Euphemism for what, pray tell? How 'bout I go right to the stats, since they don't lie, and are generally colorblind. Michael Vick's career stats. Let's look at yards thrown versus yards gained on the ground. 14,609 in the air, and 4,630 on the ground. So of over 19,000 yards credited to Vick in his career, slightly over 24% of those yards have been on the ground. For his career, not just one year. Yes, he had a good year last year, but for those of you who were unaware, he was a qb before last year. Now let's look at McNabb's stats. Thrown for 36,250 ran for 3,400. So of the 39,650 yards gained in his career, 8.57% have come on the ground. Oh, and McNabb has a better completion percentage for his career, and had a better completion percentage in his best year versus Vick's best year. John Elway's stats. Thrown: 51,475, Ran 3,407. So he gained 6.2% of his total yards on the ground. Steve Young's stats. Thrown: 33,124, Ran 4,239. Gained 11.3% of his total yards on the ground. How 'bout Tim Tebow's college stats (because he's a running qb in my opinion, however, does anyone believe he's seriously going to be an effective starter in the NFL? I sure don't and I'm a huge Broncos fan). Thrown: 9,285, Ran 2,947. Ground yards were 24% of his total yards. Cam Newton's college stats? Thrown: 2,908, Ran 1,586. Ground yards were a whopping 35% of his total yards. Yes, I know the college game is different, but that was my whole fucking point: QB's that run a fuckload don't win Superbowls in the NFL. Even if their name is "Vick." He had opportunities with Atlanta and didn't capitalize. Again, Vick, Newton (and Tebow) are great athletes, but not QB's that are going to win a Superbowl. And do we need to bust out Brady, the Mannings, Boller, Roethlisburgerrereer and Johnson's stats to show they ran less than Vick? I seriously hope not. And to be clear my use of the word "running qb" is a euphemism. You want to know what it is a euphemism for? For qbs that run a lot.
Thanks for posting that video. It's not like I'm not still kicking myself about turning that game off at halftime. Dick.
They have to see Blaine Gabbert starting sooner rather than later. They've can't seriously expect Luke McCown to guide them to the playoffs, which ownership supposedly wants from Del Rio this year.
I'm confused. Does Steve Young count or not? Using your yardstick, I found three other guys older than Vick who broke 10%, Steve McNair (10.3), Randall Cunningham(14.1), and Kordell Stewart(16.3). Young won the super bowl, McNair came pretty much as close as you can to winning without actually winning, and Cunningham got stunned by a kicker that picked a terrible time to miss for the first time all year. Vick has already passed Stewarts career numbers, and Vince Young fizzled out. It looks like your argument is that there hasn't been anyone like Vick before, and since no one exactly like him has ever won a title it must be impossible for him to win. You can compare him to Tebow or Newton when those guys throw for 3k+ in a season. The reason the Eagles won't win the super bowl this year is because the front seven on defense aren't good enough.
People who aren't able to back up their positions with facts often are. Sure, he counts. They all 'count.' He was just an example (whom I was criticized for using because I was 'excluding him' - but I digress). (Never did I write that 10% was a 'magic number' - go ahead and reread my posts, I'll wait... ...and we're back. My only point is that quarterbacks whom a running game is a large part of their game do not win Superbowls in the modern era in the NFL. So your counterargument appears to be 'hey VI, here's three guys that ran for over 10% (again, your number, not mine, as I don't have a hard and fast rule of what makes a running qb versus a pocket passer) of their total yards and... other than Young (whom was an exceptional talent)... THESE GUYS ALSO LOST? Uh, pro-tip from someone whom used to argue for a living: bolstering your opponent's examples may not, in fact, be the way to go. Here's a hint. Find three qbs in the past 15 years that have won a Superbowl while gaining over 20% of their total yards on the ground. So Vick has surpassed the numbers of two guys who haven't won a Superbowl. I'll go ahead and accede that Vick's numbers have probably surpassed a lot of qb's who haven't won Superbowls. How this bolsters your argument that Vick is likely to win a Superbowl is beyond me. It's a bit of a simplification of my argument (as I normally don't like absolutes), but ok, I see your point. Yes, guys like Vick don't win superbowls. I am basing this on past Superbowls. When predicting future outcomes, one is often well advised to look at the past. Is it possible that Vick could win a Superbowl? Sure, it's possible, but my 'prediction' is based on the fact that qb's that run a lot typically don't. Anything can happen (and that's why they play all 16 and have playoffs. It's also strictly possible that Hotwheelz could start for the Colts and win a Superbowl, but it isn't really likely (though more likely than if I started for the Colts, because I suck at playing football). If you want to take a 'zen' approach to it, ok, I'll concede: it is POSSIBLE that Vick could win a Superbowl. However, the stats are against him and guys like him to the extent that running makes up a significant portion of their game. Probably because most teams have gotten really forward thinking in the past few months and created this brand new specialized position that is sure to revolutionize the NFL. This position? It's called the 'Running Back.' I think the name's catchy and I am really excited to see what kind of effect it will have on the NFL. Agreed, the Eagles defense looks like it will be giving it up like a cheerleader on Prom Night. There are a lot of reasons that I don't think the Eagles are a Superbowl winner this year, Vick just being one of several.
I don't have any in-depth analysis or commentary on tonight's game. But I do have two quotes. Aaron Rodgers: "Fuck y'all I'm the best QB." Jordy Nelson: "Wes who? Let me find that punk ass bitch Wes Welker in a dark alley." I'm pretty sure both of them said that in the post-game interview. Could be the jumbo margaritas. Really? They fucking come out and put up 42 after no off-season practices and 6 weeks of practice? Fuck this shit. I don't care if the Saints have a shitty secondary, that shit was ugly. Fucking Packers.
Not a fan of that last playcall to give the ball to Ingram. (1) The spread is what got you 79 yards down the field, stick with it. (2) You've been having trouble using tight formations in short yardages the entire second half. But damn, was it fun. Here's a link if you want to re-watch New Orleans' march down the field at the end of the game. http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/video-packers-saints-final-drive-2011/
I've always been a big Brees fan, the guy is an elite qb in my opinion (and Rodgers will probably be too, with a few more years of stats - the guy can throw a fuckin ball, that's for sure). It's wild to think about this trade: SD sends the #1 pick to Atl for two later picks. Atl takes Vick. SD takes Tomlinson AND Brees.
It was a beautiful start to the season. They all looked damn good. The lines were spot on and all jacked up. WOO! The Saints just looked out of sorts and Brees can't do it all alone. They slipped I don't even know how many times. Between that and dropped passes, they almost beat themselves. The one shitty aspect of watching that game is, as has been mentioned, is the fucking stupidass kick rule. It totally took all of the fun out of it. Sure Sproles (Can that dude fucking run or what?! Holy shit!) ran one back but watching that thing get kicked out of the end zone time and time again rather than seeing awesome moves and runs that make your jaw drop is just a fucking shitty deal for everyone. I really hope that shit gets overturned so we can get back to watching some badass returns because this is bullshit.
Did nobody see this? Everyone is talking about Sproles's return and the kick rule, but I have hardly seen anyone mention this. I think we're going to see a lot more people bringing the ball out from 5-6 deep in the endzone in spite of the new rule, and hopefully we'll see more of this type of play. Probably we'll see more drives starting at the 10 though.
You do realize we saw the Sproles run and a kickoff returned for a TD that tied the NFL record? Yes, lots of touchbacks (think they showed there were twice as many touchbacks last night as there were all year at Lambeau in 2010), but there's still going to be excitement. The Cobb return might actually be a new record if they go back and decide he was 9, instead of 8, yards deep. In a way, I kind of like the idea of returners struggling with the risk of whether to take it out of the endzone or not. Additionally, you're sure to have times where the coverage team gets burned because they give up on the play after seeing it go into the endzone only to have the returner bring it out.
I thought Cromartie had the record with a kickoff return TD from 9.75 yards deep in the endzone. I remember thinking, "Well, that can never be beaten, only tied."
Cromartie's was indeed the longest return in NFL history. It was a return from a field goal attempt though. Cobb's return was on a kickoff return.
My point is that if this rule was not in effect there very well may have more than 2 sweet runs in the entire game. I stand by what I said in that this rule sucks some of the fun out of the game. Of course I saw Cobbs run. I was looking at the TV thinking to myself, "Cobb? Who the hell is that?!"
I think eventually we'll need to layoff bitching about the rule. No one in the media has really reported on it, but doesn't seem like there is an unwritted code that no one is going to take a touchback? Even in the pre-season, every return man has said "Fuck it, I'm running this shit out." We'll see if this holds true after week 1 ends Monday night. I have a feeling its going to be an honor code thing for the players.
As a Chargers fan, I'm less unhappy about this rule than any other teams' fans. We just got one of our only weaknesses from last season erased. That being said, it still sucks.
Meh, Brees will be fine. In 2008, Colston missed 4 weeks from a broken thumb. Lance Moore stepped up to have a career year (928 yards, 10 TDs). It was the only year in which Brees eclipsed 5,000 passing yards, and his passing TDs (34) are a career-high. Anyone who has Colston might want to look at Meachem or Henderson, so say the sages at ESPN.
One thing that I noticed during the game was that James Starks had 12 carries to Ryan Grant's 9. So not only are they splitting carries, but Starks might actually get more carries over the course of the year.
Re kickoffs, I think we're going to see a pretty stark divergence in where drives start this year. Return men are definitely going to bring out balls from deeper in the endzone, and while sometimes they'll get stopped short of the 20, I think forcing the kick coverage to maintain lane discipline through 10 extra yards of contact will mean a lot more guys have long returns than normal, as well. 10 yards is a long time for holes to appear.