Is Michael Vick a top 5 Qb

[PredsFan77]

Yes, because I believe he threw the game against the Saints....that's the only way I can explain it.

[jcurry3rd]

Originally Posted by JCD

He isn't your favorite QB, but he is your favorite player? Doesn't overall player trump QB?

You overstate the unbeatability of the Saints. It was a high-emotion game, but any and all teams are beatable. That this "ubeatable" team managed only 16 points (by your count) is a telling statement.

Again, the only games Vick takes over seems to be games were his defense slams the door on the offense and when he isn't required to throw the ball at all.

not really because in his day LT. #56 was my favorite player and Boomer was my favorite QB but the reason for that was i played against norm in Highschool!

[JCD]

Originally Posted by jcurry3rd

not really because in his day LT. #56 was my favorite player and Boomer was my favorite QB but the reason for that was i played against norm in Highschool!

You really are all over the place. I was referencing a specific statement you have made:

Originally Posted by jcurry3rd

he (Vick) is not my favorite QB Eli is

OK then. On your "Favorite QB" list, Eli is #1. Vick can be no higher than #2 then.

Originally Posted by jcurry3rd

but he (Vick) is my favorite player,

This is where you make no sense. Vick, as a QB, is second o Eli as favorite QB, then how can be your favorite player?

Judging on your responses, I would say Vick is indeed your #1 guy.

[jcurry3rd]

Originally Posted by JCD

He isn't your favorite QB, but he is your favorite player? Doesn't overall player trump QB?

You overstate the unbeatability of the Saints. It was a high-emotion game, but any and all teams are beatable. That this "ubeatable" team managed only 16 points (by your count) is a telling statement.

Again, the only games Vick takes over seems to be games were his defense slams the door on the offense and when he isn't required to throw the ball at all.

LT of the G-Men was my favorite player but Montana was my favorite QB back then so player doesnt out trump QB i like mike for things he does ie. leaderrship win games run with ball. Eli QBing Giants has one of toughest QB jobs in NFL Media crunch and he does it with an aw shucks attitude. hope this clears up the mystery that is my warped sensibility

LT Changed the linebacking position the way Mike is Changing the established QB standards

[JCD]

Originally Posted by jcurry3rd

LT of the G-Men was my favorite player but Montana was my favorite QB back then so player doesnt out trump QB i like mike for things he does ie. leaderrship win games run with ball. Eli QBing Giants has one of toughest QB jobs in NFL Media crunch and he does it with an aw shucks attitude. hope this clears up the mystery that is my warped sensibility

LT Changed the linebacking position the way Mike is Changing the established QB standards

If really doesn't clear up anything. If Vick is your favorite player, how can Eli be your favorite QB?

More importantly, Vick has not changed jack. There is NOTHING Vick has done or is doing that somebody else has not already. And done so arguably better.

You do realize that Vick doesn't even hold the QB rushing record? Vick is in his 6th season now. Cunningham set the NFL Rushing Record for a QB in his 6th season. Only by that time, Cunningham already had multiple league MVP's (he has the most in league history). Cunnginham was a better runner for his era than Vick is today, only Cunningham CRUSHES Vick as a passer. Cunningham could actually beat you with is arm as well as his legs. Vick can't.

The notion that QBs like Vick have never been seen is total hogwash. Pure, inaccurate, uneducated hype.

[commissioner_acc]

Eli QBing Giants has one of toughest QB jobs in NFL Media crunch and he does it with an aw shucks attitude.

I want to gag after reading that sentence.

[Jomichka]

I can't say top 5 either. I'm certainly not going to say he's a bad quarterback and I don't think many are trying to say that, he's just not top 5 good.

I like your comment JCD. Cunningham was so much fun for me to watch, never saw him in person although that would have been awesome. Although off topic I was really hoping he'd win a super bowl.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Jomichka

I can't say top 5 either. I'm certainly not going to say he's a bad quarterback and I don't think many are trying to say that, he's just not top 5 good.

I like your comment JCD. Cunningham was so much fun for me to watch, never saw him in person although that would have been awesome. Although off topic I was really hoping he'd win a super bowl.

I don't think anybody is saying Vick isn't a good QB. But there is a difference between good and top-5. Vick is absolutely in the upper half of starters, if not the top-10. He is just a limited player who can't lead a team with his arm. In a weird way, he is a over-glorified game manager: he plays well with a lead and is tough to beat when he doesn't have to throw. Put him in a situation where he needs to drop back, he is going to let you down.

Cunningham is one of the more under-rated QBs in NFL history IMO. You never hear about him when mentioning the all-time greats, likely because he never won the SuperBowl. But in terms of individual achievements, he ranks among the best QBs ever. To date, the best running QB ever. To go with a commanding passing presence. For many years, he WAS the Eagles offense. He couldn't carry them the distance in the post-season, but no QB has ever singularly carried his team like that.

As a Vikings fan, I was REALLY hoping he would have won a SuperBowl as well. If not for some boneheaded coaching decisions by Green abd Robert Smith (Anderson takes way too much heat: it should have never come down to that kick), he could have.

[commissioner_acc]

Originally Posted by JCD

I don't think anybody is saying Vick isn't a good QB. But there is a difference between good and top-5. Vick is absolutely in the upper half of starters, if not the top-10. He is just a limited player who can't lead a team with his arm. In a weird way, he is a over-glorified game manager: he plays well with a lead and is tough to beat when he doesn't have to throw. Put him in a situation where he needs to drop back, he is going to let you down.

Cunningham is one of the more under-rated QBs in NFL history IMO. You never hear about him when mentioning the all-time greats, likely because he never won the SuperBowl. But in terms of individual achievements, he ranks among the best QBs ever. To date, the best running QB ever. To go with a commanding passing presence. For many years, he WAS the Eagles offense. He couldn't carry them the distance in the post-season, but no QB has ever singularly carried his team like that.

As a Vikings fan, I was REALLY hoping he would have won a SuperBowl as well. If not for some boneheaded coaching decisions by Green abd Robert Smith (Anderson takes way too much heat: it should have never come down to that kick), he could have.

I agree with all the above except for the Cunningham bit. In terms of single game achievements and career QB rushing stats he may rank with the best but career passing achievements, no sir. He wasn't consistent enough from year to year compared to his peers. So why should he be mentioned with all-time greats? That would mean he is a future hall of famer and I don't think he is. Are you arguing Cunningham for the hall of fame. Compare him to Steve Young who was just enshrined. Their styles were similar and their careers were parallel. Young's numbers were much, much better and of course he had the benefit of playing on stronger teams. I will grant you that Denny Green may have cost him a SB appearance but even so he is not a hall of famer in my book. Therefore the under-rated gripe doesn't have merit. My opinion. Under-rated is a player who's not in the HOF but should be based on qualifications.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by commissioner_acc

I agree with all the above except for the Cunningham bit. In terms of single game achievements and career QB rushing stats he may rank with the best but career passing achievements, no sir. He wasn't consistent enough from year to year compared to his peers. So why should he be mentioned with all-time greats? That would mean he is a future hall of famer and I don't think he is. Are you arguing Cunningham for the hall of fame. Compare him to Steve Young who was just enshrined. Their styles were similar and their careers were parallel. Young's numbers were much, much better and of course he had the benefit of playing on stronger teams. I will grant you that Denny Green may have cost him a SB appearance but even so he is not a hall of famer in my book. Therefore the under-rated gripe doesn't have merit. My opinion. Under-rated is a player who's not in the HOF but should be based on qualifications.

Agree to disagree. Cunningham is among the top-30 All Time in pretty much everything. IMO, he would have been higher if not for injuries. At his peak, he was consistently finishing in the top-10 for passing yards, passer rating, and passing TDs. Combine his good passing numbers (good, not great) with outstanding rusing and that is why he is a HOF and under-rated IMO. He was what people hoped Vick would become.

As for Young, is that even valid? Yes, Young was better. How does that change any of Cunningham's accomishments? IMO, it is like saying Martin shouldn't get HOF consideration because he wasn't as good as Sanders. It is holding somebody up to an impossible standard.

On a side-note, they are not as much better as you would think. Young actually played more games in his career (3). That gap in TDs (33) and Passing Yards (4000) isn't that great considering the gap in talent around them.

[Troy McClure]

Originally Posted by jcurry3rd

LT Changed the linebacking position the way Mike is Changing the established QB standards

What has he changed?

[commissioner_acc]

Originally Posted by JCD

Agree to disagree. Cunningham is among the top-30 All Time in pretty much everything. IMO, he would have been higher if not for injuries. At his peak, he was consistently finishing in the top-10 for passing yards, passer rating, and passing TDs. Combine his good passing numbers (good, not great) with outstanding rusing and that is why he is a HOF and under-rated IMO. He was what people hoped Vick would become.

As for Young, is that even valid? Yes, Young was better. How does that change any of Cunningham's accomishments? IMO, it is like saying Martin shouldn't get HOF consideration because he wasn't as good as Sanders. It is holding somebody up to an impossible standard.

On a side-note, they are not as much better as you would think. Young actually played more games in his career (3). That gap in TDs (33) and Passing Yards (4000) isn't that great considering the gap in talent around them.

I would answer yes it is valid. It doesn't change his accomplishments but players need to be measured against each other to determine the best do they not?

If you're going to argue he is HOF caliber, and you can, I should be able to compare him to a Hall of Famer from the same era with a similar style. If Cunningham's numbers were closer to Young's I would have a harder time disagreeing with you. We'll see how the voters view him when his name comes up. Not sure if you read Dr. Z of SI but he goes to great lengths to spell out why he considers players HOF worthy and why he does not.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by commissioner_acc

I would answer yes it is valid. It doesn't change his accomplishments but players need to be measured against each other to determine the best do they not?

If you're going to argue he is HOF caliber, and you can, I should be able to compare him to a Hall of Famer from the same era with a similar style. If Cunningham's numbers were closer to Young's I would have a harder time disagreeing with you. We'll see how the voters view him when his name comes up. Not sure if you read Dr. Z of SI but he goes to great lengths to spell out why he considers players HOF worthy and why he does not.

Agree to disagree. I believe a player should be viewed by their merits and their merits alone, not by the greatness of others. Martin's career numbers fall well short of Emmitt Smith, but I wouldn't hold that against Martin.

I am not a big fan of Doc Z. I think he is rather biased and kind a blow hard. Once he has his mind made up on somebody, NOTHING will change it. He also will only consider players he watches and watches only the players he wants to see, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When he calls somebody "the best", it is "the best" from the games he watched, and he watches games to see the best play.

IMO, people give too much credit to "the experts". Truth be told, they are just ordinary guys who get paid to talk. While they watch more games and, in some cases (though they are becoming few and far between) speak with the coaches and players, they are only opinions. Doc Z is better than most of the ex-player meatheads, but his word isn't gospel.

I know you didn't say it was, but a lot of people pull out "expert" quotes and think that is the end-all of things.

[PredsFan77]

Is it too late to change my vote to No?

[katzenboyer]

i gotta agree w/ jcd, and i don't understand how u can make such a stupid comment as the 85 bears or 99 rams wouldn't have beaten the saints in the reopening. they both would've smoked em. not to mention what the colts would've done to them if they had that game.