Good point I forgot Manning took his team to the finals two years ago. I'm not a fan of Vicks but the idea that Manning is a winner and Vick is a loser becuase Manning is smart or a pocket passer or whatever is out right wrong. Vick is 26 is 2 & 2 in the playoffs and has a trip to the confrence finals. Manning is 30 is 3 & 6 in the playoffs has one trip to the finals and in two of his playoff losses failed to put a TD on the board. For a guy who is supposedly the best QB in football, he has a habit of doing nothing in the big games.
Michael Vick's QB rating was a few tenths of a point higher than Brooks Bollinger this year. Perhaps Peyton Manning was a bad matter of comparison, due to his choke artist nature but he's a guy who has won by outscoring his opposition every year, while Manning was without the benefit of a good defense every year. While Vick has been successful, he has always had the benefit of a solid defense. Personally, I think it is obviously better to have a quarterback playing quarterback than an athlete playing quarterback. Teams are learning more and more how to account for a guy like that, and once one of his runs results in another leg injury, you have yourself an inaccurate quarterback who can't make reads and runs timidly. Definitely not worth the big expenditure. Meanwhile, the Falcons think so much of Vick at this point that they went out and got Schaub's collegiate coach to come be the new QB's coach, and they wouldn't discuss including him in the deal. Moreover, it's not as if Vick has lit it up in the playoffs. When he famously slayed the dragon that is Green Bay at Lambeau, a feat generally attributed to his greatness, the Packers turned it over 6-7 times and the Atlanta defense(3 FF, 2 INT's) shut down Ahman Green in the running game. The next week Philadelphia handled Vick with ease, as they did in 2004 and as most superior defenses do now that they've seen enough of him. More often than not, and specifically, as linebackers and defensive lineman get faster and more athletic, scrambling quarterbacks who rely on "matter over mind" are going to be overcome by the Bill Belichicks and Bill Parcells of the league with relative ease. The mind over matter guys, provided they have sufficient physical talent, are going to give you more options in a big game. In short, Vince Young isn't going to be able to run up and down the field in the NFL like he did against USC, and should he suffer a Daunte Culpepper like injury while doing so, what are you going to be left with? A guy with a really low Wonderlic who has never played in anything resembling a pro system, who has been taught to make minimal reads and take off at the collegiate level. To me that's not an investment worth making. -X-
I'm no Vick fan and I haven't quite figured out yet how his team has had so much success with him at QB when his numbers are so bad but the whole "Colts defense is bad" thing really needs to be put to rest. It's the offense and more specifically Peyton Manning that has failed the Colts and led to their postseason defeats. Atlanta's points allowed the past 4 years: 8th, 30th, 14th, 18th Indy's points allowed the past 4 years: 7th, 20th, 19th, 2nd
Take a look at this years SB. A smart veteran pocket passer in Hasselback who makes progression reads as good as any one in the NFL against a big mobil playmaker in Rothlesberger. Rothlesberger had an awful game, it was a statistical nighmare however he was able to sprint out to his left start heading for a first down, stop on a dime and throw the ball 45 yards across his body and make a game changing play. Marino got a 16, Bradshaw got a 15, McNab got a score of 14, Vinny, who might have had the best year in Jet history got a 17 and I guarantee if Namath took one he doesn't break 20. I agree that mobility and instinct can only be a plus as long as he has the ability to make all the throws. If he does saying he has better athletic ability than other QB's shouldn't be a negative, it is a positive.
Its obvious, that Vince Young will not be able to have the same success running the football in the NFl, as he did in college. As mentioned before it is a QB job to lead his team, make good decisions, and win games. Vince Young has proven this, despite his score on the irrelevant wonderlic test. Comparing Mike Vick to Vince Young is stupid; they are two different kinds of quarterbacks. Mike Vick did not display the accuracy or touch on his throws coming out of college that Vince Young displayed. The real question is would you rather lose in style with the possible ?gunslinger? Jay Cutler or win ?unorthodoxly? with Vince Young?
Roethlisberger is not good because he's mobile, Roethlisberger is good because he's intelligent. It's not like he was picking Denver apart with his legs. Roethlisberger is not a rare athlete, he just has escapability, like Jake Plummer with better decision making capacity. Pittsburgh already tried to win with a mobile athlete, and after stripping their offense down to the bare minimum, they realized that they needed a real quarterback and went out and drafted Roethlisberger. Look, Young MAY succeed, and like a Steve McNair, develop into a more than competent passer after a while, but there's too much going against him for me to take that chance. -X-
why cuz of the offense he ran in college? Inst a Coach's job to design schemes that best suit your player? You have a QB who runs in the 4.5's, so what do you do? SPREAD THE FIELD.....ok so its not a pro-friendly offense. I think WinstonBiggs' point was if you look at Young on tape minus the mechanics he buys time and makes every throw from every spot on the field. which will make him a success in the pro's. IF THE COACHING IS DONE RIGHT! Too much going against him? Please every prospect could be picked apart. I love how you try to compare Kordell Stewart to Vince Young........that is really rich. I should excercise after that one
Yeah, really rich. In 1992 Kordell Stewart was ranked 5th in the nation in passer rating. He quarterbacked in a Super Bowl. He was a mobile strong armed quarterback who won in college but lacked the intellect to operate anything more than a simple system in the pros. Why would I compare a current Big 12 quarterback who is valued more for his athleticism than his quarterbacking skills to Kordell Stewart a...former...big 12 quarterback...valued more for his athleticism than his ability to actually play quarterback. Young's greatest strength is his athleticism. Teams aren't jumping all over the guy because of his ability to play quarterback, they're jumping all over him because he's an aggressive athlete who won on a big stage, from a high profile program. He's another "yeah he's not that accurate and he might not be that smart, but look how fast he can run and how far he can throw!!" guy. -X-
First off, "not that accurate"??? Have you seen the stats and the film of Young? Obviously not. Second, all you Vince-haters read this article. This guy nailed it: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5395466
Kordell Stewart took a decent not great Pittsburgh team as far as any Jet QB not named Namath and that includes the very brilliant Mr. Pennington.
