Michael Vick will stay in Philly

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

I didn't read all of what you said, because quite frankly after half of it, I realized your only argument is that Vick's athletic ability is the reason he should be the starter, and that is just dumb. He is injury prone, and turnover prone, and that is because he has NO QB traits, and that is the reason Vick is not a good QB or a winner.

You say besides his rookie year, he only had 1 losing season..... You say that like he is a winner, but he only had 3 winning seasons as well, 3 times in the playoffs, and the furthest he got was the NFC Championship game. You talk about how he has always been the starter and how other coaches keep trotting him out that and use that excuse for why you aren't the only moron..... I found that statement hilarious, because every coach that thought he was this great QB/starter, got fired. He got a very good coach in Dan Reeves fired. Jim Mora got fired. He got a very good coach in Andy Reid fired, and if Chip Kelly doesn't learn quickly...... He will surely get fired. Coaches don't get fired if your QB is a winner, especially good ones, so there goes that little tidbit that you tried to sneak past as true.

The last thing I am gonna say...... And I want you to repeat this over and over til it clicks in your head. MIKE VICK IS NOT A GOOD QB. HE DOESN'T HAVE GOOD QB TRAITS. HE IS NOT A WINNER. HE IS ONLY ATHLETIC. BEING ATHLETIC ALONE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD QB. AND THIS WHOLE DEBATE IS ABOUT HIM BEING QB...... Say that several times and maybe you will understand that even if you don't think much of Foles, Barkley, Dixon or Kinne......... They all would be a much better option AT QB than Mike Vick. There is no reason to keep a 33 year old, somewhat expensive player around to play a position he is not good at and he is not the future at. If you can't get that through your head, then there is no hope for you. You can keep touting that you are not a Vick fan, but only a Vick fan would ignore the obvious.

 

[PhillyBoston781]

I didn't read all of what you said, because quite frankly after half of it, I realized your only argument is that Vick's athletic ability is the reason he should be the starter, and that is just dumb. He is injury prone, and turnover prone, and that is because he has NO QB traits, and that is the reason Vick is not a good QB or a winner.

You say besides his rookie year, he only had 1 losing season..... You say that like he is a winner, but he only had 3 winning seasons as well, 3 times in the playoffs, and the furthest he got was the NFC Championship game. You talk about how he has always been the starter and how other coaches keep trotting him out that and use that excuse for why you aren't the only moron..... I found that statement hilarious, because every coach that thought he was this great QB/starter, got fired. He got a very good coach in Dan Reeves fired. Jim Mora got fired. He got a very good coach in Andy Reid fired, and if Chip Kelly doesn't learn quickly...... He will surely get fired. Coaches don't get fired if your QB is a winner, especially good ones, so there goes that little tidbit that you tried to sneak past as true.

The last thing I am gonna say...... And I want you to repeat this over and over til it clicks in your head. MIKE VICK IS NOT A GOOD QB. HE DOESN'T HAVE GOOD QB TRAITS. HE IS NOT A WINNER. HE IS ONLY ATHLETIC. BEING ATHLETIC ALONE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD QB. AND THIS WHOLE DEBATE IS ABOUT HIM BEING QB...... Say that several times and maybe you will understand that even if you don't think much of Foles, Barkley, Dixon or Kinne......... They all would be a much better option AT QB than Mike Vick. There is no reason to keep a 33 year old, somewhat expensive player around to play a position he is not good at and he is not the future at. If you can't get that through your head, then there is no hope for you. You can keep touting that you are not a Vick fan, but only a Vick fan would ignore the obvious.

You know, making your point in the most douchebag way possible doesn't make you more right. But I digress...

There really isn't much more to say. You clearly think Vick is just a running back with no QB skills. You seem to hold against him that he's athletic, like being athletic automatically means every traditional pocket passer must be better. (If you think Foles' arm strength is as good as Vick's, you're crazy.)

There's plenty of athletic QBs who simply don't make it as a starter at the QB position, but Vick has, so I think you're vastly underestimating what he brings to the table AS A QB. He's obviously got a turnover problem and he's not as great under center as a lot of QBs in the league, but he's definitely better than guys like Tebow, Dixon, or Vince Young. It's not like he played QB in the league only because of his athletic ability.

You tried to trot out a bunch of stats to prove how terrible Vick was, so I trotted out a counter argument based upon my own stats. It may surprise you to know that coaches get fired for reasons other than the QB. In fact, just about every coach in football ends up "fired" eventually. And even when one Atlanta coach got fired, the guy they replaced him with started Vick just the same. (You want to talk about trying to "sneak past as true" completely bogus stats, look back at how you tried to compare Vick's rookie year to Foles'.) And even now, Chip Kelly hasn't ruled out starting Vick, now 33 years old, after a 4-12 season. So, maybe it's not quite as "obvious" as you think it is that Vick is the scum of the earth.

Sorry it upsets you that there are plenty of ways to view the facts that show Vick has been successful, but there are. I'm also sorry it upsets you so much that "anyone but Vick, no matter who it is" doesn't sound so obvious or even rational to me, given what I think Vick brings to the table and what the other options actually are. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I just hope you can accept someone can have a different perspective without being the complete and utter moron and loser you apparently think I am. But maybe that's giving you too much credit.

 

[soulxflare]

You clearly think Vick is just a running back with no QB skills.

This isn't just his opinion -- it is observable fact.

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

You know, making your point in the most douchebag way possible doesn't make you more right. But I digress...

There really isn't much more to say. You clearly think Vick is just a running back with no QB skills. You seem to hold against him that he's athletic, like being athletic automatically means every traditional pocket passer must be better. (If you think Foles' arm strength is as good as Vick's, you're crazy.)

There's plenty of athletic QBs who simply don't make it as a starter at the QB position, but Vick has, so I think you're vastly underestimating what he brings to the table AS A QB. He's obviously got a turnover problem and he's not as great under center as a lot of QBs in the league, but he's definitely better than guys like Tebow, Dixon, or Vince Young. It's not like he played QB in the league only because of his athletic ability.

You tried to trot out a bunch of stats to prove how terrible Vick was, so I trotted out a counter argument based upon my own stats. It may surprise you to know that coaches get fired for reasons other than the QB. In fact, just about every coach in football ends up "fired" eventually. And even when one Atlanta coach got fired, the guy they replaced him with started Vick just the same. (You want to talk about trying to "sneak past as true" completely bogus stats, look back at how you tried to compare Vick's rookie year to Foles'.) And even now, Chip Kelly hasn't ruled out starting Vick, now 33 years old, after a 4-12 season. So, maybe it's not quite as "obvious" as you think it is that Vick is the scum of the earth.

Sorry it upsets you that there are plenty of ways to view the facts that show Vick has been successful, but there are. I'm also sorry it upsets you so much that "anyone but Vick, no matter who it is" doesn't sound so obvious or even rational to me, given what I think Vick brings to the table and what the other options actually are. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I just hope you can accept someone can have a different perspective without being the complete and utter moron and loser you apparently think I am. But maybe that's giving you too much credit.

No, making my point in the most douchebag way is not because I think it makes me more right. I do it to try to get my point across to dumb Vick lovers.

Vick is a running QB with no QB skills, and I don't hold it against him because he is athletic, nor do I think every athletic QB is not as good as a pocket QB...... Although, I will say that no running QB has won a SB. But to the point, I think Russell Wilson, RG3 and maybe even Colin Kaepernick are very good QBs, and I would take any of them on the Eagles right now over Nick Foles, so stop trying to act like you know what I am thinking. Stop trying to make excuses for Vick. He is a shit QB. That is a fact.

I am not gonna argue anything in your 3 paragraph, because it is just dumb. Your excuses for him being good AS A QB is that he has been a starter for a while. So dumb. And your examples are even worse.

I posted FACTS to show how bad Vick was. You posted a stupid point that he has consistently been a starter to say he is good. Please tell me you are joking/trolling and you are not this big of an idiot? That has got to be the dumbest "counter-argument" I have ever read/heard. And even now, all you keep talking about is how he has always been a starter and he might once again be named a starter as your argument. That is such horrible logic. Especially because I explained why he keeps getting chances. It is the same reason why people assume Vick is the best option for Kelly's offense. People think that Chip Kelly's offense is only based around an quick QB, and that Vick will somehow be a better passer under Kelly because of his offense.

It doesn't upset me that people could view FACTS that prove Vick is successful......... If you actually showed some. You haven't. Your only "fact" is that he has been a consistent starter. You can't show anything else to back up your dumb claim. He hasn't been a winner (I proved that), and his passing stats are average to below average for what a QB should have (I proved that). You could point to his rushing stats as a QB to prove he has been successful, but we are talking about a QB, not a RB. Those rushing stats are only impressive if you can also put up good passing stats.

This will be my last response to you because you clearly don't have anything else to add to this argument, you didn't before this last reply of yours obviously. You still felt the need to reply though to repeat the same stuff you said before. Maybe I hurt your feelings and you had to get that out so you could feel better. I don't know, but you should have at least came with a counter-argument instead of just crying about my last reply.