OKay let me go ahead and help you out.

McNair? He stinks

McNabb? Hahaha

Warner? hahahaha, great call. guess thats why he cant hold a starting joob anywhere

Brunell? Hilarious. he stinks.

Delhomme? Give me a break, have you seen the panthers?

Trent Green? He cant even complete passes this year

Bledsoe? You cant be serious at this point. The human sack artist? The human drive killer?

plummer? good season, but give me a fucking break. look at those career stats.

Brees? nope, try again

LEftiwch? he hasnt been very good

Bulger has played what 5 games this year....

Roethlisberger... did you see the last two weeks?

hasslebeck MAYBE

brady MAYBE (did you see last week?)

12/4/2005 5:23:06 PM

Quote :

"brady MAYBE (did you see last week?)"

brady or vick

gee, that's a hard decision

12/4/2005 5:31:37 PM

i know... before the season i woulda taken Brady but after this year it's definitely debatable.

I think Id go with Brady because of the durability issue.



It's a tough call though.... obviously if you have a team like the Patriots that just needs you not to lose games you'd take Brady... and obviously on a team like the Falcons that needs you to win the game for them you'd take Vick.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 5:38 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2005 5:34:59 PM

you can't tell me you'd take a michael vick-led team over a tom brady-led team in the super bowl

12/4/2005 5:37:00 PM

Of course I can.

It depends on what team they are quarterbacking.


I mean.... I took the Pats over the Colts in the AFC championship last year because the Pats were better than the colts.

It doesnt mean that hands down Manning isn't twice the QB that Brady is...

12/4/2005 5:39:55 PM

^depends on who else is on the team.


Vick works in ATL and Brady works in NE. Either could go somewhere else and do horrible.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2005 5:40:07 PM

Quote :

"Brunell? Hilarious. he stinks. Delhomme? Give me a break, have you seen the panthers? Brees? nope, try again Trent Green? He cant even complete passes this year plummer? good season, but give me a fucking break. look at those career stats."

-brunell has 15 tds and 5 INT's. ya that's horrible. the only reason they're 5-6 is because the defense has lost like 5 games all by theirselves in the last minute.

-plummer went like 7 games without a pick. 15 td's and 6 picks. and the broncos are 9-2. vick threw half the number of picks TODAY than plummer has thrown ALL SEASON before today. the argument is the better qb, not the better career.

-delhomme has 18 td passes and 13 picks. oh, and he is 9-3, and vick worshippers have always used the 'wins games' argument(until now).

-and if you truly think trent green is not good at completing passes, then I think you might be joking. his completion percentage is 62 to vick's 57. 13 td's and 8 picks on the year for green. not to mention he has 1000 more passing yards than vick.

-brees has 18 tds and 11 picks, with a 65 completion percentage.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2005 6:03:41 PM

Quote :

"LEftiwch? he hasnt been very good"

oh, and leftwich also has 15 td's and 5 int's. you have a pretty fucking wishy-washy definition of a good quarterback.

12/4/2005 6:04:57 PM

good job looking up everyones stats.


now try watching them play instead and you might get somewhere.



Everyone knows Brees stats are better than he is. He has the most dynamic RB in the league to make his life easy. If that weren't enough he has a goalline target in Antonio Gates that is almost indefensible.

Delhomme has been pretty bad this season. Did you witness the Chicago game where he sucked sac? what about the Detroit game, where we won in spite of him? Perhaps you saw the contest at Buffalo last week?

Just because Steve Smith turns 4 yard completions into 80 yard TD's, does not make Jake better than Vick


PLummer has an awesome rushing attack to work with and is having his first good season EVER. I'm sorry its just not right to take a guy who has been terrible for ten consecutive seasons and then say he's better than Vick based on 2/3rds of ONE season.


Brunell is having an up year by his standards, but his standards aren't very high because he's an average QB at best. Once again, you cant just take 80 yard TD runs by Santana Moss and attribute them completely to Brunell.

Give Vick a few playmakers and then lets see....


WHo cares if Vick threw INTs at the end of the game? What was he supposed to do kneel the fucking ball? He was trying to make things happen, not pad his statistics.

Quote :

"and vick worshippers have always used the 'wins games' argument(until now)."

I am by no means a Vick "worshipper". I'm just not stupid enough to argue that he's not one of the best QB's in the league.

He IS winning games. The Falcons are 7-5 with him starting this year. And guess what, the Falcons are not a good football team.

If you put Mark Brunell or Drew fucking Bledsoe out there they would have been eliminated from the playoff race weeks ago.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:15 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2005 6:11:33 PM

i remember the VT game this year when Vick was walking off the sideline and all the people yelling at him that julius peppers was gonna fuck him up and stuff

12/4/2005 6:15:27 PM

hah. doesn't matter. Every QB has had bad days or will have one so none of them are perfect.

^ and vick got owned today.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2005 6:16:05 PM

so i guess warrick dunn and alge crumpler are shit? since vick aparrently has no one around him?

12/4/2005 6:21:52 PM

passing yards mean precisely dick

#1 St. Louis --- bad team, bad QB's have started 50% of their games
#2 Arizona --- worse team, bad QBs have started 100% of their games
#3 Philly --- bad team, McNabb was bad when he played, now they have a bad QB
#4 N.E. --- okay team, good QB
#5 Cincy --- Carson Palmer, great QB
#6 Indy --- Peyton Manning, one of the best passers of all time
#7 Oakland --- bad team, great WR's, big arm QB that can kill you
#8 Green Bay --- bad team, a QB that places stats above the win
#9 San Diego --- pretty good/borderline playoff team, good QB
#10 Tennessee --- awful team, bad QB


Rushing stats on the other hand

#1 Atlanta --- okay team, bad defense
#2 Denver --- great team
#3 Seattle --- best record in the NFC
#4 Kan City --- good team
#5 San Diego --- pretty good team
#6 Chicago --- 2nd best record in NFC
#7 Indy --- potentially the best team ever
#8 NYG --- very good team
#9 Pitt --- very good team
#10 Wash --- okay team



Stop hiding behind passing statistics. NFL coaches do not sit around all week thinking "gee, how can we get down 21-0 in the first half so that our QB can throw for 300 yards this week"

12/4/2005 6:33:36 PM

so throwing less picks than someone else isn't a good thing? plummer 6 picks, brunell 5, leftwich 5, man those guys suck.but i guess INT's and wins dont matter, since vick leading a team w/ a probowl RB and TE to seven wins means he is better than everyone else.

wait, wtf are you even talking about. I only mentioned yards for one or two players, which also had better completion %'s than vick.

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:39 PM. Reason : juj]

12/4/2005 6:38:20 PM

dude there is a fucking 11 page thread where i made 100 posts detailing why mike vick is a good QB.

stop, you cant honestly believe he's not one of the top QB's in the league.

i realize people dont like him for some reason, but enough is enough already


they have a good RB (not a great one) and a good tight end (not a great one). He gets both of those guys involved nearly every game. What else do you want from him? Does he have to throw a TD on every pass or something?

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:41 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2005 6:40:03 PM

ya, I hate having a runningback that has >1000 yards 12 games into the season

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2005 6:43:32 PM

I'm not going to claim that Michael Vick is a bad quarterback, but he's risky in that you have to design your entire offense around his style of play. If he gets injured, you're going to be hard pressed to find another QB to step into that position and keep that same offense working. I can't think of any other QB in the league that would fit into the Atlanta offensive mold, but then again Vick wouldn't be a good fit for every other offense in the league as they stand now. He would probably shine at Denver, but then again I don't know if he'd be able to withstand a full game at that altitude during home games without giving out.

12/4/2005 6:45:16 PM

They are ranked FIFTH in first downs.

and SECOND in 3rd down efficiency.


If that isn't the sign of a good offense then I don't know what is.


At the end of the game, yards DO NOT MATTER.

Points for and points against is how wins/losses are decided.

I'm goign to take the team that can move the ball everytime, not the team that has flashy stats.

12/4/2005 6:46:33 PM

once again wtf are you talking about. you claimed vick had no playmakers on the team, while he has a probowler in warrick dunn who got >1000 yards in 12 games and a top five TE.

12/4/2005 6:49:06 PM

Crumpler is a hell of a playmaker too.

12/4/2005 6:50:00 PM

I said he has no WR's.

Crumpler is a good Tight end. He's not THAT special though... there are tons of good TE's around the league... like 10 teams have a playmaking TE now...

And Vick throws to Crumpler plenty. He gets doubleteamed every play because he's the only receiver they can throw too...

Warrick Dunn is a good RB, absolutely. Is he in a class with James, LDT, Alexander nope....

does he get aided by Vicks ability to scramble? yep...

does he help Vick's passing stats? not really...

they are so busy rushing for first downs and getting out to early leads that he actually hurts his passing statistics...

And getting his WR's single coverage doesnt do much because his receivers aren't good enough to take advantage of that.

12/4/2005 7:09:46 PM

^^and we shut his ass down today

[Edited on December 4, 2005 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2005 7:09:49 PM

no you didn't you said "give vick a few playmakers"

12/4/2005 7:22:14 PM

Quote :

"what happened to that dude who was all about "great QB's make the plays to win the game for their team" and "all that matters is wins." Where's he now? "

Let's tally it up for the season fuckstick, how many games has Vick handed to the other team vs. how many times favre has done it. I hate Vick, make no mistake. I enjoyed the shit out of every pick and sack we punished him with today. But you guys can't get it through your cheese-skulls that Favre is washed-up and Vick is a better qb at this point in time.

and oh yeah, to the dumb shit who kept saying that the packers this year werent as bad as the panthers were in 2004. It is now official. Favre the master, who 'wins games all by himself' has a stellar 2-10 mark as of now.



It's too bad Favre only gets to do this after he tosses a TD to the other team, he used to be good.

12/4/2005 10:20:50 PM

anyone have a problem with what Vick did last night?


Name a team with a worse defense than Atlanta that has 5 losses or less right now...

12/13/2005 11:19:12 PM

OMG HE BEAT NEW ORLEANS TIME TO PRAISE HIM AGAIN.

12/14/2005 12:16:24 AM

Quote :

"Name a team with a worse defense than Atlanta that has 5 losses or less right now..."

12/14/2005 12:49:20 AM

^ Bengals, Broncos, Pats, Vikings, and Giants


Yards/game

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 4:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2005 4:32:59 AM

Atlanta - 19.5 ppg, 317 ypg, 117 rush ypg, 27 TO


Bengals - 19.9 ppg, 327 ypg, 117 rush ypg, 40 TO
Pretty equal except they've forced THIRTEEN more turnovers... Cincy's D is better than Atl's.

Broncos - 17.8 ppg, 326 ypg, 85 rush ypg, 31 TO
Ranked 2nd against the run. Total yards are misleading because they are nearly always in the lead. Clearly a better defense than Atl's

Giants - 18.5 ppg, 321 ypg, 99 rush ypg, 29 TO
At this point this is actually a very good defense. Their stats are somewhat misleading due to a slow start, but even still their overall stats compare favorably with Atlanta's.

Pats - Statistically, this is a worse defense than the Falcons. Their record is inflated by their atrocious division...

Vikings - Statistically, this is a worse defense than the Falcons. Their record is inflated by their atrocious division... please note that this defense was overhauled in the offseason and performed miserably early on but has improved considerably.


Analysis

Of the four teams who have semi-comparable defenses STATISTICALLY (Bengals, Giants, Vikings, Pats) we have the following QB's: Palmer, Manning, Brady, and Culpepper/Johnson.

Basically everyone (myself included) had Brady ranked ahead of Vick.

Everyone who isn't a fool has Carson Palmer now ranked ahead of Vick (though he was not better prior to this season).

Everyone can see that Eli Manning is a stud in the making. He may not be quite as good as Vick yet, but he certainly has a winning mentality and is certainly close to Vick's level. Also note that Eli has better skill position players (Plaxico, Tiki, Shockey, Toomer) than Vick (White, Dunn, Crumpler, Finneran).

The Vikings are a bit of an anomaly. The weakness of their division accounts for some of their record, but the rest is a bit fluky. Clearly Culpepper was awful during his stint, and clearly Brad Johnson is not on the same playing field as Mike VIck.

12/14/2005 6:27:21 AM

so now stats fucking matter

give it up

12/14/2005 8:56:50 AM

Hahaha, that motherfucker tried to say that the Broncos have a worse defense than the Falcons.

Dumbass.

12/14/2005 10:50:05 AM

hahaha so now he talks stats

12/14/2005 11:07:21 AM

Actually, he was explaining stats that someone else brought up.

Pretty easy to see that if you're not a fucking idiot.

Of course, it's hard for disgruntled Panthers and Steelers fans to see straight right now.

12/14/2005 11:09:29 AM

how exactly

does that make the fact that he is still

talking stats

any less true?

you fuckwad?

12/14/2005 11:17:21 AM

Tell me where he's wrong.

You can't.

Not only because you lack the necessary knowledge when it comes to the NFL, but because he's right.

12/14/2005 11:24:28 AM

tell me again

where i said he was wrong?

you fuck wad?

12/14/2005 11:26:28 AM

We know where you stand.

Hey, good predicitions on State beating Iowa and the Panthers beating the Colts in the Super Bowl.

You know a lot about sports.

12/14/2005 11:30:20 AM

ah

so in essence

you were talking out of your ass.

and turned to someone being wrong on a prediction to make yourself feel better

gotcha

you lose at life.

fuckwad.

12/14/2005 11:34:13 AM

don't mind Lil G. Poor guy think's he some type of NFL analyst or some shit, sittin up there with Tom Jackson and crew.

In truth he's just a bandwagoneer and troller/flamer. Don't feed him.

12/14/2005 11:35:20 AM

dont worry

i am at work, getting paid for this.

12/14/2005 11:36:52 AM

^^^Show me one post where you've known the fuck what you were talking about. You post meaningless shit in a bunch of threads and make a prediction every once in a while. When you do, you end up being wrong.

^^HEY, another disgruntled Panthers fan! Welcome to the party!

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 11:38:21 AM

Youre hurting my feelings

really

youve defined irony:

Quote :

"Show me one post where you've known the fuck what you were talking about. "

you really are a sad

12/14/2005 11:46:12 AM

Thanks for proving my point.

12/14/2005 11:49:55 AM

least i could do

you proved mine 6 posts up.

12/14/2005 11:52:10 AM

Pad.

Hey, let's compare track records.

Oh, wait. You don't really have one.

12/14/2005 11:55:09 AM

dude

its nobodys fault but your mothers that you were born with a small dick

now get off mine

12/14/2005 11:56:35 AM

It seems like we've run out of substance.

Of course, you never really had any.

Nice try, though.

Now, about those track records......I'm still waiting.

12/14/2005 11:58:55 AM

if you havent noticed

i dont give a shit about what you think of my track record.

definately not enough to go dig up all of my predictions on past seasons.

I will give you this though. I have no dobut that rallydurham, and perhaps you, know more about the NFL than I do.

The difference is I use this for entertainment and getting nancys like you riled up. Where as you use it for some kind of tool to make yourself feel better.

yet you fail even at that Dont worry though, there are shallow women out there.

12/14/2005 12:04:38 PM

nobody said rally was wrong about the defenses. it's just funny that he talks stats after bashing me for bringing stats into the vick picture originally

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 12:06:18 PM

^^I'm not riled up. I'm just laughing at you.

^There's a huge difference between his posts and yours. Of course, we don't expect you to notice that.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 12:07:16 PM