Brian Allen (FSU LBs) came back for another year of school. The next year, in the games he played, Tech won. Last year the Falcons record was inherently better with him in the lineup. He was obviously better than a "marginal back-up", because when marginal Doug Johnson and marginal Kurt Kittner (both of whom were pocket passers in college) were given opportunities, the team still lost.

GKJ
08-30-2004, 10:04 AM
Do you even know who Jeff George was? Since you compare him to Ryan Leaf, I am guessing you do not.

Jeff George was a guy who (unlike Leaf), put up fantastic numbers. His career statistics are very impressive:
QB rating over 80
Completion % over 57% (played in verticle offenses)
>27,000 yards
154 TDs to 113 INTs

Guy only had 3 seasons with more INTs than TOs. He put together some All-Pro Caliber seasons with three different teams. He had awesome numbers for Minnesota, had a nearly 4000 yard season with 29 TDs (versus only 9 INTs) for Oakland and a >4100 yard, 24 TD season. Statistically, this guy should be trying to get into Canton.

That is the problem: his numbers didn't tell the story. The guy was a terrible QB that routinely led his team nowhere. Who routinely was unwelcome with teammates.

Now, compare him to Brooks. Brooks has some gaudy numbers, but that is all Brooks has. His team routinely underachieves. His offense routinely sputters out when it is needed most. His locker room is frought with in-fighting. Brooks, like George, looks better on a stat sheet than he does a playing field.


You don't have to tell me who Jeff George is. I don't recall Aaron Brooks ever being unwelcome with his teammates, because in today's NFL is there is 'in-fighting' he would be gone. And I don't give a flying fudge what he said about being the best QB drafted in 1998 because he was essentially a rookie when he said that. You don't see him running his mouth, and it's not like it's entirely his fault either. Aaron Brooks doesn't play defense, which for the past few years have been one of the worst in the league for the Saints, so before we blame the Saints' underacheiving on Aaron Brooks alone, let's look at their defense and how they just let Grady Jackson walk, and there was the whole Dale Carter situation, and now Sedrick Hodge is getting suspended for 4 games.

JCD
08-30-2004, 10:04 AM
I said he was effectively an option QB, not a true one. The team ran a ton of designed runs, he had 2 runs for every 3 throws. Only other offenses with that kind of break-down are option systems.

Vick is far better than a marginal back-up. I said he would be a marginal back-up based off his arm alone. He beats teams with his legs more than his arm.

Vick makes more than just an occasional bad throw. He just is not that accurate. His supporting cast is not great, but it isn't like they have hands of stone. Dunn is a premiere pass-catching back, he doesn't make many drops. Price didn't have a problem with drops. Even Finneran has decent hands (just slow). That marginal back-up Johnson was able to complete a higher percentage to that cast last year than Vick has ever done.

That you claim Vick rifles the ball too hard is precisely my point. Knowing where and how to throw a ball is called touch. Precisely what I said Vick lacks. A good QB throws a catchable ball. Not every pass needs to be on a rope.

McNabb's accuracy problem has very little, if anything, to do with throwing to hard. McNabb also has accuracy issues. That is partly attributable to Reid, but also because he is not a good fit for the WCO (like Vick). Reid emphasized ball security, as such he instructs McNabb to fire passes low and away. This makes it tough for receivers to catch in stride and leads to a ton of incompletions and shin-drillers, but it also makes it virtually impossible for an interception. McNabb is arguably the best QB in the league at passing safely, but does so at the expense of his completion %.

I have seen plenty of Vick. He does not impress me as a passer. His fans can pimp him all they like, but Vick is the one who needs to prove it. Not you. In my opinion, Vick is lacking as a passing QB. The facts and statistics bear out my opinion as well. You can feel free to disagree, but I have yet to see a convincing argument proving me wrong.

JCD
08-30-2004, 10:22 AM
You don't have to tell me who Jeff George is. I don't recall Aaron Brooks ever being unwelcome with his teammates, because in today's NFL is there is 'in-fighting' he would be gone. And I don't give a flying fudge what he said about being the best QB drafted in 1998 because he was essentially a rookie when he said that. You don't see him running his mouth, and it's not like it's entirely his fault either. Aaron Brooks doesn't play defense, which for the past few years have been one of the worst in the league for the Saints, so before we blame the Saints' underacheiving on Aaron Brooks alone, let's look at their defense and how they just let Grady Jackson walk, and there was the whole Dale Carter situation, and now Sedrick Hodge is getting suspended for 4 games.

Brooks caused dissent in the locker room when he took over staring for Blake. He refused to give up the starting job, they cut Blake to appease him. It was the right choice to make, but their are ways to go about things and ways you shouldn't. A it's him or me approach is not a good one.

Brooks was a 3-year vet when he called himself the best QB in the draft. Not only did he make that claim, he went on to dis each and every QB drafted ahead of him. This was not an isolated incident. He also laid into the fans when they booed the team after missing the post-season following a 6-1 start. He said that they (paraphrased, can't recall his exact words) should just shut up and enjoy the show because Brooks plays for Brooks and doesn't care what they think. He threw a lot of TDs, that was his job. Not getting into the play-offs.

Saints defense has been their weakest part, but their offense has done more than it's share to underachieve. Led by Brooks.

In 2001, Saints were fighting for their division title. Until finishing 0-4. They missed their chance at a WC berth by scoring just 10 points in their final two games combined. Brooks struggled badly in that stretch, throwing 13 interceptions.

In 2002, Saints went from fighting for their division to missing the post-season by losing the last 3 games. They still had a shot at the WC spot, but managed only 19 points combined their final two games. Brooks again struggled, leading his team to only 1 TD and throwing 2 INTs.

In 2003, Brooks finished better, but the Saints still were play-off snakebitten.

I don't blame Brooks along for those loses, but do think he contributed to them. I think he is a better FF QB than real QB.

ObeySteve
08-30-2004, 10:30 AM
Well, since I haven't gotten any votes in the last 12 hours, I'm going to assume everyone who wanted to vote has done so already.

Here are the results. They are based on a weighted point system....if someone rated a QB as the #1 QB in the league, then that QB got 15 points. If they rated someone #2, then that QB got 14 points, and so on.

1. Peyton Manning- 193
2. Steve McNair- 166
3. Tom Brady- 146
4. Donovan McNabb- 143
5. Daunte Culpepper- 140
6. Brett Favre- 136
7. Michael Vick- 111
8. Matt Hasslebeck- 96
9. Chad Pennington- 93
10. Trent Green- 77

11. Aaron Brooks- 65
12. Jake Delhomme- 47
13. Marc Bulger- 46
14. Drew Bledsoe- 35
15. Rich Gannon- 19

Thanks to the following people for participating: Roughneck, Hercules Rockefeller, MontrealCruiser_83, Rick Middleton, Zednik20, BartG101, Liquidrage, in the hall, lux_interior, SkateLikeTheWind, JCD, Pimpin Fo a Livin

PhoPhan
08-30-2004, 10:42 AM
I said he was effectively an option QB, not a true one. The team ran a ton of designed runs, he had 2 runs for every 3 throws. Only other offenses with that kind of break-down are option systems.

Vick is far better than a marginal back-up. I said he would be a marginal back-up based off his arm alone. He beats teams with his legs more than his arm.

And this is part of my point. Even if he was as inaccurate as you say, his running ability makes him that much more valuable. You can't simply discount it.

Vick makes more than just an occasional bad throw. He just is not that accurate. His supporting cast is not great, but it isn't like they have hands of stone. Dunn is a premiere pass-catching back, he doesn't make many drops. Price didn't have a problem with drops. Even Finneran has decent hands (just slow). That marginal back-up Johnson was able to complete a higher percentage to that cast last year than Vick has ever done.
I never said a word about his supporting cast in Atlanta, I was simply explaining why his passing percentage in college was not as inflated as you'd have liked it to be.

That you claim Vick rifles the ball too hard is precisely my point. Knowing where and how to throw a ball is called touch. Precisely what I said Vick lacks. A good QB throws a catchable ball. Not every pass needs to be on a rope.
Not always true. There are times when a rope would be more appropriate, but most quarterbacks can't make the throw. He has touch, but sometimes it makes more sense to put a little on the ball. Unfortunately, his receivers can't always handle it (yet).


McNabb's accuracy problem has very little, if anything, to do with throwing to hard. McNabb also has accuracy issues. That is partly attributable to Reid, but also because he is not a good fit for the WCO (like Vick). Reid emphasized ball security, as such he instructs McNabb to fire passes low and away. This makes it tough for receivers to catch in stride and leads to a ton of incompletions and shin-drillers, but it also makes it virtually impossible for an interception. McNabb is arguably the best QB in the league at passing safely, but does so at the expense of his completion %.
McNabb is probably the only quarterback I've seen more of than Vick. I know exactly the problems he has today, and you hit them on the head. What I said was at the beginning of his career, he was having one of the same problems Vick is having now...his receivers had trouble catching his balls, because they were thrown to hard. He has since taken a little off of his throws, but he stills throws hard, and his receivers have adjusted. It is even tougher to adjust to a Vick ball, because he is a lefty.

MontrealCruiser_83*
08-30-2004, 10:53 AM
1. Peyton Manning- 193
2. Steve McNair- 166
3. Tom Brady- 146
4. Donovan McNabb- 143
5. Daunte Culpepper- 140
6. Brett Favre- 136
7. Michael Vick- 111
8. Matt Hasslebeck- 96
9. Chad Pennington- 93
10. Trent Green- 77

11. Aaron Brooks- 65
12. Jake Delhomme- 47
13. Marc Bulger- 46
14. Drew Bledsoe- 35
15. Rich Gannon- 19


Peyton Manning
Steve McNair
Tom Brady
Daunte Culpepper
Matt Hasselbeck
Donovan McNabb
Trent Green
Brett Farve
Aaron Brooks
Michael Vick
Chad Pennington
Jake Delhomme
Marc Bulger
Drew Bledsoe
Byron Leftwich
------------------------------------------
hmmm... close enough

Dr Love
08-30-2004, 11:34 AM
He seriously said that? I wonder if he knew got picked first overall that year....

Tim Couch. (McNabb was #2)

ObeySteve
08-30-2004, 11:42 AM
Wrong year, Dr Love. ;)

That was 99, not 98.

JCD
08-30-2004, 11:47 AM
And this is part of my point. Even if he was as inaccurate as you say, his running ability makes him that much more valuable. You can't simply discount it.

Running makes you a RB though, not a QB. No QB can maintain success without throwing the ball.

I never said a word about his supporting cast in Atlanta, I was simply explaining why his passing percentage in college was not as inflated as you'd have liked it to be.

Most do, just nipping it before it even comes up. His passing numbers for college have to be taken with a grain of salt. He was on a great team and he rarely threw. 15 times per game is an inordinately small sum. One or two dump-offs and one or two big plays and your numbers end up skewed. It is too small of a sample size.

Not always true. There are times when a rope would be more appropriate, but most quarterbacks can't make the throw. He has touch, but sometimes it makes more sense to put a little on the ball. Unfortunately, his receivers can't always handle it (yet).

No, he doesn't have touch. This completely contradicts what you said previously, where his too-hard throws were a cause of his low completion percentage. Is his low completion % because he throws too hard (no touch) or because he is simply inaccurate.

BTW, a too-hard throw would be record as a drop. Falcons were not that high on the drop list.

McNabb is probably the only quarterback I've seen more of than Vick. I know exactly the problems he has today, and you hit them on the head. What I said was at the beginning of his career, he was having one of the same problems Vick is having now...his receivers had trouble catching his balls, because they were thrown to hard. He has since taken a little off of his throws, but he stills throws hard, and his receivers have adjusted. It is even tougher to adjust to a Vick ball, because he is a lefty.

McNabb improved as a passer. Vick still has to do that. Not saying that he can't or won't, just that he has not yet.

JCD
08-30-2004, 11:50 AM
Wrong year, Dr Love. ;)

That was 99, not 98.

No, he was right. It was "the year of the QB". Brooks went on about how he was better than Couch, better than McNabb (really went off on him, saying how Syracuse blows) and better than Culpepper (who had just thrown 40 TDs and kicked the crap out of Brooks in the play-offs). How he was being disrespected by the media and all that.

Dr Love
08-30-2004, 11:54 AM
Does it really matter after the top ten?

Manning - Simply the best pure QB in the league.

McNabb - I would say he's the best all around QB, and a proven winner. Sure, he hasn't gotten to the SB yet, but only Manning and McNair can match his year in, year out high level consistency.

McNair - A step below McNabb in all around, McNabb is a stronger runner but McNair is a better pure passer.

Brady - Just win baby.

Culpepper - IMO overlooked by many. Obviously needs to hold on to the ball better. But could flip flop with McNair this year.

Pennington - An outstanding pure passer, one of those guys you just love to watch play.

Hasselbeck - Ever watch a Seahawks game? Sure, every WR corps drops passes, but dear lord did Hasselbeck get a bad break last year. This year he should take his play to yet another level.

Favre - Favre is still Favre, and although he's starting to get up there in age, you can easily still win with him. Unless you're the 2004 Packers and didn't improve your mediocre defense from last year.

Vick - I like Vick, I really do. But until he starts beating teams with his arm and not his legs, I'm going to be on his case. He certainly has the ability, but so have dozens of guys who didn't get it all together. Last year was a mulligan obviously, so this year is the year he really needs to start putting all together.

B. Johnson - Just about the only QB less mobile than Johnson is Bledsoe, but Johnson is an excellent pocket passer who simply gets the job done very efficently, which is exactly what you want from your basic 6-5 immobile QB.

Brunell - I've always liked Brunell, very well rounded, at this point not outstanding in any category but not deficent in one either. Throws the ball far and accurate, and still has some legs and something in the tank.

Bledsoe - Coming off a terrible year, I really think Bledsoe will rebound. But perhaps we'll see the Bledsoe of 2003 again, the one that held onto the ball too long waiting for Moulds to get open and had a terrible TD/INT ratio.

Plummer - Plummer just seems like one of those guys that does a lot of things right, doesn't make many mistakes, nothing really to complain about... but never really does anything noteworthy in his career (unless you want to count winning a playoff game for Arizona noteworthy, which probably is).

Kitna - Yes, I know he's not starting. But he is a QB, and he is a darn good one, at least in the Bengals offense.

Green - Green isn't anything special. He does a lot of things very well, but he plays in a system where any QB worth his salary can thrive. He certainly doesn't suck, but he just doesn't do anything to make himself a top ten QB.

Dr Love
08-30-2004, 11:57 AM
Wrong year, Dr Love. ;)

That was 99, not 98.

No, I'm not wrong.

1999 First round: Couch, McNabb, Culpepper, McNown. Brooks was in the 4th round.

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/playerbio.cfm?playerid=9

JCD
08-30-2004, 11:59 AM
No, I'm not wrong.

1999 First round: Couch, McNabb, Culpepper, McNown. Brooks was in the 4th round.

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/playerbio.cfm?playerid=9

Don't forget Akili Smith!!!!

Dr Love
08-30-2004, 12:00 PM
In a WCO it will be higher then a big play offense like Vick's always been in.

This year he's in a WCO, so we'll see.

ObeySteve
08-30-2004, 12:19 PM
My bad, I thought Brooks was drafted in 98.

Dr Love
08-30-2004, 12:24 PM
Don't forget Akili Smith!!!!

I did. But you didn't, which is sad in and of itself. Even sadder is that this is the second time I have talked about Akili Smith today. I will put a dancing banana at the end of this post for no good reason.

:banana:

Cuiffitelli
08-30-2004, 01:14 PM
Top 15 this season only. This list is based on skill alone and all potential skill will be disregarded

1. Peyton Manning
2. Tom Brady
3. Steve McNair
4. Brett Favre
5. Donovan McNabb
6. Daunte Culpepper
7. Matt Hasselbeck
8. Chad Pennington
9. Michael Vick
10. Trent Green
11. Drew Bledsoe
12. Jake Plummer
13. Jeff Garcia
14. Mark Brunnell
15. Rich Gannon

Liquidrage*
08-30-2004, 08:30 PM
Huh? How is pointing out Vick's flaws as a passer make me a homer?

Stubborn? That goes both ways. Vick has done nothing as a passer to prove me wrong. His fans are not going to convince me otherwise. For me to believe Vick is an effective passer, he will actually have to go play like an effective passer. Yet you claim he is, based off what? You are a logical person, support that statment. Show me how Vick has proven to be a dangerous throwing QB.


Vick put up an 81 QB rating as a 22 year old QB in the NFL with WR's that were amongst the worst in the league and an enemic running game. He didn't have help. He didn't have a great O-line. He had Vick.



We have gone through this before. Since then, Vick has done nothing to show he is a decent passer. It doesn't make sense to you because it contradicts you idea of Vick as a quality passer. If you keep an open mind and just look at the facts, the conclusion is pretty clear: Vick is lacking as a throwing QB.

No. The conclusion is that Vick's running ability is so incredible, and it is, that his gross totals for passing will never be as high as other QB's with similar passing skills.



Psst!!! Where did I say Leftwich is already a good passer? I said I loved his upside, but think he is a year or two from reaching the big-time. Here is some food for though, as a rookie, Leftwich has already passed Vick's career highs for completion % and TDs.

Why are you harping on completion %? You're using it as it were as meaningfull as Save % for a goalie. It isn't. Ignoring the drops from the Falcons recievers, we have two totally difference styles of offense with two totally different personel.

You're wrong about TD's btw. Vick had 16 in 15 games in with only 8 picks. A nice 2 - 1 ratio for a then 22 year old with crap recivres. Leftwich had only 14 last year with 16 picks, also in 15 games.

And lastly, you don't throw the negatives onto Leftwich like you do Vick. Whether you say it or not, Leftwich looks like he can turn into a great passing QB. And so does Vick. Vick's passing as is, is not sub-par. No QB that plays 15 games and has a 2 - 1 TD to INT ratio is playing sub par.


If he started more than 13 games, would have passed him in yards as well. Leftwich showed me more in the pocket than Vick has already, though I don't consider Leftwich a dangerous passer yet either (still learning and making mistakes). Between the two, I called Vick the better QB overall because he can compensate for sub-par passing with great running. Leftwich offers only passing.


And that's how I know you aren't watching Vick enough to make these statements. Vick looked better in 2002 then Leftwich did last year. And I think the world of Leftwich to the point of still insinsting he should have gone #1 overall in his class. And I've always insisted that.

Vick's numbers, with no Fred Taylor or Jimmy Smith were better then Leftwichs. Well, except completion percentage. Which is easily explainable by Vick's higher Yards Per Attempt and his crap recieving unit to work with, AND by the fact that Vick throws on the run a lot.


Did it ever occur to you that Vick's low completion % everywhere he has played may just be because he is not an accurate QB?

Did it ever occur to you that you have no clue what his stats in college really were?
Did it ever occur to you that Vick's completion percentage in Atlanta in 2002 wasn't that bad?

That one of the reason he is on the move so much is because he has poor pocket awareness? That his low % may just be bacause he doesn't throw an accurate ball?

No, he's on the move so much because he is the best athlete to ever enter the NFL.


Obsessed? Not quite. Just using facts to back up my opinion that Vick has a lot to prove as a passer.

Not really. You're wrong about many things. TD's. His college stats. Hell, I already listed his college freshman year stats, he was only there two years. You should have read it better.

I can use all sorts of measures to show that: Completion %

Not really. It wasn't that bad and you're not taking into account unlike Russian league prospects we actually watch all these freaking games and don't just need to rely on stats. Not that the stats really prove your point.

, TDs, yards per game. Take you pick.

I pick your refusal to admit that his gross stats will always be less because he has such incredible running skills. How about 16 TD's to 8 picks as a 22 year old in the NFL with crap for talent around him? Pick on that.

You have to search long and hard to find ANY passing statistic where Vick performs well.

Yeah, right. Only what you said isn't right.

Take away his running, Vick is a marginal back-up.

Nope.



You make a major, and flawed, assumption. That Vick will effectively execute the WCO.

No, but it should help his completion % which apparently to you is the end all to be all of passing stats. Except of course when it's actually quit good like in college in which case you just pretend it wasn't good.


The WCO offense is based on timing routes and crisp, accurate throws. Two areas in which Vick has shown little aptititude. In the NFL or college.

Change "In the NFL or college" to "In JSP's world"


Vick's skills are better suited for the big-play vertical offense where receivers can adjust to poorly thrown balls downfield. In the WCO, the distance is too short and their isn't enough time to make an adjustment. Those poorly throw balls will end up on the ground. Or worse.


Unlike you I've watched him play a lot. He throws a very nice accurate ball. And more importantly, he's shown the ability to go through progressions and to make quick decisions. Also very important in any offense.

And mind you, they aren't shoving Vick into an offense. They are building an offense arond Vick. That is basically exactly what Mora says. And as Mora says Vick is the perfect QB for the system. If he wasn't, they wouldn't use it.

Are those supposed to be impressive or something? 1.2 TDs and 180 yards per game in college? Like I said, even Kordell Stewart produced better than that.

And you again fail to take into account that he isn't putting up 30 throws a game.



Define great. Your standards seem quite a bit lower than mine.


No, my standard using reason and logic and not *just* spreadsheet. This aint fantasy football. If it were, Duante would be the #1 QB in the league.


No. But the individual statistics are not impressive either.


Yes they are. When you take the time to realize he isn't hucking the ball all over the place.



McNair, McNabb and Culpepper can run too. Only they have also shown the ability to throw. Vick is a QB, not a RB. His job is to throw first, run second. Vick has yet to show that he can beat a team with his arm.

None of those three are even close to being in the same class as Vick as a runner.
As far as beating teams with mainly his arm, here's his game log from 2002 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?statsId=5448&year=2002), there are some in there. But that's a bad question. Such a game would rarely exist has only a few times has anyone ever taking away his running. That doesn't mean he can't throw.


His speed won't last forever, so unless he wants the shelf-life of an undersized RB, he needs to polish up his passing game. He is already having problems with injuries, that won't get better until he starts forcing teams to respect his arm and gets 8-men out of the box.


And thankfully, for someone of his age, his passing skills are well above what one would expect in an NFL QB.



Winning is a team effort. Falcons had a good defense that year, which reduced the pressure on Vick to rack up numbers. Last year, the team not only lost Vick, they tried to pull off a 3-4 without the personnel to do it. Both played into the decline, not just Vick.

Vick plays they win a lot. When he doesn't they lose.

And he can throw. The numbers bear that out. He is just so incredible running that he hasn't had to throw as much as any other QB would have. But when he does it's clear.

Is Vick the best passer in the NFL? No, not close. But don't call him subpar or anything. That's just silly. He's been very good throwing the ball. He's shown he can throw the ball.

JCD
08-30-2004, 09:36 PM
Vick put up an 81 QB rating as a 22 year old QB in the NFL with WR's that were amongst the worst in the league and an enemic running game. He didn't have help. He didn't have a great O-line. He had Vick.

81 is a good rating. Not great, just good.

Vick had more help than you give him credit. Warrick Dunn for example, a quality check-down option.

No. The conclusion is that Vick's running ability is so incredible, and it is, that his gross totals for passing will never be as high as other QB's with similar passing skills.

Conclusion? Way to early to make any of those.

Name me a QB that won a SB with his legs. Just one.

Thought so.

A QBs job, first and foremost, is throwing the ball. Want Vick to run? Switch him to RB.

Why are you harping on completion %? You're using it as it were as meaningfull as Save % for a goalie. It isn't. Ignoring the drops from the Falcons recievers, we have two totally difference styles of offense with two totally different personel.

What stat would you like to use? Yards per game? TDs? QB rating?

They all paint the same picture. They are not telling me anything my eyes don't already see.

You're wrong about TD's btw. Vick had 16 in 15 games in with only 8 picks. A nice 2 - 1 ratio for a then 22 year old with crap recivres. Leftwich had only 14 last year with 16 picks, also in 15 games.

My mistake. Leftwich impressed me more as a passer than Vick, that is my subjective opinion.

And lastly, you don't throw the negatives onto Leftwich like you do Vick. Whether you say it or not, Leftwich looks like he can turn into a great passing QB. And so does Vick. Vick's passing as is, is not sub-par.

I am not calling Leftwich a great QB now am I?

Show me where I said Vick couldn't become a quality passer?

Can't find it either.

In fact, I said he could. He just isn't there yet.

No QB that plays 15 games and has a 2 - 1 TD to INT ratio is playing sub par.

BS. Vick hardly threw. When he did, it was frequently an uncatchable ball or to his checkdown man. 2-1 ratio doesn't add up to a whole lot when it is 16-8.

And that's how I know you aren't watching Vick enough to make these statements. Vick looked better in 2002 then Leftwich did last year. And I think the world of Leftwich to the point of still insinsting he should have gone #1 overall in his class. And I've always insisted that.

Best put new batteries in your ESP machine, you are way off. Leftwich rarely made it on TV, saw him only a handful of times. The Vick-hype machine made sure he was on regional/national games regularly.

Vick's numbers, with no Fred Taylor or Jimmy Smith were better then Leftwichs. Well, except completion percentage. Which is easily explainable by Vick's higher Yards Per Attempt and his crap recieving unit to work with, AND by the fact that Vick throws on the run a lot.

-Dunn is a better receiver than Taylor.
-Smith is a shadow of his former self and was suspended to start the year, Leftwich was throwing to TROY EDWARD AND JJ STOKES!!!!
-Falcons have a better offensive line than the Jags, spooky but true.
-Crumpler is a far better receiver than Brady.

In short, Vick had a whole heck of a lot more to work with.

Did it ever occur to you that you have no clue what his stats in college really were?

It is called the internet. This wonderous invention that lets you research information.

Believe it or not, Vick's college numbers are not a closely guarded secret. Anybody can look them up.

Did it ever occur to you that Vick's completion percentage in Atlanta in 2002 wasn't that bad?

54.9%. That is not horrible, but it certainly is not good. If puts him 35th among QBs with at least 100 attempts.

No, he's on the move so much because he is the best athlete to ever enter the NFL.

Gotta love that hype machine. I have heard this phrase a few times, applied to a few different QBs.

Not really. You're wrong about many things. TD's. His college stats. Hell, I already listed his college freshman year stats, he was only there two years. You should have read it better.

????

Not really. It wasn't that bad and you're not taking into account unlike Russian league prospects we actually watch all these freaking games and don't just need to rely on stats. Not that the stats really prove your point.

Already did. 2900 yards and 16 TDs. Wow. Had teams shaking.

I pick your refusal to admit that his gross stats will always be less because he has such incredible running skills. How about 16 TD's to 8 picks as a 22 year old in the NFL with crap for talent around him? Pick on that.

Again, show me any QB that has won a Super Bowl as a runner.

Crap around him? Already discussed.

You act like Vick was the first QB to ever scramble. Heck, he isn't even the best there ever was (take a look at old Cunningham games, THAT was a QB that could beat you with his arms or his legs). There have been dozens of QBs who could run. None, and I mean none, have been able to sustain their success until they proved dangerous with their arm.

Chose to ignore that if you like, just don't quack at me for not burying my head in the sand next to you.

random babblings

I thought you were sensible enough to have a discussion without getting hostile and blowing a nut. My mistake, gave you too much credit.

None of those three are even close to being in the same class as Vick as a runner.

And Vick isn't in their class as a passer (Kordell exempt)

As far as beating teams with mainly his arm, here's his game log from 2002 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/gamelog?statsId=5448&year=2002), there are some in there.

Yes lets, shall we. This is Vick's masterpiece of a season. The one you claim proves his is the uber-god super QB who can beat a team any way he choses.

Lets use some pretty nominal cut-offs for a 'great' game: 3 TDs or 300 yards.

Vick has never thown for more than 2 TDs in a game and has but a single 300 yard game to his credit.

Face it. You can't turn chickenfeathers into chicken salad. Vick has not shown much of anything as a throwing QB. He may in time, but has not yet.

A 52% completion percentage, only a TD per start and 76.4 rating. Not exactly stellar numbers. That he is an outstanding runner is why he is effective, not because of his mediocre passing.

You may continue your rant now if you like. Won't do you an iota of good, because some Vick fanboy isn't going to convince me he is the real deal. Vick has to do that.

PhoPhan
08-30-2004, 09:53 PM
I'm too tired to continue this debate which will go nowhere because it is simply a matter of what you and I see differently, but I want to point out that "drops" is a subjective statistics, much like "hits" was when it was kept in the NHL.

Liquidrage*
08-30-2004, 11:04 PM
Lets use some pretty nominal cut-offs for a 'great' game: 3 TDs or 300 yards.

Just be honest and say,

Lets use a cutoff that I know Vick hasn't reached because I refuse to take into account he doesn't throw as much as most other QB's: 3 TDs or 300 yards.

Gibsons Finest
08-30-2004, 11:32 PM
Tim Couch. (McNabb was #2)

JCD said Brooks said he was the best of '98, not '99, so I also thought he was picked in '98. 1998, obviously, was where Peyton the great was picked first overall.

'99 would be debatable if he said it a while back, but not now. Definetely not now.

Fish on The Sand
08-30-2004, 11:49 PM
Can't the same be said about Trent Green to a lesser extent....especially given how the Chiefs have not even reached the conference championship with one of the best offenses over the last few years?
you mean the last 2?

chris_dub
08-31-2004, 02:15 AM
Vick was a great passer in college? Since when? Guy's best is under a 60% completion, under 2000 yards and only 12 TDs. As a passer, this guy has yet to show he is even average. At any level. He has a big arm, but has not shown touch at all. Even Kordell Stewart was a more accomplished passer coming out of college.

BTW, I have seen Vick fail to complete even half is passes in MANY games, 11 of 28 and counting...


Just in case you didn't know, the season that Vick had his worst completion %, Atlanta recievers also had the most dropped passes in the league.

JCD
08-31-2004, 06:35 AM
Just in case you didn't know, the season that Vick had his worst completion %, Atlanta recievers also had the most dropped passes in the league.

Support that statement.

Didn't think so.

JCD
08-31-2004, 06:46 AM
Just be honest and say,


Blah blah blah. You act like Vick is the ONLY QB to EVER run the ball. What a friggen crock. Culpepper runs. McNabb runs. McNair runs. Cunningham ran. Elway ran. Young ran. Each and every one of them manage to prove their mettle with their arm. They ran less as they matured and became better passers (Vick may as well, time will tell). It was that transition that made them great, a pure runner is not long for the league. Yet, Vick is an exception. Why, I have no friggen clue. You fanboys have yet to explain that one to me. Heck, Vick isn't even the best running QB. In his day, Cunningham was far more effective. And was in an equally bad (if not worse) situation. Only Cunningham proved far more dangerous with his arm.

Claim whatever you like, I think you are being extremely biased because the facts just don't add up. When your case is built on supposition (he could throw if he wanted too...), unsupported claims (his receivers dropped the ball, it wasn't his fault...) and excuses (I can't find any evidence because he runs too much...), that should be a clue.

I am done now. Continue your fawning.

JCD
08-31-2004, 06:50 AM
JCD said Brooks said he was the best of '98, not '99, so I also thought he was picked in '98. 1998, obviously, was where Peyton the great was picked first overall.

'99 would be debatable if he said it a while back, but not now. Definetely not now.

My mistake. It was the '99 year.

He actually made that claim after his 1st full year as a starter.

Dr Love
08-31-2004, 08:48 AM
Just in case you didn't know, the season that Vick had his worst completion %, Atlanta recievers also had the most dropped passes in the league.

Well since dropped passes isn't an offical stat, or an unoffical stat such as targets, that claim is BS.

Dr Love
08-31-2004, 09:11 AM
Well, turns out I'm wrong and dropped passes is an unoffical stat. But it also turns out that chris_dub is wrong too, because the Falcons did not have the most dropped passes that year. In fact, they were tied for 15th, so they were literally average when it came to dropped passes. And their drops/catchable rate was tied for 8th.

Drops:

Oak 45, Sea 43, Ari/GB 41, Ind 40, StL 39, Cin 38, NO 37, Car 36, Hou 35, Den/Det 34, Phi/Pit 33, Atl/Jax/NYG/SF 30.

Drops/Catchable rate: Hou 13.0, Car 12.4, Ari 12.3, NO 11.3, Det 10.9, Sea 10.6, GB 10.2, Atl/Jax 10.1

And that's from STATS, Inc. if you have any qualms.

Liquidrage*
08-31-2004, 04:35 PM
Blah blah blah. You act like Vick is the ONLY QB to EVER run the ball. What a friggen crock. Culpepper runs. McNabb runs. McNair runs. Cunningham ran. Elway ran. Young ran. Each and every one of them manage to prove their mettle with their arm. They ran less as they matured and became better passers (Vick may as well, time will tell). It was that transition that made them great, a pure runner is not long for the league. Yet, Vick is an exception. Why, I have no friggen clue. You fanboys have yet to explain that one to me. Heck, Vick isn't even the best running QB. In his day, Cunningham was far more effective. And was in an equally bad (if not worse) situation. Only Cunningham proved far more dangerous with his arm.


First of all, I don't act like other QB's don't run. But the fact is they don't run as well as Vick. Not your golden boy Duante and not McNabb and not McNair. Not anyone you listed. Not as good as Vick.

Second of all, you refuse to acknowledge all the good passing stats Vick has. 2 - 1 TD ratio in 15 games as a 22 year old in the NFL for example. Instead, you keep trying to shove down some magic 300 yard stat as if these are Russian Prospects we're talking about. WE WATCH THESE GUYS. I watch at least 4 pro games a week ever week. I see them. I don't need to run to ESPN.COM to tell who's good and who isn't. And Vick is a good passer now and you could only pick out one or two guys in the past 10 or so years that have looked as good throwing the ball at such a young age.



Claim whatever you like, I think you are being extremely biased because the facts just don't add up. When your case is built on supposition (he could throw if he wanted too...), unsupported claims (his receivers dropped the ball, it wasn't his fault...) and excuses (I can't find any evidence because he runs too much...), that should be a clue.

No sorry, show me one single stat is said that is wrong. Don't give me some generic cop out. Give me one single one.

Suck on this for a while.
16 TD's to 8 picks, 2900 yards, 81.6 QB rating as a freaking 22 year old.

Cuiffitelli
09-01-2004, 09:50 AM
In his day, Cunningham was far more effective. And was in an equally bad (if not worse) situation. Only Cunningham proved far more dangerous with his arm.

Sorry but Cunningham is one of the most overrated QBs of all time. He could not read a D and he never won a thing. He was simply an athlete with a strong arm and the ability to botch big games.

Eat It
09-03-2004, 08:04 AM
Does anyone here think that if Brady had wepons like Harrisson and James on his offence he wouldn't be significantly better as a QB? How do you fiigure the "supporting cast" in when you grade individual players. Granted James and Harrisson probabbly owe much of their sucsess to Manning as well. But who did brady have around him? Troy Brown... Antoine Smith (is he starting somewhere or will he be the back up?). I'd put Brady #1 based on his game management alone, but I'm a total homer when it comes to the Pats.

JCD
09-03-2004, 09:30 AM
First of all, I don't act like other QB's don't run. But the fact is they don't run as well as Vick. Not your golden boy Duante and not McNabb and not McNair. Not anyone you listed. Not as good as Vick.

Vick is a better runner than Randell Cunningham in his prime? Take it you never saw Cunningham in his day.

Second of all, you refuse to acknowledge all the good passing stats Vick has. 2 - 1 TD ratio in 15 games as a 22 year old in the NFL for example. Instead, you keep trying to shove down some magic 300 yard stat as if these are Russian Prospects we're talking about. WE WATCH THESE GUYS. I watch at least 4 pro games a week ever week. I see them. I don't need to run to ESPN.COM to tell who's good and who isn't. And Vick is a good passer now and you could only pick out one or two guys in the past 10 or so years that have looked as good throwing the ball at such a young age.

It is called supporting your point. Something I have not seen you do.

Vick had a 2-1 TD to INT ratio once. Good for him. That is good, but not that impressive when you consider how few those TDs amounted to. A TD per game is not impressive to me. Clap your hands like a giddy school girl if you like, don't expect me to follow suit.

Here is food for thought, Charlie Batch has a TD-INT ratio comparable to Vicks and a BETTER QB rating after two seasons. Since these seem to be the only measures you deem important, how impressed were you with him?

What is your BS about the Russian League all about? PSST!!! I have watched him too!!! You may not be aware of this, but those Falcon games are seen on TVs other than your own. After watching Vick play, I was very impressed by what he could do, but quite underwhelmed with him as a passer.

I don't need stats (or you for that matter), to tell me who is good and who is not. Quite the contrary, stats can be very misleading (as is my beef with Brooks).

I think the most telling statement of your entire diatribe is that you thing Vick has been one of the most impressive young passers in the last 10 years. And you called me a homer!?!??!!?

No sorry, show me one single stat is said that is wrong. Don't give me some generic cop out. Give me one single one.

I would, but you didn't use any other than his 1-year QB rating and TD-to-INT ratio

Here is the case for Vick as a good passer:
-Vick would be a better passer if he had better talent around him (speculation)
-Vick would have better statistics if his receivers held on to the ball better (unsubstantiated claim later proven false)
-Vick would have better passing numbers, but he runs too much (excuses)
-Vick is a good passer, look at his TD-INT ratio, YPA and rating (faulty logic taken out of context: few attempts, few TDs)
-Vick's completion percentage is low because he throws on the run so much (speculation)
-Vick throws a nice accurate ball (though no proof is offered and what proof is available contradicts this claim)

And what is with the hostility? That I am not a fellow fanboy for Vick really upset you so much? Well, guess what? Tough. You can talk yourself blue, but have said absolutely nothing to change my opinion. Just as I am sure I have not changed yours. We can continue this exchange, and show me so much more to 'suck on', but I find it underwhelming. At this point, it is downright comical.

We can leave it like this. You think Vick is a great passer. Good for you. I do not. Only person who is going to change that opinion at this point is Vick himself.

Now, suck on that.

JCD
09-03-2004, 09:37 AM
Sorry but Cunningham is one of the most overrated QBs of all time. He could not read a D and he never won a thing. He was simply an athlete with a strong arm and the ability to botch big games.

Not going to praise Cunningham as some Uber-QB, but he was a good one. In Montana's, Young's or Marino's class? Certainly not. A 2nd tier HOF guy ala Moon? Absolutely. Cunningham is one of the only guys in NFL history to take home the League MVP Title on three occasions. While not a Super Bowl, that is a note worthy accomplishment. He was more than a flash in the pan or an athelte, he was one of the best QBs in the league for a 5+ years.

However, I think there is little denying that Cunningham was a more effective and dangerous all-around QB than Vick has been up to this point in his career.

JCD
09-03-2004, 09:45 AM
Does anyone here think that if Brady had wepons like Harrisson and James on his offence he wouldn't be significantly better as a QB? How do you fiigure the "supporting cast" in when you grade individual players. Granted James and Harrisson probabbly owe much of their sucsess to Manning as well. But who did brady have around him? Troy Brown... Antoine Smith (is he starting somewhere or will he be the back up?). I'd put Brady #1 based on his game management alone, but I'm a total homer when it comes to the Pats.

A great QB makes his receivers, not the other way around.

Honestly (just my opinion), but I don't think a Randy Moss or a Marvin Harrison would bolster Brady's numbers as much as people might think. That doesn't seem to be Brady's game. He is the perfect spread-em-around QB that uses every option available to him, but foceses on none of them. His best asset is his vision and ability to take what is given. Not force a ball to his best guy.

Also, having a stud RB I think will hurt his production. The bread and butter of the Patriots passing game is the dink'n'dunk short passing. They set up their deep throws with these rather than play action. With a stud RB (ala Dillon), a good chunk those 3-4 yard passes are going to be runs. We will know if this is true or not after this year.

To me, Brady's success is shown with wins, not TDs. He seems absolutely unshakable under pressure and just methodically capitalizes on a defenses mistakes. His defense keeps the score low, so they don't need a lot of points to win plus they have a stud kicker so he only needs to move the ball inside the 35 to put points on the board. I think if he were in a system where he was needed to carry an offense and make plays (ala Manning in Indy), he wouldn't be nearly as effective.

Count of DannyKristo
09-03-2004, 01:19 PM
OK boys, I'm doing a TD pass pool soon. Got any advice for me?

How does this top 10 look?

1. Manning
2. Favre
3. Culpepper
4. McNair
5. Hasselbeck
6. Pennington
7. Brooks
8. McNabb
9. Brady
10. Green

ObeySteve
09-03-2004, 01:31 PM
Are INTs being taken into effect?

If so, I would drop Favre below Culpepper.

One thing that should be kept in mind: The three seasons before last season, McNabb was consistently getting at least 24 TD passes.

Takeo
09-03-2004, 01:43 PM
As a Bills fan it kills me to say it, but I nominate Tom Brady as the best QB in the NFL without hesitation or afterthought. He is easily the most consistent, efficient, and clutch signal-caller in the league.

1. Brady
2. Manning
3. McNair
4. Culpepper
5. Vick
6. Pennington
7. McNabb
8. Favre

Count of DannyKristo
09-03-2004, 02:09 PM
Are INTs being taken into effect?

If so, I would drop Favre below Culpepper.

One thing that should be kept in mind: The three seasons before last season, McNabb was consistently getting at least 24 TD passes.

A couple buddies and I do a TD pass pool just for fun. Nothing else, only TD passes count.

Owens should help McNabb get back to around that number I would think.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-03-2004, 09:18 PM
vick looked like a child among men... what a pathetic display.

Count of DannyKristo
09-05-2004, 05:51 PM
just TD passes, only the top 6 of 8 count for each team. anyone want to rank them from best to worst?

Team A

Manning
Pennington
McNabb
Plummer
Johnson
Carr
Brunell
Palmer

Team B

Favre
Hasselbeck
Brady
Green
Delhomme
Harrington
Leftwich
Garcia

Team C

Culpepper
McNair
Brooks
Bulger
Vick
Bledsoe
Maddox
Gannon

ObeySteve
09-05-2004, 06:03 PM
Team B seems to have the best team, far and away. Great QBs that will automatically have at least 25-30 TD passes in Favre and Hasslebeck, and lots of depth....Garcia is the only possible weak spot on the roster at all.

JCD
09-05-2004, 06:04 PM
just TD passes, only the top 6 of 8 count for each team. anyone want to rank them from best to worst?

Team A

Manning- 30+ TD Upside. Mimimal downside.
Pennington- 20-25 TD guy, more a manager than a stat-monger.
McNabb- Tough call. 25-30 TDs, but could be several on the ground.
Plummer- Always risky, injury prone and streaky. Anywhere from 15 to 25.
Johnson- Fair chance to lose his starting job at some point, but looks good for 20.
Carr- My sleeper this year. Could top out at 20-25 TDs.
Brunell- Never tossed more than 20 in his career. Not going to change.
Palmer- With a pass-first offense and a ton of options, could rack up 20+.

Looks like a lot of gambles overall. Manning is the only 'money' option.

Team B

Favre- Money in the bank for 25+.
Hasselbeck- Too many weapons to not hit 25 or so.
Brady- Dillon will eat a lot of his TDs, but still good for around 20.
Green- Holmes will get all the goalline stuff, but offense too good for less than 20.
Delhomme- Risky. Game manager who might not get the stats. Has a low ceiling.
Harrington- Risky, but make-or-break time.
Leftwich- Love this guy, but tough to pencil him in for more than 20 yet.
Garcia- Great WCO guy, pass-heavy team will get him to produce.

A number of safe picks balanced out with a few gambles. Doesn't have a lot of downside either.

Team C

Culpepper- Money for 25+ TDs, but scores many of them on the ground.
McNair- Certain to miss some time, but a 1.5 TD per game player.
Brooks- Money TD thrower, good for 20+.
Bulger- Rams could fall hard and he is one of their weaker links, fluke his way to 20+
Vick- Bad fit for his offense, more a threat on the ground. Unlikely to hit even 20.
Bledsoe- Might not be starting by years end. Abysmal pass protection.
Maddox- See Bledsoe.
Gannon- Bad fit for his offense and injury prone. Collins is breathing down his neck.

Lots of risks here. No money players. Lots of downside.

Overall:
Team B seems the clear favorite to me.
Team A is #2, but has a lot of upside.
Team C has too many running QBs and guys first in line to be replaced to rack up much.

Count of DannyKristo
09-05-2004, 06:10 PM
Thanks guys. :thumbu:
I'm Team B, my brother is Team A and a friend is Team C.

MontrealCruiser_83*
09-09-2004, 11:09 PM
Gigantic brainfart by Manning against NE...

premiere QB's can't do that...