2004.

Top 10 Passing

Indy 12-4
Minn 8-8
GB 10-6
KC 7-9
STL 8-8
Denver 10-6
Philly 13-3
Oak 5-11
Car 7-9
Tenn 5-11

4 winning teams, 4 losing teams, 2 .500 teams,


Top 10 Rushing

Atlanta 11-5
Pitt 15-1
NYJ 10-6
Denver 10-6
KC 7-9
SD 12-4
New England 14-2
Seattle 9-7
Baltimore 9-7
GB 10-6

9 winning teams, 1 losing team



Basically I just wasted 10 minutes proving something that anyone with any football knowledge already knows. Being able to run the football is more important than being able to pass the football.

Quote :

"good example since KC smashed ATL 56-10 last season"

You're right it was a good example since KC missed the playoffs while Vick was icing his back down with two weeks left in the season.



[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 1:06 AM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 1:01:32 AM

that's nice, go back to 2003 for a different story

Pass:
IND 12-4
KC 13-3
STL 12-4
MINN 9-7
TENN 12-4
TB 7-9
SEA 10-6
NO 8-8
NE 14-2
SF 7-9

Rush:
BAL 10-6
DEN 10-6
GB 10-6
MINN 9-7
SF 7-9
SD 4-12
CAR 11-5
JAX 5-11
PHI 12-4
SEA 10-6

W-L-.500
Pass: 8-2-1
Rush: 7-3-0

Look at total W-L for top 10 teams
Pass: 104-56
Rush: 88-72

and your KC response is completely irrelevant

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 1:36 AM. Reason : fix]

8/26/2005 1:34:07 AM

anyone wanna run this all the way back to '97 or so?

8/26/2005 2:01:04 AM

i might tomorrow if i'm bored

looks like i'll be up for awhile with physics webassign tonight though. i mean the point that teams rush when ahead is valid, but i think it's absolutely retarded to say a team is no good just because they happen to excel at passing the ball, but that's just me.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:14 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2005 2:14:01 AM

^^^ alright so let me get this straight.

We have passing coming in at 11 winning teams, 6 losing teams, and 3 .500 teams

We have rushing coming in at 16 winning teams, 4 losing teams


In other words:
80% of teams ranked in the top ten in rushing have winning records.
55% of teams ranked in the top ten in passing have winning records.


If this were NCAA '06 you'd be listening to my fight song right about now.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:36 AM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 2:35:52 AM

dude not all rushing teams are good because of their quarterback though, i don't understand where you're going with this line of reasoning.

all the other top rushing teams besides the falcons are ranked that high because of their RB's, not QB. and Vick only accounted for 1/3 of the teams rushing last year (~56ypg out of ~167ypg).

so you're saying the fact that there are teams that win because they have awesome running backs makes michael vick a top 5 quarterback?

if you wanted to make it relevant, make it top 10 passing teams vs top 10 QB rushing teams.

also, throw out your duplicates among top 10's

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:53 AM. Reason : ]

8/26/2005 2:49:35 AM

It is plenty relevant. I'm backing this up

Quote :

"Rushing yards are worth MORE than passing yards. Anyone with half a brain knows this. You can't just add passing+rushing to get total yards."

If you take Mike Vick out of ATL's rushing yards they are ranked 20th in the league in rushing yards!!!!

You can't compare the top 10 QB rushing teams because Vick has almost 2.5x the amount of rushing yards as ANY other QB in the fucking league. He is an outlier.

The difference between the 10th leadding QB rusher and the 25th isn't significant. The difference between the #1 QB rusher and the #2 is VERY significant...



If you think that a passing yard is worth the same thing as a rushing yard you are absolutely nuts.


On 3rd and 15 when a team lets the offense throw for 10 yards those yards are not worth much at all.

On 1st and 10 when an offense runs for 5 yards, those yards are CRITICAL.


Quick which team would you rather have. One with a 4,000 yard passing QB and a 500 yard rushing RB..... or a team with a 3,000 yard passing QB and a 1,500 yard rushing RB.

They both equal 4,500 yards, but it is CLEAR which combination is better.





[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 3:04 AM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 2:55:38 AM

top 10 qb rushing teams:

atlanta	         11-5
minnesota	8-8
houston	        7-9
philadelphia	13-3
denver	         10-6
new orleans	8-8
baltimore	9-7
detroit	         6-10
cleveland	4-12
jacksonville	9-7

8/26/2005 3:01:47 AM

^ Man, you're one to talk about irrelevant.


Who cares if the Jaguars had 119 rushing yards from the QB position and the Colts only had 32.

Do you really think I'd argue that a FIVE yard difference per game in rushing yards by a QB would make a significant difference as to what team wins and what team loses???


You do realize Mike Vick was 7.5 yards per carry right???? Those are Tecmo Super Bowl numbers.

8/26/2005 3:10:09 AM

If you are going to continue to argue the worth of Michael Vick I'm going to need to know that you at least took the time to read this post.


ATLANTA FALCONS 2003 GAME LOG

*** Mike Vick was injured in the Preseason and missed the first 3/4 of the season. He returned to start the last 4 games. Let's see what transpired. ***

Week 1: Atlanta at Dallas: So the Falcons won their first game of the season by the somewhat impressive score of 27-13. But don't let the score fool you, the Falcons struggled mightily against the lowly Cowboys, especially in the first half.

Week 3: Atlanta vs Tampa Bay: There's nothing good to say about the Falcons performance against Tampa Bay. It was terrible.

Week 4: Atlanta at Carolina: If this week's uninspired, disastrous performance against the Panthers does not increase the talk about firing Dan Reeves, then nothing will.

Week 6: Atlanta at St. Louis: There really are no words for the national embarrassment that the Falcons performance on Monday Night Football created. The crushing 36-0 defeat at the hands of the Rams earned the lowest TV audience ever for Monday Night Football. These Rams are not the same Super Bowl-Kurt Warner led team, but a banged up team playing with a second string QB and RB.

Week 7: Atlanta vs New Orleans The Falcons thankfully have their bye week next, and at this point, most fans would like to say bye to the entire season.

Week 8: Atlanta vs. Philadelphia: At least the Falcons kept things respectably close as they chalked up their 7th consecutive loss

Week 13: Atlanta at Houston: Vick came in late in the third quarter, and it was too late to stop the Falcons from losing yet again.

Okay at this point the Falcons are 2-10.


Week 14: Atlanta vs. Carolina: QB Michael Vick's return as starter, he had some moments of greatness, he also showed signs of rustiness. What Vick did do was elevate the play of his teammates, hence the interception by Mathis in OT to win it for Atlanta.

Week 16: Atlanta at Tampa Bay: The Falcons narrowly held on to win this game and knock the Bucs out of playoff contention.

Week 17: Atlanta vs. Jacksonville: The Falcons finished a disappointing season on a positive note, beating the Jaguars in the last regular season game of the year. The team finished 3-1 with the return of Vick.



[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 3:23 AM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 3:22:03 AM

Interestingly enough I just did the rushing vs passing debate for defenses as well

Some of you have made it clear that rushing yards couldn't possibly be worth more than passing yards.

So, that means theoretically the top ten team defenses against the run shouldn't be better teams than top ten team defenses against the pass...


Well guess what.

2003 and 2004 NFL seasons.

Top ten against the run: 15 teams with winning records, 5 with losing records.

Top ten against the pass: 9 teams with winning records, 10 teams with losing records, 1 team .500


So basically it is completely irrelevant whether your team puts up good pass defense numbers, while it is EXTREMELY relevant that they put up good run defense numbers.

Now if it is more important to stop the run in order to win.... wouldn't it be safe to say that it is more important TO run to win???

Rushing > Passing

"3 things can happen when you pass and 2 are bad."

8/26/2005 3:51:22 AM

Quote :

"Vick is probably as close to a One Man team as you will ever see in the NFL"

id love to see him get sacked and sacked and sacked and sacked with no o-line

yeah LeBron is great...you know what else? he hasnt won shit either...championships MAKE great athletes...nobody talks shit about michael jordan cause HE WON...vick wins games...wow...regular season games, who gives a fuck...win a title and get respect or come up short and get put in your place...he cant even beat the TO-less eagles in the playoffs

OH HE REDEFINES A POSITION

what that means hes bigger than a sport? fuck him, if the panthers had him id take him but i guarantee you he would line up in the backfield WITH delhomme...cause jake can pass, and say whatever you want about redefining a positions...A QUARTERBACK SHOULD PASS...brady can pass, he doesnt run much...joe montana can pass, he didnt run much...favre passes, he doesnt run...troy aikman and john elway pass, they dont run...they have championships

yall are probably the same fools that 2 years ago said no MLB players juiced, fuckin retards

8/26/2005 4:04:04 AM

^ If anything i was one saying that EVERYONE juices and probably overstated it. LIke I said earlier my DSL technician juices, my bartender juices, my neighbor juices, 1/10th of my gym juices. I know about as many people that do steroids as I do people that cheat on tests.


Mike Vick DOES pass.

Its not like he NEVER passes.

However, based on passing abilities alone he is a below average QB. It's his rushing ability that propels him into the top 5 QB's in the league.


Would anyone care to make a thread saying that Brian Westbrook, Ladainian Tomlinson, and Tiki Barber are overrated Running backs because a large part of their production actually comes from receiving yards??? No, because that's stupid.

You know Andy Roddick is ranked #4 in the world because he has a great serve. He's not #4 in the world without that serve. But when they do the rankings they don't say he's #25 because he relies too much on his serve. So why the fuck would we say "Oh yeah Vick is a top 5 QB, but only because of his rushing ability. Without his rushing ability he'd only be #20 so let's rank him there". It's fucking absurd guys, just stop it...



Winning a championship in b-ball is completely different than in football. In basketball you can impose your will on a game. You can be on the court for 100% of the plays rather than ~40-45% of them. In basketball you represent 20% of your team on the court at any time as opposed to 11% in football. In basketball if you are double teamed then someone else is open. In football that is not the case.

Surely you wouldnt argue that Philip RIvers wasnt a great college QB, or that Dan Marino wasnt a great Pro football QB.


Plus, Vick has only been a starting QB for TWO FREAKING YEARS!! The position in the NFL that takes the LONGEST to develop. Manning barely even won games his first two years in the league. Aikman went 1-15 his first season.

ATL still has one of the worst WR corps in the league. I'd be amazed if someone could come up with five teams with worse overall WR's.


Lebron James had absolutely NOTHING to work with. He has fared much better than Jordan did his first two years in the league.

Hell, you take Jordan off the 1994 Bulls and they won 50+ games and were the #3 seed in the East.

You take Lebron off the Cavs team and they are the laughingstock of the league. I'll flat out GUARANTEE they are one of the top 5 teams in the East this year and that takes into account that 3 of the teams in the East are absolutely loaded.



[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 4:24 AM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 4:16:30 AM

I can't wait for ncWOLFsu to get back on here and post more stats!

I reminds me of last season, when he was talking shit and posting stats on why the Steelers were going to beat the Patriots in the playoffs and people were telling him he was wrong, but he kept posting stats proving he was right! Oh, sweet memories!

And if you are one of the morons that stated earlier in this thread that Atlanta's offensive system is centered around Vick, you shouldn't even bother posting in this thread anymore, because you're obviously making shit up to try and help your case.

8/26/2005 5:10:59 AM

^If you don't think the Falcons offense is centered around Vick, you are a damn fool. You must be one of the guys that got caught up in the announcers mentioning the implementation of the new "west coast offense", while apparently not watching/understanding enough football to see the difference between the Falcons/Vick version and the standard west coast offense.

8/26/2005 6:40:22 AM

Just having read page 4....teams with more rushing yards have better records partially because they are the ones that run out the clock. Teams that rank high against the run have better records because teams aren't running the clock out on them. In a neutral situation, the key is not just running or just passing, but the ability to do both.

This is why Vick has the potential to be so great, if he can step up and become a good passer. In 2002, he looked like he was on his way to becoming one. But 2004 and the end of 2003 showed a Vick that lacked consistency, and made too many fundamental mistakes. He was a threat for a big play, but didn't have the consistency in the passing game to help out the offense every game. Those of you with Vick on your fantasy team last year should know what I'm talking about. Fantasy doesn't have anything to do with this, but it reflects his inconsistency.

8/26/2005 7:30:39 AM

11-3

pretty consistent.


He got the 'W' pretty much week in and week out.

8/26/2005 8:37:24 AM

so rally, how come you throw out all these stats about rushing yards vs passing yards and how one is more important? earlier you were saying winning is all that matters...who cares if your running and passing suck if your special teams and defense put up more points than the other team...dont act like vick's lack of passing skills and stats dont mean anything as long as he wins and then turn around and try to say how important it is that you run the ball more than pass due to stats...pick a side and stick to it

fuck vick he is gay

8/26/2005 9:52:50 AM

you guys bash me for passing "meaningless" stats that actually have something to do with michael vick, then you go and post fucking stats from OTHER teams.

you keep wavering in your points. on one hand you say vick is a clear-cut top 5 quarterback, but then you say his stats suck because he's only been the starter for 2 years. rushing yards are important, yes. but without a solid passing game, teams can stack against the run. that's what happened to the falcons in the playoffs.

vick isn't ENTIRELY horrible at passing, but all you have to do is put 9 guys in the box and play man coverage on his wideouts and you're fine. sure he'll still scramble for a 10-yard first down occasionally, but they won't dominate for 167 yards a game. i'm surprised more teams haven't dared vick to pass. give him a chance to shut me up with his arm, because right now he hasn't done so.

vick is most definitely the most mobile quarterback in the NFL, but he still has to be a quarterback. you can't take a WR that can't catch the ball and argue he's the best in the NFL because he runs an awesome reverse.

i post stats illustrating vicks current weaknesses as a quarterback, and when nobody can refute them i get targeted as a "fag" for posting stats you have no explanation for. an interesting counter to my claims...

you have teams that excel at running the ball, and you have teams that excel at passing the ball. both types of teams win games, but as Turnip pointed out, it takes both aspects to win championships. having a good defense doesn't hurt (understatement).

and since Lil G wants to talk about the steelers, we can. last year the steelers had one of the top run defenses in the NFL, if not THE top (since you don't want stats). yet in the AFC championship game, they got burned deep for scores and that's what killed them. they were an awesome rushing defense, and they got their asses HANDED to them because of a good passing attack from brady. rushing isn't everything, the game is not that one-dimensional.

once teams figure out that all you have to do is take the run away from vick and make him beat you through the air (and teams tend to mimic what works in the playoffs), you'll see vick's production go down even more until he can start making things happen through the air. once he develops a passing attack that opens the run up for himself, then (or if) he will be the great quarterback all of you claim. but not right now he isn't, not until he does that.

8/26/2005 11:15:05 AM

Quote :

"He got the 'W' pretty much week in and week out."

Yes, because Warrick Dunn's 1100 rushing yds and 9 TDs had nothing to do with it (and we all know how important rushing yds are). Sure the D and special teams didn't help either.

8/26/2005 11:32:32 AM

beat the Eagles in the playoffs, then we'll talk

8/26/2005 11:48:35 AM

Quote :

" teams with more rushing yards have better records partially because they are the ones that run out the clock."

WAIT ONE FUCKING MINUTE

Is this guy suggesting that it is entirely possible to be a good team WITHOUT producing the best passing statistics? Is this guy suggesting that it is entirely possible to have a good passing offense without producing 300 yard games????

Oh, well maybe that would explain Michael Vick and why he does not produce the best statistics in the game.

Quote :

"dont act like vick's lack of passing skills and stats dont mean anything as long as he wins and then turn around and try to say how important it is that you run the ball more than pass due to stats...pick a side and stick to it"

His passing stats don't mean anything if he wins!!!!!!! Just like Peyton Mannings lack of rushing stats means precisely dick because he wins by passing. What is hard to understand about this???

Quote :

"Yes, because Warrick Dunn's 1100 rushing yds had nothing to do with it"

HOLY FUCK, 1100 YARDS!!!!!!!!!! Did anyone else know he had 1100 yards? Why wasn't Warrick Dunn the MVP of the league????? OH that's right. FOURTEEN other guys had more than 1100 rushing yards. Holy fuck though Warrick Dunn had the 15th most rushing yards in the league he must have carried the team on his back all the way to the NFC championship.

Quote :

"i post stats illustrating vicks current weaknesses as a quarterback"

Every player in the game has a weakness If I made a thread saying Peyton Manning sucks because he can't run the ball I would get laughed at. That's why intelligent NFL fans are laughing at you...


The whole run vs pass thing started because someone attempted to "prove" that Vick wasn't good because if you add his rushing+passing yards they aren't higher than many other QB's.

I was just explaining that your method was completely ludicrous because 1 rushing yard > 1 passing yard.

Daunte Culpepper threw for more yards than Vick, we get it. Were you aware that he also threw 227 more incompletions than Vick???? Tell me where your calculations include those incompletions that killed drives???

8/26/2005 12:01:00 PM

Quote :

"Daunte Culpepper threw for more yards than Vick, we get it. Were you aware that he also threw 227 more incompletions than Vick???? Tell me where your calculations include those incompletions that killed drives???"

you're a complte idiot. FIRST, culpepper had 227 more attempts than vick, not incompletions. in his 227 more ATTEMPTS, culpepper had 198 more completions and only 29 more incompletions. culpepper had 69.2% completions compared to vick's 56.4%.

you are a complete fucktard, stop posting.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:22 PM. Reason : %]

8/26/2005 12:21:33 PM

Look I'm going to attempt to broaden your knowledge of football.

The following will go right over some people's heads and that is to be expected.

I've come to accept that not everyone can understand sports at my level. Similarly I accept that I don't understand Legends of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto, and other games where you take magic wands to castles and cast spells onto evil warlords... The difference is i dont go to fantasy world websites and try to argue with the people there.


Some people are having trouble accepting that rushing yards are worth more than passing yards. So I'm going to try to simplify this for you.

There are TWO distinct types of yardage. I'm going to label the first variety as "Down Yards" and the second as "field position yards".

"Down Yards" are yards that count towards achieving a first down.

"Field Position Yards" are yards that only serve toward advancing the ball to your goaline.

When a player runs the ball for 7 yards on 1st and 10 he receives 7 "Down Yards".

When a player runs the ball for 8 yards on 3rd and 5 he receives 5 "Down Yards" and 3 "Field Position Yards".

When a player catches a pass for 27 yards on 1st and 10 he receives 10 "Down Yards" and 17 "Field Position Yards".

When a player returns a punt for 9 yards he receives 0 "Down Yards" and 9 "Field Position Yards[/b]

When a player punts the ball for 48 yards he receives 0 "Down Yards" and 48 "Field Position Yards[/b]

As you can see, yards accrued after a first down is achieved are worth EXACTLY the same as kickoff return yards, punt return yards, and punting yards.


It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a significantly higher percentage of rushing yards will fall under the "Down Yards" category while a significantly higher percentage of receiving yards will fall under the "Field Position" category.


Like I said, its over some of your heads, but at least I tried to help...

8/26/2005 12:21:54 PM

^^^Atlanta led the league in rushing yards last year. Part of this is due to Vick, but I'm not arguing that Vick isn't a good runner, just that he's a bad passer. I don't know if other people are arguing different things here, they probably are.

The raw statistics like yardage and what not are fairly trivial when evaluating a QB. You're right. A better way to evaluate a QB is to do what the scouts do, watch him and discover his strengths and weaknesses. You're also right that every player has weaknesses, the non-joke ones in the first post of this thread are Vick's weaknesses. To be fair, I'd say his strengths are:

Arm strength
Running (burst, elusiveness, speed)
Mobility inside the pocket (getting second chances)
Throwing on the run

Factor his strengths in with his weaknesses and you get Vick, a flawed passer but an excellent scrambler and a threat for a big run.

One important thing to note is that Wins is not a stat that should be attributed to a QB. It's just not fair.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ^^^]

8/26/2005 12:22:25 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a significantly higher percentage of rushing yards will fall under the "Down Yards" category while a significantly higher percentage of receiving yards will fall under the "Field Position" category."

but apparantly it takes one to figure out the difference between a pass attempt and an incompletion. of course, after watching vick for so long i can see where you might have gotten confused.

8/26/2005 12:25:04 PM

^ whoops my mistake. It was attempts. Listen buddy I know more about football than you could even dream of. I've busted your ass in this thread for about 15 consecutive hours now. I don't expect you to publicly concede, you're just gonna stick to your guns and go down in flames when Vick continues to terrorize the NFL.

But back to the subject.. He had 227 more attempts. OF COURSE HE HAD MORE FUCKING YARDS MORON.


If Julius Hodge took 100 more threes than Evtimov last year he'd probably have hit more threes. That doesn't make him a better shooter than Evtimov.


ANd btw, where have I EVER said Vick was better than Culpepper in this thread? I said Vick was a top 5 QB and I certainly agree that Culpepper is a top 5 QB.


BTW, does Randy Moss not play any part in Culpepper's success???? I mean is it fair to say Terrell Owens played some part in McNabbs success last year??? I mean he threw for 650 yards more than he did the year before. So is it not fair to add 500-700 yards to Vick's total to account for what he might do if he actually had a top notch receiver like most QBs do???

Quote :

"Atlanta led the league in rushing yards last year. Part of this is due to Vick"

I just don't think enough of you understand how large of an understatement this is. If you take away Vick's rushing yards then Atlanta ranks 20th in rushing. That is BAD. To act like Atlanta had some vaunted rushing attack sans Vick is just absurd really....

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:34 PM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 12:26:48 PM

culpepper did have more yards because he threw more. he also completed a larger PERCENTAGE of his throws. get that part? percentage? yeah, that takes into consideration the number of completed passes versus the number of attempts. so, regardless of how many each of them threw, you could compare the PERCENTAGE. still with me?

and what else would you be trying to say. you say culpepper killed more drives with his higher completion percentage and his 2000 more yards and 24 more touchdowns. moss missed several games last year. only 49 of culpepper's 379 completions were to moss. take away all of moss's production and that's still about 4400 yards and 28 TD's for culpepper. and yes, any intelligent person would know that moss did more than his numbers because it created oppurtunities for the other WR's to get open, but the fact remains that moss missed several games due to injury (3 complete ones, and he was a gimp in about 3 more).

^to think atlanta had a great rushing attack sans dunn or duckett would be absurd as well. all three of them played HUGE roles in that rushing attack.

Quote :

"Listen buddy I know more about football than you could even dream of."

apparantly you don't. numbers aren't everything, but they're all you see on the scoreboard, too. the other quarterbacks i've mentioned put more numbers on the scoreboard. but i bet you think those numbers are meaningless, too.

if the game of football was centered around which team could run the ball better with their quarterback, vick would be the best in the NFL, no doubt about it. but last time i checked, it wasn't, and that was about 5 minutes ago.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2005 12:33:32 PM

^ okay so now you're adjusting for Moss we are getting somewhere..... now go ahead and adjust for Nate BUrleson who put up over 1,000 yards.

Cause I bet you cant even name ATL's 2nd leading WR without looking it up....

Culpepper completed a larger percentage of his throws, correct. Culpepper is a better passer than Vick I dont think anyone would argue otherwise.

Now we need to account for the following. We need to take into consideration how many of those yards were just "field position yards" and weigh them accordingly.

Then we need to take into consideration the fact that Culpepper was playing from behind many games and that he was dropping back to pass on every play with multiple receiver sets.

Next we need to account for the fact that by passing so frequently there were more total plays ran in Vikings games than in Falcons games...


Let me know when you've come up with an effective formula that takes all these factors into account and then ill hit you with another 3-4 factors to consider

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:45 PM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 12:39:32 PM

ok so you're argument is to take away all of culpepper's strengths and then compare him to vick?

i took away randy moss and culpepper still shattered vick's stats. the reason why atlanta didn't have a 1000 yard WR is BECAUSE vick doesnt throw. in 2002, Peerless Price's last year in Buffalo, he had 1252 yards and 9 TD's with DREW BLEDSOE at quarterback. even vick is a better qb than bledsoe, so don't tell me he doesn't have any receivers to work with.

8/26/2005 12:48:43 PM

^ When Peerless was a #2 WR playing alongside Eric Moulds who drew all the defensive attention.


ZING! I can bust up weak arguments like that all day.

Quote :

"ok so you're argument is to take away all of culpepper's strengths"

Having good receivers is one of Culpeppers strengths? Gee I never saw that on the scouting report.

Being behind in the 4th quarter is one of Culpeppers strengths? Gee, that seems like an odd thing to strive for.


You are never going to beat me. I live for this kind of stuff. I am the Bill O'Reilly of sports talk.

8/26/2005 12:55:16 PM

Drew Bledsoe was still a serviceable QB then... hell I'll even argue that he still is today. He had a bad season last year b/c the playcalling was very conservative up until they had those scoring outbursts (this I know, because I had Bledsoe and Eric Moulds in a fantasy league last year and the little news update thingys confirmed this).


Price put up those numbers as a #2 wideout when everyone in the NFL was still considering Moulds a top-10 wide receiver. Price thrives in that #2 receiver mold. Unfortunately for the Falcons, they have four other guys at his position that are the exact same way...

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:58 PM. Reason : 4958]

8/26/2005 12:57:46 PM

moulds only had 40 yards and 1 TD more than price that year. that's a pretty even distribution. price is still the #2 target on the falcons, because vick's go to guy is alge crumpler

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2005 12:58:22 PM

Why is Crumpler Vick's main target?


Because he's easily a top 10 tight end in the NFL and none of his wide receivers crack the top 40.

8/26/2005 12:59:46 PM

Quote :

"I just don't think enough of you understand how large of an understatement this is"

I understand, but it was irrelevant to my point that he is a bad passer

8/26/2005 1:07:41 PM

those were definitely top 40 numbers for price in 2002 with a different point. maybe there is a reason none of atlanta's wideouts can crack the top 40? it's a chicken and egg comparison. great quarterbacks make their wideouts better. there are very few randy moss, terrell owens, and marvin harrison type players out there. most of them, especially the #2 and #3 guys are what they are because of their quarterbacks.

last year drew bennett didn't do shit until mcnair went down, then volek comes in and bennett is exploding for 150 yard, 3 TD games as the #2 receiver. you can't talk vick into the top 5 among quarterbacks. that's something that has to be done on the field.

8/26/2005 1:07:54 PM

^^^^ oh come on who gives a shit about distribution.

I'm talking about the fact that Eric Moulds drew double teams on every play which freed Peerless up more.


Marvin Harrison had 36 yards more than Brandon Stokley last year. Now I'm waiting on you to tell me that Stokley is just as good as Harrison.

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 1:10 PM. Reason : a]

8/26/2005 1:08:47 PM

you're also comparing the #1 to the #3 there instead of #1 vs #2

it's not like teams completely gameplanned for moulds that year and forgot about price. they came off the double teams on moulds to cover price as well once bledsoe starting going to him more. my point was that price was the #2 guy in buffalo that year, and he's the #2 target in atlanta. why would anyone double up on price when they know crumpler is the main target?

same situation, different quarterback, different results.

8/26/2005 1:12:50 PM

rushing > passing

when you pass
3 things can happen
and only 1 is a good thing

8/26/2005 1:47:38 PM

You guys are both way too stubborn to ever admit that the other is right, although I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore.

8/26/2005 1:50:16 PM

vick is so much better at being clutch and getting first downs?

much better than culpepper even?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TOTAL/2004/regular?sort_col_1=7&_1:col_1=9

looks like minnesota converted 52.3% of their 3rd downs (rank #1) and atlanta only converted 36.3% of their 3rd downs (rank #18)

8/26/2005 1:52:19 PM

when you pass heres what can happen:

1. reception
2. incompletion
3. interception

when you run heres what can happen:

1. gain positive yards
2. lose yards
3. fumble

god that stat about rushing > passing is so fucking stupid

8/26/2005 1:53:52 PM

Quote :

"rushing > passing when you pass 3 things can happen and only 1 is a good thing"

3 things for passing
Good: completion
Bad: incompletion, interception

3 things for rushing
Good: gain
Bad: no gain/loss, fumble

so what's the difference?

^grr, you beat me by 1 minute

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 1:55 PM. Reason : d'oh]

8/26/2005 1:54:52 PM

^exactly...its a fucking stupid argument...apparently nobody but you and I remember TA McLendon anymore

would we rather have Rivers throwing or McLendon running?

Just cause Vick isn't an accurate passer doesn't mean Ahman Green isnt prone to fumble

8/26/2005 1:56:23 PM

for real

this is ridiculous

8/26/2005 2:05:00 PM

i think when vick broke his leg a couple years ago it was on a scramble right

8/26/2005 2:05:40 PM

Have you people never heard that "three things can happen when you throw the ball, and only one of them is good" before?

It used to be the way football was taught.

The game has of course changed a shitload since that time.

8/26/2005 2:05:44 PM

^ that's probably one of those things they say at high school football practices because all the quarterbacks suck huge amounts of ass

and yes i've heard it said before, but it never seemed to make much sense due to what TreeTwista and I pointed out

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:08 PM. Reason : add]

8/26/2005 2:07:58 PM

when you pass heres what can happen:

1. reception
2. incompletion
3. interception

when you run OR CATCH A PASS heres what can happen:

1. gain positive yards
2. lose yards
3. fumble

[Edited on August 26, 2005 at 2:09 PM. Reason : QBs can fumble too]

8/26/2005 2:09:18 PM

i don't care if it's been said before. it's a ridiculous statement. it's like saying "two things can happen when you go to the ATM machine to withdraw cash, and only one of them is good" or some shit.

running for no gain is the same as an incomplete pass. the latter happens way more though. rushing for a loss is the same as completing a pass for a loss. the former happens way more. these pretty much negate each other. you can throw an interception, you can fumble the ball, etc. there's an equal number of pros and cons for both. stop being retarded.

8/26/2005 2:11:40 PM