Official 2010 NFL Regular Season Thread

But Vick missed 3 games.

He would have gotten the 800 yards. I went over this last night. As an Eagles fan who pays attention to him closer than someone who is not an Eagles fan, I know that he would gotten the 800 yards. And anywhere from 7-10 more TDs. So he would most certainly be closer than he is now, and there would be even less of an argument for Brady as the sole MVP.

I can tell you that with absolute certainty.

Kevin Kolb shredded the Falcon's defense. What would Michael Vick have done?

Kolb went 23 for 29, 326 yards and 3 touchdowns.

R.I.P.

Philip Rivers's campaign for MVP.

Week 4 - Week 11

He's an Eagles fan, he's not.

Im hating on Vick because Brady has better numbers, better winning % this year, less weapons.

I am all for Vick winning it, but hes not having a better year than Brady, anyone can see that.

Not really, I agree Vick does a lot with his legs but this Philly fan quoted his passing stats, which are worse than Brady's in every area.

Do the rushing stats outweigh being behind Brady in every stat and record?

We shall see.

He's also played in 3 extra games that Vick has NOT. Vick has 11 games. 10 1/2 because he game in at halftime in Week 1. Give him those 3 1/2 games, Brady does not have better stats. They'd be equal. Wanna compare winning percentages? Okay, let's be fair here.

Week 1 loss - Vick came in, it was 13-3. Not the best situation to try and come back from. Made an effort but came up short. That doesn't count against him because he didn't play in 50% of the game.

Week 4 loss - Vick was taken out in the first quarter. Missed the 3 following games. Can't count that loss against him because he played less than a quarter of that game.

Week 7 loss - Vick didn't play at all. Can't count that against him.

Week 12 loss - That game is the only one that can truly be counted against Mike because that's the only loss where he played the whole game and didn't replace someone at halftime, nor did he leave early in the first quarter with a rib injury.


You can sit here and brag up Brady all you want. And I will say, for what seems like the thousandth time, that Tom Brady is good. I NEVER said he wasn't. I never said his numbers weren't good. What I am saying is that his numbers are NOT THAT MUCH BETTER. Not that much better to where he, and only he deserves to be considered for the MVP. They awarded a co-MVP in 2003.

Manning: 379-576 with 4,267 yards. 67% completion. He threw 29 TD and 10 INT.

McNair: 250-400 with 3,215 yards. 62.5% completion. He threw 24 TD and 7 INT.

The Colts and Titans finished 12-4., so winning percentage was the same.


See what I see? No you probably don't, and would say so for the sake of arguing this even more. Steve McNair's stats were not as good as Peyton Manning's. Manning had more yards, more TDs, a higher completion percentage. And his average yards per game was better as well. McNair only topped Manning in QB Rating - by a WHOPPING 1.4 - and only had 3 less INTs. What I'm saying here - the same exact damn thing I've been saying all along - is that there was enough seen in the play of Steve McNair to award him co-MVP honors alongside who was, statistically, the better player in Peyton Manning.

You can't give Mike Vick extra credit because he's played in less games, man.