The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The Case Against Michael Vick

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

James F. Elliott — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:56:27 -0000

No, I got that! No worries; I just didn't want you to think I'd come in and deliberately pooped all over your house.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

TW Andrews — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:36:15 -0000

the Falcons had an unprecedented run of success during his time running the offense.

True, but with their success using a rookie QB, it's hard to see that they need Vick back.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

TW Andrews — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:25:11 -0000

With Cutler (Fuck you very much McDaniels) on the block, I think Denver tries to get Vick.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:55:40 -0000

No disrespect taken. The phrase "no disrespect" means, in what I'm about to say, I mean "no disrespect" to you. I didn't want it to come off as personal.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:51:24 -0000

No disrespect taken. The phrase "no disrespect" means, in what I'm about to say, I mean "no disrespect" to you. I didn't want it to come off as personal.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apos — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:48:49 -0000

Vick did get screwed. Just not in the way you think. He got screwed the same way Randall Cunningham got screwed. He's never been in an offense to suit his talents. He's a down field passer. Not a West Coast offense type QB. And if you want to try and make him a West Coast offense QB, give him proper instruction and teaching. Let him spend a year or two with Mike Holmgren(or Shanahan .. guys who know what they are doing .. Jim Mora, Jr. isn't an offense guy).

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Hugo Pottisch — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:11:27 -0000

I have another case against Michael Vick. And albeit the bait looks tempting.. the story is too sad.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

dwhite10701 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:15 -0000

That was supposed to be a reply to CitizenE, but there was no Reply link at the bottom of his comment.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

dwhite10701 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:33:06 -0000

I tend to disagree. In the end, even Steve Young had his bell rung too many times, the final time on a roll out. And anyone who can tell me that Vick was a better runner early in his career than Young needs to go back and look at the tapes of Young in his early days.

I just plain disagree. I loved Steve Young, and he was a great runner, and there are some highlights out there that'll blow your mind. But those first couple of seasons, Vick was a force of nature.

I think the issue is not coordinators or systems, but a willingness to learn the position. In the pros, you have to be a complete player. I think Vick has the physical skills, but for whatever reason has not developed them. Whether he rolls out or stays in the pocket, decision making, seeing the field are essentials. Few qbs whomever they are, whatever skill set they bring from college, can afford to stop learning once they get to the pro level.

But the coordinators or the system are huge factors in learning the position. That's why it's so bad for a QB to have multiple coordinators during their first few seasons. If you're forced to rethink your instincts on every play ("pocket's breaking down, should run, no can't run, gotta finish my progressions, etc.") it'll surely have an effect on your performance. And the only way to get past that is to do the same thing over and over and over again.

And if I recall correctly, bad decision making (on the field) wasn't really a problem for Vick. I'll have to chase down his INT numbers, but I don't remember him throwing an excess number of INTs.

In addition, it's not like the West Coast offense is some sort of football holy grail. Walsh created it cause he had a QB in Cincy who couldn't throw downfield. Walsh could have easily said "well, he doesn't have the skill set to perform in the league" but instead he sat down and figured out an offense that played to his strengths. That's what great coaches do. Mediocre, fired-in-two-years coaches try to force square pegs into round holes.

Last point, let's not pretend Vick was some kind of poot butt in the league. He led his team to the NFC Championship game, and did the then-unhead of by going into Green Bay and winning in the playoffs. After that his play seemed to decline. It could have been the injuries, it could have been defenses catching up to him, it could have been coordinators forcing him into a system that doesn't work, it could have been Vick stopped learning, it could have been a bit of all of the above. But to say he didn't have the skill set to succeed ignores the very real success that he had.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

CitizenE — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:21:08 -0000

I tend to disagree. In the end, even Steve Young had his bell rung too many times, the final time on a roll out. And anyone who can tell me that Vick was a better runner early in his career than Young needs to go back and look at the tapes of Young in his early days.

I think the issue is not coordinators or systems, but a willingness to learn the position. In the pros, you have to be a complete player. I think Vick has the physical skills, but for whatever reason has not developed them. Whether he rolls out or stays in the pocket, decision making, seeing the field are essentials. Few qbs whomever they are, whatever skill set they bring from college, can afford to stop learning once they get to the pro level.

Football, more than any other major sport is a team game, and on offense, the quarterback must be a team leader who inspires confidence and gets his teammates involved. Perhaps now that he has had so many setbacks and he's probably lost a half step or so, he will have the desire if someone gives him an opportunity, but so few of that style qb ever has changed, it appaars doubtful. Nonetheless, there are teams in the NFL who could probably use Vick if he has the good sense to lower an asking price and get his game on the field do the money work. Performance is the name of the game; it's show me time for Michael Vick.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:08:23 -0000

They don't have to be. There's also a spectrum between being a stiff and being a Vince Young; there are quarterbacks who use their athletic ability to buy themselves more time to pass the ball. Here's Doug WIlliams on this, from an NY Times article last year:

“If you come up here with the running mentality, it’s going to be tough to survive because the defenses are too complicated and fast,” Doug Williams said by telephone from the Tampa Bay front office, where the former Buccaneers and Redskins quarterback and the first African-American to start (and win) the Super Bowl serves as a personnel executive. “You’ve got to be able to throw the ball downfield. At the same time, a quarterback has got to be agile and make plays, not depend on playmakers all the time. They have to be elusive. Drew Brees is the epitome of the guy who is not a runner but who is elusive.”

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Leon Rogers — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:06:23 -0000

While not about Mike Vick, here is Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin talking about the T.O. situation courtessy of Sports On My Mind.

http://tinyurl.com/cj5fjo

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

dwhite10701 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:47:46 -0000

The issue isn't Dave Kreig, who was ok, or Ryan Leaf whom no one would consider in Vick's class, but that just as the less athletic prototypes need to learn footwork, escapability, and the short game, the runners must learn how get the ball out of their hands and into the hands of their other skill players. Quarterbacks must learn to see the field and make good decisions, must learn to throw with touch, and Vick has not shown that he can.

In addition, a Peyton Manning had to learn how to read the defense and make the right pass pretty quickly, cause all he could do was pass. A Vick or a Young, as a rookie or second-year player, can get away with not reading the defense as well, cause if worst comes to worst, they can take off. I speculate that you end up with longer learning curves for running QBs, as some of those skills develop only when they become truly necessary.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

sgwhiteinfla — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:36:07 -0000

Mike Vick isn't made for running back but I could see him as a slot reciever that could run the Wildcat formation from time to time. I always thought in the right system he could dominate as a quarterback but there just aren't any Offensive Coordinators in the NFL willing to craft an offense just for him knowing that if he gets hurt there is zero chance that a backup could do the same things. Besides that the QB position is ALWAYS the face of the franchise and nobody is going to want to bring on that kind of headache. But I think he has the speed quickness and toughness to play wideout the only question is if he can catch. Alternately he might make a very good punt/kick returner as well.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

dwhite10701 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:35:52 -0000

The problem as I see it is NFL linebackers. When I saw Vince Young play in college, that was my first thought; NFL linebackers are just too quick. As long as the NFL has killer fast interior linebackers, plays designed for running quarterbacks are, like the wildcat for running backs, novelties at best. We'll see how long the wildcat has much of an effect.

Speedy linebackers certainly weren't a problem for Vick.

But going all Wildcat and option isn't even necessary, IMO. If you just have Vick roll-out every pass play, that'll give pause to the linebackers and safeties. Since they have to take his running into account, that opens up things for his receivers down the field.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

CitizenE — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:26:04 -0000

The problem as I see it is NFL linebackers. When I saw Vince Young play in college, that was my first thought; NFL linebackers are just too quick. As long as the NFL has killer fast interior linebackers, plays designed for running quarterbacks are, like the wildcat for running backs, novelties at best. We'll see how long the wildcat has much of an effect.

It's not that I don't believe there isn't room for running quarterbacks, but in the end I think the problem is not unlike a player like Allen Iverson in pro basketball. He is a great player, a terrific athlete, plays with enormous heart, but a point guard has to be able to distribute the ball.

Similarly, a quarterback has to be able to distribute the ball. Running qbs tend to take the whole game on their shoulders, which is inefficient, and any quarterback who does not get the short passing game today will not be able to move the ball. A seven yard pass with four or five options for doing so is so much easier to pull off than a seven yard run with one, maybe two options for doing so. That's the great genius of the Walsh offense.

The issue isn't Dave Kreig, who was ok, or Ryan Leaf whom no one would consider in Vick's class, but that just as the less athletic prototypes need to learn footwork, escapability, and the short game, the runners must learn how get the ball out of their hands and into the hands of their other skill players. Quarterbacks must learn to see the field and make good decisions, must learn to throw with touch, and Vick has not shown that he can.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

blackink — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:58:20 -0000

I'm not saying that you have to run out of the option 50-60 plays a game, but if the Wildcat can find sporadic success in NFL, why can't an offense that occasionally utilizes a dual-threat QB?

I just don't understand why everyone has to be Dave Krieg or Ryan Leaf or any generic 6-5, 230-pound stiff to be the NFL prototype.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

DaveinHackensack — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:17:14 -0000

"and it leaves out a helluva lot of guys who dominated the college ranks but can't find a fit at the next level."

Defenses are much faster in the NFL than in the college ranks, and an option quarterback would get hit a lot, and probably have a short career because of that.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

blackink — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:43:09 -0000

Right. The problem is that most NFL coaches and offensive coordinators all use some version of the same playbook - which I assume was written on a stone tablet by Bill Walsh.

Now there's some obvious benefit to staying in your lane, perfecting the craft and coming up with your own twist. But it doesn't allow for much creativity, and it leaves out a helluva lot of guys who dominated the college ranks but can't find a fit at the next level.

I'm thinking of guys like Tommie Frazier, Vick, Vince, Woody Dantzler, Jamelle Holieway, etc etc. And up until recently, if a black quarterback showed even the slightest bit of athleticism, they tried to shift him to defensive back or receiver. DMac sort of shook them out of that mindset, I think.

Obviously, I'm not advocating the use of the wishbone in the League. But it wouldn't kill folks to think outside of the box once in awhile.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

James F. Elliott — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:09:00 -0000

Sorry. I wandered away from my desk and hadn't refreshed before posting. I didn't mean to disrespect your request.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

CitizenE — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:31:29 -0000

I'll raise the issue of Young again. He learned how. When he was first a starter, Young left his slot and wide recievers high and dry over the middle when they ran slants, a staple of the West Coast offense. He was a phenomenal runner with a cannon for an arm. His passes, unlike Montana's had very little touch and were often uncatchable--high and hard. But, what made Young special was that he adapted, he learned. When Vick came into the league the comparisons to Young--great runner, lefty, huge arm--were all there. In fairness to Vick, he never got the time to sit and watch a great quarterback, did not have a Bill Walsh, an offensive line, or receivers on the line of scrimmage or out of the backfield that Young had. But few if any in that mold ever did become more than what they were to begin with. Would someone say here Vick has been almost as good as Randall Cunningham? Whither Vince Young?

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Dan Fox — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:28:39 -0000

That's a fair point, especially considering his receiving options. Brian Finneran and Peerless Price are no Rice and Taylor

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Destro Villain — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:23:04 -0000

I was thinking exactly this, a Kordell Stewart, bring him in on a third down, in some fancy spread-wildcat-h-back type of formation, run reverses and/or pitch to him so he can then throw way downfield gimmickry. But never as a starting QB unless it's one of those emergencies and everyone else is injured.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Stacy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:20:57 -0000

Fair enough. Not another peep out of me.

Re: The Case Against Michael Vick

Stacy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:18:56 -0000

He got incarcerated for a year because a certain segment of our population look at dogs as part of their family. That's how he got screwed.