 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » The Michael Vick Sweeptakes!!!
happy
Pro Bowl QB has a connotation about it, and Michael Vick does not deserve that connotation. Like FG said...Gus Ferrotte. The point is, he isnt good enough to say that he wont be transferred to another position.
May 21, 2009 at 08:01PM View BBCode
He was an extremely undeserving pro bowl QB, and people must remember that the NFL's little all star thing is not even close to as accurate as the baseball one, which is itself pretty bad. he was never anything better than league average. I mean, his career high completion percentage was 56%.Pro Bowl QB has a connotation about it, and Michael Vick does not deserve that connotation. Like FG said...Gus Ferrotte. The point is, he isnt good enough to say that he wont be transferred to another position.
tm4559
there is a little bit of noise about it in the papers. i didn't mean to imply anyone here said that.
the gist of what i was trying, clumsily, to say, is that i think he will do what he can, if he acts rationally, to extract the best payday from the skill set he has. and by payday, i mean, the best long term income stream.
i don't know what else he has going for him, other than the ability to play football. so i think if he views quarterback as the position that can return the most to him, for the longest, he would go with that, regardless of what team in what league, in whatever country. i could be completely wrong about that. maybe he would take the veteran minimum just to play in the NFL, and go out and return punts, if that was all anyone would offer him. i wouldn't think he would take that over a better deal in the UFL or the CFL.
May 21, 2009 at 08:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Has anyone suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to attempt to make a comeback in the NFL?
there is a little bit of noise about it in the papers. i didn't mean to imply anyone here said that.
the gist of what i was trying, clumsily, to say, is that i think he will do what he can, if he acts rationally, to extract the best payday from the skill set he has. and by payday, i mean, the best long term income stream.
i don't know what else he has going for him, other than the ability to play football. so i think if he views quarterback as the position that can return the most to him, for the longest, he would go with that, regardless of what team in what league, in whatever country. i could be completely wrong about that. maybe he would take the veteran minimum just to play in the NFL, and go out and return punts, if that was all anyone would offer him. i wouldn't think he would take that over a better deal in the UFL or the CFL.
whiskybear
I dare you to defend this statement.
May 21, 2009 at 08:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
people must remember that the NFL's little all star thing is not even close to as accurate as the baseball one, which is itself pretty bad.
I dare you to defend this statement.
dirtdevil
and his WR's that year were peerless price and dez white, whoever that is. his last year he threw for 2500 yards and 20 TD with michael jenkins and ashley lelie at WR. marvin harrison and reggie wayne those guys aren't. you can't judge anyone by one statistic, and someone of michael vick's skill set least of all.
May 21, 2009 at 08:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
I mean, his career high completion percentage was 56%.
and his WR's that year were peerless price and dez white, whoever that is. his last year he threw for 2500 yards and 20 TD with michael jenkins and ashley lelie at WR. marvin harrison and reggie wayne those guys aren't. you can't judge anyone by one statistic, and someone of michael vick's skill set least of all.
tm4559
May 21, 2009 at 08:31PM View BBCode
athleticism just doesn't cut it for happy. either your numbers say you are awesome, or you suck. no middle ground.
happy
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
I mean...
"Not even close to as accurate as the baseball one" (just off the top of my head): Example 1: (saftey) Roy Williams.
Example 2: almost any aged declined offensive or defensive lineman with a reputation for being good.
Example 3: ...michael vick
"which is itself pretty bad"
example all that you need: Albert Pujols.
May 21, 2009 at 08:42PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by happy
people must remember that the NFL's little all star thing is not even close to as accurate as the baseball one, which is itself pretty bad.
I dare you to defend this statement.
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
I mean...
"Not even close to as accurate as the baseball one" (just off the top of my head): Example 1: (saftey) Roy Williams.
Example 2: almost any aged declined offensive or defensive lineman with a reputation for being good.
Example 3: ...michael vick
"which is itself pretty bad"
example all that you need: Albert Pujols.
dirtdevil
i suppose, but christ. "an extremely undeserving pro bowl qb"? judging vick solely on completion percentage is kind of like judging john elway solely on his rushing average. it's part of their game, sure, but it's a long way from the whole of it. do you know who led the nfl in completion percentage in vick's last year, happy? david censored carr. how'd he pan out? in vick's last year carson palmer (who is a good quarterback) nudged out kelly holcomb (who isn't) for the nfl lead by .4%.
(i'm having a metaphor thing today)
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by dirtdevil]
May 21, 2009 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
athleticism just doesn't cut it for happy. either your numbers say you are awesome, or you suck. no middle ground.
i suppose, but christ. "an extremely undeserving pro bowl qb"? judging vick solely on completion percentage is kind of like judging john elway solely on his rushing average. it's part of their game, sure, but it's a long way from the whole of it. do you know who led the nfl in completion percentage in vick's last year, happy? david censored carr. how'd he pan out? in vick's last year carson palmer (who is a good quarterback) nudged out kelly holcomb (who isn't) for the nfl lead by .4%.
(i'm having a metaphor thing today)
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by dirtdevil]
FuriousGiorge
Now this, this, is begging the question.
May 21, 2009 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
Now this, this, is begging the question.
dirtdevil
oh and happy, remember cal ripken getting voted to the all-star game on reputation for the last several years of his career? or mike schmidt being voted a starter after having retired?
disaster.
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by dirtdevil]
May 21, 2009 at 08:47PM View BBCode
craig, i can think of several questions that begs, actually.oh and happy, remember cal ripken getting voted to the all-star game on reputation for the last several years of his career? or mike schmidt being voted a starter after having retired?
disaster.
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by dirtdevil]
tm4559
perhaps happy believes in the will of the people and their role in choosing the all stars (admittedly this doesn't quite fit with his occasional neo-facist republican hyperbole).
May 21, 2009 at 08:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by happy
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
Now this, this, is begging the question.
perhaps happy believes in the will of the people and their role in choosing the all stars (admittedly this doesn't quite fit with his occasional neo-facist republican hyperbole).
FuriousGiorge
I will kill you.
May 21, 2009 at 08:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
i can think of several questions that begs, actually.
I will kill you.
happy
There is no question that he is a difficult one to judge. For example, fast QBs generally increase the YPC for the running back. Although I think i read something about them causing more illegal man down field penalties or something (it makes sense if you think about it...I dont know if i read it at a reliable source). Yeah, and the supporting cast wasnt great, and thats certainly a good point.
The fact that his skillset is so unique really means it probably would require a certain type of team for him to flourish, and I doubt anyone will want to build a franchise around him right about now.
I really dont think he is or ever was anything to get too excited about, but I will admit that he is a unique enough player that the statistics really arent enough to know.
May 21, 2009 at 08:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by happy
I mean, his career high completion percentage was 56%.
and his WR's that year were peerless price and dez white, whoever that is. his last year he threw for 2500 yards and 20 TD with michael jenkins and ashley lelie at WR. marvin harrison and reggie wayne those guys aren't. you can't judge anyone by one statistic, and someone of michael vick's skill set least of all.
There is no question that he is a difficult one to judge. For example, fast QBs generally increase the YPC for the running back. Although I think i read something about them causing more illegal man down field penalties or something (it makes sense if you think about it...I dont know if i read it at a reliable source). Yeah, and the supporting cast wasnt great, and thats certainly a good point.
The fact that his skillset is so unique really means it probably would require a certain type of team for him to flourish, and I doubt anyone will want to build a franchise around him right about now.
I really dont think he is or ever was anything to get too excited about, but I will admit that he is a unique enough player that the statistics really arent enough to know.
happy
yes, I'm saying the baseball one is bad, the football one is worse.
May 21, 2009 at 08:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
craig, i can think of several questions that begs, actually.
oh and happy, remember cal ripken getting voted to the all-star game on reputation for the last several years of his career? or mike schmidt being voted a starter after having retired?
disaster.
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by dirtdevil]
yes, I'm saying the baseball one is bad, the football one is worse.
FuriousGiorge
May 21, 2009 at 08:53PM View BBCode
And the reason you know is that it's pretty plain, if we ask you.
happy
May 21, 2009 at 08:53PM View BBCode
Also: you people could write a whole book about "moving the conversation towards the irrelevent."
happy
look, stop pussyfooting around, do you actually disagree with me, or are you being difficult?
I believe that the football pro bowl is an even worse representation of the actual highest quality players of the league than the baseball all star game, which is itself not particularly good. I gave my reasons above, and Dirtdevil's reasons for the baseball side are all even more valid reasons to not trust the MLB one, and simply more valid reasons to NOT use terms like "pro bowl QB" or "all star SS", which are simply misleading.
May 21, 2009 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
And the reason you know is that it's pretty plain, if we ask you.
look, stop pussyfooting around, do you actually disagree with me, or are you being difficult?
I believe that the football pro bowl is an even worse representation of the actual highest quality players of the league than the baseball all star game, which is itself not particularly good. I gave my reasons above, and Dirtdevil's reasons for the baseball side are all even more valid reasons to not trust the MLB one, and simply more valid reasons to NOT use terms like "pro bowl QB" or "all star SS", which are simply misleading.
whiskybear
And it's the MLB that has the Make-A-Wish-style "every team gets an all-star" rule, its offensive starters are determined 100 percent by fan vote, and voting is completed before half the season is over. I mean, I don't want to debate with you something as banal as all-star voting, but saying baseball is quite clearly "more accurate" in its all-star voting is, at best, an example of your unique hyperbole.
May 21, 2009 at 08:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
I mean...
"Not even close to as accurate as the baseball one" (just off the top of my head): Example 1: (saftey) Roy Williams.
Example 2: almost any aged declined offensive or defensive lineman with a reputation for being good.
Example 3: ...michael vick
"which is itself pretty bad"
example all that you need: Albert Pujols.
And it's the MLB that has the Make-A-Wish-style "every team gets an all-star" rule, its offensive starters are determined 100 percent by fan vote, and voting is completed before half the season is over. I mean, I don't want to debate with you something as banal as all-star voting, but saying baseball is quite clearly "more accurate" in its all-star voting is, at best, an example of your unique hyperbole.
FuriousGiorge
May 21, 2009 at 08:57PM View BBCode
I disagree with you because I have no idea which one is a worse representation of the best players in the league and neither do you. Not one iota.
dirtdevil
we could? welcome to the discussion mr rove.
(what do you mean you people?)
May 21, 2009 at 08:59PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
Also: you people could write a whole book about "moving the conversation towards the irrelevent."
we could? welcome to the discussion mr rove.
(what do you mean you people?)
happy
So any and all opinions wherein any viewpoint is given dealing with the baseball all star team and the football pro bowl team are compared as far as accuracy goes, including the one that Tyler just posted, is wrong, because any possible deductive reasoning on this issue is clearly completely fabricated from absolute nothingness?
I hope you dont think the same thing about the HOF >_<
(trainwreck.)
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by happy]
May 21, 2009 at 09:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
I disagree with you because I have no idea which one is a worse representation of the best players in the league and neither do you. Not one iota.
So any and all opinions wherein any viewpoint is given dealing with the baseball all star team and the football pro bowl team are compared as far as accuracy goes, including the one that Tyler just posted, is wrong, because any possible deductive reasoning on this issue is clearly completely fabricated from absolute nothingness?
I hope you dont think the same thing about the HOF >_<
(trainwreck.)
[Edited on 5-21-2009 by happy]
FuriousGiorge
and people must remember that the NFL's little all star thing is not even close to as accurate as the baseball one[/quote]
Sometimes, I think you'd be best served if, before you typed something out, you said it out loud to yourself. This would save us all a lot of trouble.
May 21, 2009 at 09:07PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by happy[/i]
and people must remember that the NFL's little all star thing is not even close to as accurate as the baseball one[/quote]
Sometimes, I think you'd be best served if, before you typed something out, you said it out loud to yourself. This would save us all a lot of trouble.
happy
I thought you were arguing that they werent bad. I will accept that it was a hyperbole, and that our opinions are probably not far off.
Either way, terms like "Pro bowl QB" and the ilk should not be used, becasue it oversimplifies and stupidifies the conversation.
May 21, 2009 at 09:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by happy
defend with like...facts? I dont have those, but its pretty plain to the eye if you ask me.
I mean...
"Not even close to as accurate as the baseball one" (just off the top of my head): Example 1: (saftey) Roy Williams.
Example 2: almost any aged declined offensive or defensive lineman with a reputation for being good.
Example 3: ...michael vick
"which is itself pretty bad"
example all that you need: Albert Pujols.
And it's the MLB that has the Make-A-Wish-style "every team gets an all-star" rule, its offensive starters are determined 100 percent by fan vote, and voting is completed before half the season is over. I mean, I don't want to debate with you something as banal as all-star voting, but saying baseball is quite clearly "more accurate" in its all-star voting is, at best, an example of your unique hyperbole.
I thought you were arguing that they werent bad. I will accept that it was a hyperbole, and that our opinions are probably not far off.
Either way, terms like "Pro bowl QB" and the ilk should not be used, becasue it oversimplifies and stupidifies the conversation.