My bad. I'm just trying to say that the media will lead you to believe that he's the greatest ever! When Barry Sanders came out , pre salary cap, the rb spot has been devalued a little. If you really think about it, a rb for the most part will have 5 great yrs, 3 good yrs and 3 or 4 so so yrs. Barry,Emmit,Walter and even Curtis Martin are the exception rather than the rule. I know fans read the net and the papers and belive most of what the "experts" say. In the last 4 yrs only Alexander 1546 yds 18tds,LT 1530 17tds have more yds and tds than Portis with 1480yds and 12tds. If you throw Rudy johnson over the last 3 yrs 1300yds and 11tds further proves what i think about rbs, even so called "special" rbs.
Of course the stands will be packed. Hell, they were still selling out games this year even with this horrible 2-13 team.
From being a long time Houston sports fan, if you dont win the fans dont show. Take into account September and great weather, fans in houston find other things to do. Look at this season.
you're misunderstanding me. i wasn't criticizing vick for not winning a championship. i was acknowleding the defenses he played with weren't as good as the defenses that i mentioned (bears, ravens)...but that the falcons didn't win a championship. that their defense took them as far as they could take them. the falcons have had a great rushing offense. and vick is certainly part of that. again...and i'll say it again...if a QB can't beat you with his arm, he's limited....particularly so in the NFL. i think michael vick is entirely overrated. beyond overrated. but honestly, i'm well beyond trying to convince you of that. you've seen my argument for it over and over again. and this year, his play on the field helped solidify that argument in my own mind. stack the line, and he can't beat you. he can be taken away. great QB's aren't neutralized like that. great QB's don't have so many days at the office where they're entirely neutralized. i know, i know...vick is different...don't look at the stats, because they don't matter for him. they only matter for everyone else.
Speaking of #1 Spot, did you all see John Clayton list the Texan job as THE MOST ATTRACTIVE of the 8 open jobs in the NFL?
Its probably true to a certain extent, but if i was a head coach prospect, i think the Chiefs and Vikings have a better chance of getting into the playoffs next season than Texans.
I still think that philosophically, taking a rb with the 1st overall is not a good decision. Maybe if it were the last piece to the puzzle or something, but usually teams that have the number one pick don't have that luxury. For one, there's the longevity. I know there's injury risk for every position, but rbs breakdown quicker than most. Emmitt and Cumart and Bettis are exceptions. Then there's the fact that it's pretty easy to find good rbs on the cheap. And you can even make so-so rbs look good if you have an OL. But still, if Bush is a playmaker, and has very little bust potential outside of injury, then you are almost forced to take him if you stay at the number one. Outside of Leinart, no one has solidified a jump over those two this year. But if there is a sweetheart deal on the table, like the Ricky Williams or Hershel Walker type deal, then take it.
Yeah but its not like they had to give their PSL or season ticket money back. They already paid up in Feb.
Well the Vikings were his #2 and the Chiefs his #3 as I recall His point was the the prospect of D Carr/A Johnson/R Bush Trio was totally alluring... and that Bob McNair is recognized as one of the best owners in the league. He thought that Carr was a very capable but misguided talent, too-- which is a point of great debate here.
i think because of the organization, itself. particularly because of bob mcnair. clayton sings mcnair's praises all the time.
The only guy I can remember who single handed turned around a franchise was named Earl Campbell. He didn't even require blocking (except against the Steelers)- just give him the ball and move out of the way. Bush is no Earl Campbell, IMHO.
I never said they don't matter for anyone else, its just that winning matters the most for qbs. you can't deny that. its the reason Marino isn't considered the greatest qb even though he has the greatest stats. I mean the arguments against vick are the ones that want to take the most important thing, winning, out of the equation. Lance and Matt Jackson have been on this same kick and whenever they get into talking about him they say, "yeah I know he wins but". there are no buts. his team wins when he plays and this really is the first season that isn't true. and I really have left you alone about Vick until you go completely insane and say things like San Diego fans are praying to god they didn't get Vick even though Atlanta's had more success than San Diego since that deal.
San Diego fans are praying they don't have Vick yet their franchise paniced and drafted Phillip Rivers because they thought Brees was bust.
i don't want you to leave me alone. these are fun discussions. i don't think less of you because you disagree with me on this topic. i don't recall you ever personally insulting me. the argument is outside of you and me. again...i hear ya. he plays on a winning team. but so did kyle orton. that, alone, isn't enough for me to call a guy a pro bowler. or a great QB. mcnabb played on a losing team this season...he's not less of a QB all of a sudden because of it. manning has never won the big one...but in my mind, he's very clearly the best QB in the league. put him on new england and they don't miss a beat. i'm saying that as a HUGE tom brady fan! winning isn't the sole measure because there are lots of components that go into winning. i can't judge a player's worth solely on his team's performance. teams win championships sometimes with lesser talent...because of chemistry. the QB who wins the super bowl each year isn't automatically the best QB in the game.
Nobody's saying his passing stats can't improve or even saying they shouldn't. Just saying applying standards used to judge peyton manning, of course he's gonna come up short. Michael Vick's passing rating is always gonna be low because a lot of touchdowns he would get in the red zone, he rushes for. the touchdown to interception ratio is key. this year's ratio was his first truly bad one 15/13 and that's still more tds and 6 added rushing. in his second year he passed for 2900 yards rushed for 750. and 8 tds. if you added just four of those tds to his passing numbers he would have been close to a ninety rating. his rating doesn't give credit for the number of yards he gets on the ground and last season he had 2300 passing and 900 rushing. when you just account for the total yardage he competes with all qbs in the NFL and that doesn't take into account he doesn't lose a lot of yards on sacks. the only thing Michael Vick has to really work on right now is picks. other than that, when you accout for everything he gives his team, he's doing pretty fine right now.
I like Bush as a weapon more than a running back. I know he won't get 30 carries a game, but he will be explosive as both a back and a receiver. Also, imagine if our coach implements the fullhouse formation/split backs with Bush on one side, DD on the other. The playaction off of DD to Bush would be brutal and Carr would love it as the dumpoff is his favorite play.
this is where you lose me. he had combined 3200 yards last season. david carr threw for around 3500...he ran for 300. DAVID CARR moved his team more yards than vick did last season. manning threw for 4557 last season (about 1300 yards more total) mcnabb threw for 3875 and still ran for 220 (about 800 yards more total) delhomme threw for about 3900 yards (about 700 yards more) culpepper threw for about 4700 and ran for about 400 (roughly 1900 more total) my point is that his limited arm limits his production. throwing the ball is a more efficient way of moving your team downfield...and it's what NFL QBs are asked to do. it also helps open up a rushing attack when the defense stacks the line. those games where defenses do that to vick aren't pretty. and more and more teams are picking up on the fact you can do that, and completely neutralize the guy. as did the eagles in the playoffs last season. and when we talk TD's...just looking at 2004 numbers (so we don't focus on what we both agree was a particularly bad season for vick in 2005)...take the guys i mentioned above. i'll include rushing and passing to give vick the benefit of the doubt...TD's earned by each. Vick -- 17 Culpepper -- 41 Manning -- 49 delhomme -- 30 mcnabb -- 39 Carr -- 16 (i only mention him because we watch him each week here) Brees -- 26 pgabs, it's not even close. the only QB on this list who's comparable in terms of total TD's is david carr. not a pro bowler. the next closest is Brees, who Vick would need a 50% jump to meet. and this is my point...vick doesn't give enough to measure up with these QB's to give the full impact they do. yet he's mentioned among them. he's on the freaking pro bowl team for goodness sake. why? because he's exciting. so he doesn't measure up in total yardage..he doesn't measure up in total TD's. but again, we're told to ignore the numbers and look only at w's and l's. we're asked to do that with no other QB than Vick. i just don't get it.
As much as Carr sucks, I think drafting Bush will definitely help his numbers. Just dump it off to Bush and let him work his magic. Carr is going to get credited with alot of 50 yard touchdown "passes" that are really 5 yard dumps to Bush.
