vick owns page 10 just as he owns you whiny little bitches

9/13/2005 7:11:44 PM

I don't care either way but I found this interesting.

Quote :

"In a big-game setting, Falcons quarterback Michael Vick came up ... rather small. Vick will never truly be great until he learns to take better care of the football, which he tends to carry like a water balloon. He fumbled three times, losing two. Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb fumbled twice himself, losing both. It's no secret in the league that when Vick's not running with the ball, the Falcons offense by most every standard is pretty average. It was the same old story for the Falcons, lots of rush (200 yards on 40 carries), and too little pass (156 yards on 12 completions). Until they make teams fear their passing game a little more, they're going to be too one dimensional to look like a serious Super Bowl threat. One NFC head coach told me during the preseason that while he fears defending Vick, and respects his play-making ability, he doesn't see No. 7's game as the type you can ride all the way to a championship. And I'm beginning to agree."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/don_banks/09/13/banks.shots.week1/1.html

9/13/2005 7:42:48 PM

See here's the thing.

Daunte Culpepper aka "The Turnover Princess" fumbled 23 times in one season a few years ago.

He singlehandedly kept Minnesota out of the playoffs that year.

And yet no one writes articles about how Daunte can never be considered a great QB.

9/13/2005 7:52:27 PM

yea well my man Chad Pennington fumbled 6 times in 3/4 of one game Sunday... beat that

9/13/2005 7:53:58 PM

i will write that daunte cost the vikings the game in week one

9/13/2005 8:05:07 PM

^^ Exactly

Pennington fumbled 6 fucking times in 3/4 of a game.

They didnt even let him play the 4th quarter because it was such a joke.


But two weeks ago people were saying he was better than Vick.


And after last nights game I guess I don't look all that ridiculous for saying that McNabb and Vick are about equal.

There is no way you can justify saying that McNabb is a lot better than Vick right now, simply no way...

9/13/2005 8:08:44 PM

Quote :

"7 catches for 112 yards If you consider holding a guy to under 112 yards "owning" him, you have pretty low expectations for your cornerback play."

hall kept owens out of the end zone and picked off the longest pass thrown TO's way.

by comparison, in owens' first game last year he caught 8 passes for 68 yards... very pedestrian numbers until you look at the TD column: 3.

what hall did do was let owens get his catches, since owens has about 5 inches and 35 lbs advantage. what he didn't do was give up the big play to a top 5 big play receiver in the nfl.

9/13/2005 8:18:54 PM

^exactly. mongrels focusing too much on meaningless stats

9/13/2005 8:24:24 PM

yeah if anyone says hall didnt do an excellent job on owens, they didn't see the game. owens got his numbers because mcnabb threw to him like 20 times practically. hall didn't allow anything big.

9/13/2005 9:54:26 PM

Quote :

"And after last nights game I guess I don't look all that ridiculous for saying that McNabb and Vick are about equal."

you look pretty fucking ridiculous for using a single game to fully compare two quarterbacks.

9/13/2005 10:32:15 PM

^ well if you bother reading the thread, you'll see that I used the past 3 seasons to make the comparison. Nice try though.


I just figured since people have such short memories, it'd be easier to highlight the game that was on last night.

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 10:41 PM. Reason : a]

9/13/2005 10:41:28 PM

^^, ^^^, and ^^^^

Yes, D. Hall contained TO and avoided giving up the big play. He didn't shut him down or "own" him. A solid game for D. Hall, but I was just calling out the overstatement.

9/13/2005 10:42:18 PM

^yeah, i would love to be 'owned' and still get over 100 yds in the nfl, especially when ur qb fumbles twice and throws one int

9/13/2005 11:07:55 PM

new mexico>>>>>ron mexico

9/13/2005 11:10:25 PM

oh i also forgot...everybody says TO did so great in the Superbowl in his heroic comeback from injuries...he had over 100 yards receiving.................and no touchdowns

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0405051vick1.gif

9/14/2005 9:52:23 AM

On PTI today, they listed the top 4 QBs

Brady
Vick
McNabb
Manning

In no special order. See, smart people know this

9/14/2005 6:05:15 PM

^^that was great because it was 6 weeks after breaking his leg

9/14/2005 6:55:24 PM

^did he help his team win the game?

9/15/2005 10:39:04 AM

^ Was he the cause of the team losing the game?

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 11:28 AM. Reason : dropped pass in endzone, blown XP/FG, fubmled in the red zone?]

9/15/2005 11:28:25 AM

^did he help his team EVEN GET to the game?

oh i forgot, the Eagles hadnt even sniffed the NFC Title game before they got TO...and TO played in the NFC Title game when they beat the Falcons

9/15/2005 12:34:54 PM

haha I'm just playing devils advocate, i agree with you actually

9/15/2005 1:02:41 PM

Quote :

"How about this: We call a mortarium on this thead until the Falcons have played 8 games. At that point we can do a midseason assessment."

9/15/2005 2:23:18 PM

christ i butchered the word moratorium in that post.

9/15/2005 7:02:18 PM

I realize it hasnt been 8 games yet, but I'm going to go ahead and cross out all the QB's that are having bad seasons so that we won't waste anytime with them when midseason rolls around.

Quote :

"oh and hear are my rankings up to vick, you can hate all you want 1. Manning 2. Culpepper 3. McNabb 4. Brady 5. Green 6. Favre 7. Brees 8. Bulger 9. Delhomme 10. Hasselbeck 11. Pennington 12. Vick"

11. Pennington Hahahahaha

10/2/2005 6:46:11 PM

I'd actually put the 2nd Manning ahead of Vick at this point.

10/2/2005 6:55:13 PM

go ahead and put Matt Schaub up there

10/3/2005 9:54:15 AM

I realize it hasnt been 8 games yet, but I'm going to go ahead and cross out all the QB's that are having bad seasons so that we won't waste anytime with them when midseason rolls around.

Quote :

"oh and hear are my rankings up to vick, you can hate all you want 1. Manning 2. Culpepper 3. McNabb 4. Brady 5. Green 6. Favre 7. Brees 8. Bulger 9. Delhomme 10. Hasselbeck 11. Pennington 12. Vick"

[Edited on October 7, 2005 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2005 3:34:02 PM

is that a joke?

The Falcons are 3-1.

He outdueled McNabb, he almsot brought them back against Seattle, he was nearly flawless against Buffalo, and then they beat the livign dogshit out of the Vikings so bad that he didnt even have to dress in the 2nd half...

10/7/2005 3:38:51 PM

qb's don't "duel" each other. they duel each other's defenses. head-to-head record of one QB's team vs another's means absolutely nothing. you can't give the QB credit for the success (or lack thereof) of an entire football team.

and it hasn't been 8 games yet like you said, so its too early to cross anyone off the list, including vick.

10/7/2005 4:18:53 PM

you're all crazy

manning is terrible, he is the extreme opposite of vick

vick is all athletic talent and no patience
manning is all egghead control freak and uhh no patience

i wouldnt want either of them as my first string quarterback

I'd take tom brady, mcnabb, kerry collins, or mark brunell instead
they all have a good mix of talent and smarts that it takes to be a good quarterback

10/7/2005 4:29:48 PM

Kerry Collins a turnover king although he's had a few good seasons...

the Raiders are doing pretty poorly albeit theyve faced tough competition. He has a great WR corps so you can't just go by his early numbers.

Brunell has been done for 4-5 seasons so I'll pretend you didn't say him... he's having a brief resurgence this year but im not going to ignore the past 4-5 seasons just because he pulled two bombs out of his ass against Dallas's awful secondary.

Tom Brady has been pretty mediocre if not bad so far so its tough to take him over Vick this season...

10/7/2005 4:39:52 PM

chalk up another loss when Vick doesn't start...

so let's see that's like 66% wins when he starts and 15% wins when he doesn't....


whats the word im looking for....

oh yeah, "disparity"

10/9/2005 8:50:59 PM

Do you really think Vick usual 150 yds 1 TD passing and 50 yds running plus an Int and a fumble, would have been better than schaub's 300yds 3 TDs and no turnovers?

The falcons lost because of... whats the word im looking for.... defense

10/9/2005 9:07:16 PM

yeah matt did a good job today. plus vick not playing goes against him. one of the big arguments against him is his durability.

10/9/2005 10:26:25 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jimmy_traina/10/27/therant1027/index.html

Just because I think this is the best anti-Vick page.

Quote :

"The Rant Vick is fun to watch, but he'll never win a Super Bow Michael Vick will never win a Super Bowl. He won't even win an NFC Championship game. He'll keep the Falcons in the postseason for years to come, he'll keep fans entertained and he'll give game commentators and football talking heads plenty of chances to wax poetic about his abilities. But Vick can only take the Falcons so far before coming up short, and the reason he'll fail is simple: He is a terrible passing quarterback. He's is incredibly inaccurate, and on most of the occasions he does complete a pass, he almost gets his wideout decapitated because the ball is three feet over his head. There's no doubt that Vick has a gun for an arm, but what good is it when you conjure up images of Rick Ankiel? The biggest problem with Vick is that you expected to see some improvement by this point in his career, but that hasn't happened. Here are Vick's passing numbers this season: 12-of-23, 156 yards, 0 TD, 1 int. 11-of-19, 123 yards, 1 TD, 0 int. 15-of-27, 167 yards, 2 TD, 1 int.  6-of-8,     49 yards, 1 TD, 0 int. 11-of-23, 112 yards, 1 TD, 1 int. 11-of-26, 116 yards, 0 TD, 3 int. Some people will use the argument that defense and a running game win Super Bowls, but most Super Bowl winners have received a decent game from their quarterback. There comes a point when the quarterback has to make a play with his arm, when he needs to complete a pass. Vick can't do that. Sorry, Falcons fans. Your signal-caller took you as far as he could last season."

10/28/2005 2:54:46 PM

whoever wrote that must have missed the season

The Falcons have only lost once with Vick at the helm and its to a Seattle team thats playing well but will fold in December/January

if you look at the play by play it shows a completely different story than jsut looking at his numbers..

The falcons have jumped out to big leads in a bunch of games this season and that does not equate to big passing numbers.

[Edited on October 28, 2005 at 3:15 PM. Reason : a]

10/28/2005 3:12:57 PM

they're defense is what is winning games for them. vick tried to lose on monday night with 3 INTS. he had 2 rushing TD's but one of them was from 4th and goal inside the 1 on a misdirection play that anyone could have scored on.

vick is an extremely fast yet way undersized running back and nothing more. he can't pass, and until he can i will never consider him a quarterback.

10/28/2005 3:56:24 PM

Curious about something...I don't watch Vick much nor have much interest in him (Falcons, meh), so I don't know how often he does this or that. So in this I am only asking a question...not trying to insult Vick.

How often does Vick lead the Falcons on a big last-minute drive? Not necessarily game-winners, just last-minute, hurry-up drives.

10/28/2005 4:27:50 PM

^almost every time he plays the panthers

10/28/2005 4:48:58 PM

when are you gonna put Marcus ahead of Michael on that list? Cause he WILL be a better NFL QB than his older brother

and oh man lafta...you wouldnt want Vick or Manning as your starting QB? ahahah wtf

10/28/2005 4:56:35 PM

comin up on week 13 and he still sucks at passing

12/1/2005 5:02:09 AM

and you still know nothing about sports.

"every NFL team has a 31/32 chance of winning the Super Bowl at the start of every season!"

12/1/2005 6:15:16 AM

actually i said that about NOT winning the super bowl

learn to fucking comprehend a post. it wasn't a statistic, it was merely a different way of saying there's 31 other teams out there that could win the super bowl.

next season if you want to bet me who will win the super bowl before week 1, i'll gladly accept. of course, you won't be posting in sports talk anymore at that point so that could be difficult.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 8:54 AM. Reason : ]

12/1/2005 8:52:28 AM

OMFG, I LEFT OUT "NOT!"

The point is, you don't understand odds. You don't understand sports, especially football. You spent a whole thread posting statistics about why the Steelers were going to beat the Patriots in the playoffs and you were DEAD FUCKING WRONG. AGAIN. Then you try to shrug that shit off and keep pretending like you know about sports. Well, I've got news for you, that shit ain't gonna fly.

This is by far my favorite ncWOLFsu post (from the Attn: Steeler's Fans thread):

Quote :

"here's my incredible prediction: THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS WON'T WIN THE SUPER BOWL!!!!!111 now i can be all proud of myself when they don't win it for the 3rd time in 4 years, which would clearly mean they are "overrated" and suck..."

You talk shit about people picking against teams to win the Super Bowl and then you pick against the team that ends up WINNING the Super Bowl.

So, basically, you're 0-4 when it comes to predictions.

12/1/2005 9:06:02 AM

0-4 when you only count 4 that i got wrong.

and i didn't make that prediction before the season started. i'm also well-aware that the official sports odds take more into account than the fact that there's 32 teams in the NFL. try to understand that i never said that 1/32 was the statistical percent chance that a team would win the super bowl. all i'm saying is that there are 31 other teams that ALSO have a chance to win it, no matter how big or small. the fact that they have a chance makes it a POSSIBILITY.

before the season starts, every team COULD win the super bowl, and every team COULD not win the super bowl. that doesn't mean that every team has a 50% chance of winning the super bowl, it just means they at least have a CHANCE at winning it.

and

Quote :

"OMFG, I LEFT OUT "NOT!""

that COMPLETELY reverses the entire statement, i'd say it's pretty significant.

12/1/2005 9:26:39 AM

Do you have ANY idea that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Like, are you even acutely aware that there is no substance in any of your posts? Have you caught on to the fact that you've been wrong in all of your predictions? Just wondering...

12/1/2005 9:31:50 AM

i'm tired of arguing this with you. just make a thread where we post our picks each week and we'll see who makes the best predictions in 5 weeks. then you will be shut up for good in sports talk.

12/1/2005 9:34:14 AM

Yeah, ok. Too bad you're starting in a 0-4 hole.

Bitch.

12/1/2005 9:35:49 AM

well for one, our bet is only based on predictions for week 13-17 of the NFL season. on top of that, i've made plenty more than 4 predictions since i've been posting here, and i definitely got a lot of them right.

we're both 0-0 right now though for the important ones.

12/1/2005 9:39:28 AM

Really.....post them. Then post the other ones that you've been wrong about that we're not even counting.

Then you can post mine. I've been right a LOT more than I've been wrong. More than I can say for you, little bitch.

Don't expect a fucking handicap just because you're a fucking idiot.

12/1/2005 9:42:38 AM