The problem is that no one has suggested that. People are arguing with things that no one ever claimed. This is the stupidity of the debate. People on the pro-Vince side are suggesting he's responsible more than stats by themselves suggest. That's it - nothing less, nothing more.
I never said to look only at QB rating. Like I said Vince is more impressive to me than Leinart despite having a worse QB rating. He is better in the pocket and is much more of a playmaker. He is a hugely important part of the team. I agree with all that. What they DONT say is that he is the reason Brown and Henry have played so well. They dont say Vince is the sole reason, or even the biggest reason, the team is winning. They don't go anywhere near as far as you are going. Look, Chris Brown won offensive player of the week. The voters got duped, dont they know he would have only gotten about 70 yards without VY?
Major, I agree with that statement on the pro-Vince side. He is a lot more than his stats. But when you start saying that he's the reason Brown and Henry did well, then that seems to be going too far. The main reason Brown and Henry did well is because they are pretty good players.
Chris Simms was the QB both of those years. The following year (Benson's junior year) was a mix of Chance Mock and Vince Young taking over later in the year. He was the primary RB all of his years at UT, though Ivan Williams had about 100 carries his freshman year and Selvin Young had the same for his sophomore year.
I don't think anyone has suggested that the only reason VY has won is 100%pure luck either. All anti-VYOFs are saying is that he's not 100% responsible for their record last year.
At this point I don't know whether to be amused or irritated by Baby Vince worshippers. I was just listening to 790 in my car and I swear this poor sap must have busted at least two veins in his forehead screaming and crying about how Vince Young is a winner and the radio hosts were sons of Satan for suggesting that Vince Young needed to improve his passing. He also went on to compare VY to Joe Montana and asserted that VY is a superbowl caliber quarterback right now. Now that I think of it, looks like we have a classic psychological phenomenon that often exists among cult members: cognitive dissonance.
He's certainly not THE reason - you have to start as a good player. But there's no doubt (in my mind) that he makes running backs better. Michael Vick does the same. The West Virginia QB does also. Any QB that's a legitimate threat to run for real yards is going to make your running backs look better because the defense is limited in what they can do. Very few QBs are able to do that in the pros, so it's not as big a thing there - but Vince, based on last year, has that impact in the pros by being a legitimate running threat - not for 2 or 3 or 5 yards, but for 10 or 20 or 30.
Well, that sounds reasonable. I am inclinced to agree on that point. I think he certainly makes his team better, certainly they are better than with Kerry Collins.
Sure, but still clearly and substantially worse than when he was playing beside Vince Young - which was the whole point. Good player who was better when put alongside VY. Remember when Cedric Benson came into the NFL, I argued that he was WAY overrated as a #4 pick. He looked a lot better than he was in college because of who he played next to. As it's turned out, he has been exactly that.
hey, major, quick FYI i would have thought was fairly obvious: good players have a tendency to get better as they get older/more experienced; i'm not paticularly concerned or swayed much by the longhorn think-tank, as they've continually proven to be ridiculous in my limited experience with them (thisthreadcough) - they were disappointed with a guy who would eventually finish with 1,300 yards and 21 TDs? yep, that's pretty much them in a nutshell, i'd say. bottom line, if you're averaging 4.7 yards a carry as (iirc) a true freshman for a major division 1 college in a major division 1 conference... you can argue until your head explodes that he got better when baby vince arrived, and you, sir, would be full of **** every ounce of the way. others remember travis henry, for example, posted back-to-back 1,300+ yard seasons without baby vince anywhere near by. how. major??? how??? major, none of us would argue that as a team gets better, that that doesn't have an overall impact on individual performances. do you expect andre johnson to get worse as the team around him improves? but you're dangerously close to arguing travis henry was a bum prior to baby vince showing up, and that is patently and ridiculously untrue. you're also dangerously close to arguing that one of the most highly decorated recruits in texas high school football history became a better player and/or realized his potential because of baby vince, and that, too, is utterly ridiculous. lord knows, those longhorn teams lacked talent across the board.... vince played on an absolutely LOADED longhorn team. see the past 4 NFL drafts for proof. in tennessee, he may have happened upon a bit of a resurgence that none of us saw coming, led by two men who really and truly have, more or less, just won. he compliments it; in some ways, completes it. but he's not by any means LEADING it. i'm readily admitting i may have underestimated this tennessee team. but i can assure you, it's not because i've underestimated baby vince.
Goodie for Jason Whitlock. The man who thinks it takes no skill to win the tour de france 7 times in a row
