|
|
Post by Jean-Ralphio on Dec 25, 2010 23:13:09 GMT -5
Yeah Vick loses points for not being healthy (regardless of its his fault) compared to taking them away from Brady for not missing a game, thats a terrible argument.
Again with the what ifs, what if Vick played in those 3 games and was awful? Then this is a moot point right?
You cant just automatically assume he plays in those 3 games and hes a superstar.
Where as Brady did play 3 extra games and did peform.
See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Weinstein on Dec 25, 2010 23:14:33 GMT -5
was it a bad snap, did it get blocked or did he just completely miss it? either way lol cowboys Completely botched it wide left. He'll make it from 53 yards out, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 25, 2010 23:15:34 GMT -5
By the way that people will vote, Brady will get the advantage for being healthy and playing in those "extra" three games.
Honestly, if Brady doesn't win HALF, if not all of the award, it's a joke... But I just wouldn't care if Vick won because I love him anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 25, 2010 23:18:55 GMT -5
You can't give Mike Vick extra credit because he's played in less games, man. I'm not giving him extra credit for less games. What I'm doing is saying that it's not fair to say that Brady is better because he's played more games. I guess I just fail to see how it's that hard to comprehend that when you play more games than someone else, naturally your numbers are gonna be higher. I'll dumb it down. Take 2 NASCAR drivers. Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson. Let Jimmie Johnson run 5 races, and let Jeff Gordon only run 2. If Jimmie Johnson wins 3 of his 5 races, and Jeff Gordon wins the 2 other races, does that mean Jimmie Johnson is better? No. Jimmie Johnson had the opportunity to win more races, therefore he did. Jeff Gordon only ran 2 races of the 5 that Jimmie Johnson ran. Does that make Jeff Gordon a worse driver than Jimmie Johnson because he ran in less races? No. Tom Brady has played in 14 games. Michael Vick has played in 11. Tom Brady has had the opportunity in those 3 extra games to run up his stats, when Vick was hurt. That does NOT mean that Tom Brady is better because he has had more of an opportunity to play and get higher numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 25, 2010 23:21:09 GMT -5
I'm not giving him extra credit for less games. What I'm doing is saying that it's not fair to say that Brady is better because he's played more games. Actually, yes it is. We're talking about the "Most Valuable Player" award. If a player isn't playing, he is of ZERO value to his team. I'll dumb it down. Take 2 NASCAR drivers. Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson. Let Jimmie Johnson run 5 races, and let Jeff Gordon only run 2. If Jimmie Johnson wins 3 of his 5 races, and Jeff Gordon wins the 2 other races, does that mean Jimmie Johnson is better? No. Jimmie Johnson had the opportunity to win more races, therefore he did. Jeff Gordon only ran 2 races of the 5 that Jimmie Johnson ran. Does that make Jeff Gordon a worse driver than Jimmie Johnson because he ran in less races? No. I'm sorry, I don't understand hillbilly. I play real sports. Not tryin' to be the best at making circles. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Ralphio on Dec 25, 2010 23:22:35 GMT -5
Tom Brady only had the opportunity to run up his stats? Come on man, what a terrible homer argument.
What if Vick played and was awful? YOU CANT PREDICT THAT!
Brady played, he won more games and has better stats. Argue that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 25, 2010 23:25:56 GMT -5
Whatever. I still said co-MVP from the start. I also said that I wouldn't be sad if Vick did win flat-out. But I'd be perfectly fine with a co-MVP awarded for this season, because - whether you wanbt to admit it or not - Michael Vick is playing well enough to deserve a share of that MVP title. And I tried to compare when they last awarded a co-MVP in 2003. But apparently, that's not enough proof that stats aren't the only determining factor when awarding the MVP.
Vick plays, we win. What happened to Washington when Vick played? 59-28. Vick accounted for 6, count them - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - touchdowns. Would not have been as high, but he would have done some of the same damage against them. We also played the Falcons. Kolb shredded the Falcons defense. Vick would have amplified what happened with Kolb. The hype of being the starting QB against his old team, plus playing that game in Philadelphia, his new home? Yeah.
You say I can't predict that Vick would have done good. Well God damn it, you can't f***ing predict that he would have been terrible. So you can full stop with that argument right there.
Michael Vick has proven to be nothing less than valuable to Philadelphia. I can tell you that if we had Donovan McNabb at QB against New York last Sunday, we would not have come back. Because Donovan McNabb cannot run like Vick can. McNabb is not the early 00's McNabb anymore. He would not have been able to move like Vick did, and he would not have been able to lead us back on passing alone. Vick did it running and passing. I don't know what that means to you [probably nothing] but it says VALUABLE to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Ralphio on Dec 25, 2010 23:38:58 GMT -5
I am not the one bringing up the 3 games he missed....you did, and you told me you are Mr Eagle and you know he'd equal Brady's stats in those 3 games, which is highly unlikely, but you again kept saying you could predict things that didnt happen.
What if's do not qualify as stats so stop bringing up what he could hvae done....he was hurt, he can never get those games back.
Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 25, 2010 23:46:27 GMT -5
I am not the one bringing up the 3 games he missed....you did, and you told me you are Mr Eagle and you know he'd equal Brady's stats in those 3 games, which is highly unlikely, but you again kept saying you could predict things that didnt happen. What if's do not qualify as stats so stop bringing up what he could hvae done....he was hurt, he can never get those games back. Deal with it. I'm not saying that he can get those back. You are trying to predict that he wouldn't have done well enough to be just about tied with Brady over the 3 games he missed. And then you're saying that I can't predict he would have. Valid point. I never said it wasn't. You cannot deny that he's playing good. I never said you denied him playing good. What you also can't deny is that McNair's stats were clearly "worse" than Peyton Manning's, yet his play - the "wow" plays that you discount from Vick - was enough to earn him the co-MVP. |
|
|
|
Post by captain master talbot on Dec 25, 2010 23:47:30 GMT -5
Vick could have come in those 3 games, thrown 10 picks, 0 TDs and just stunk up the place.
He also could have been perfect.
The fact is, we'll never know. Brady has played all 14 games (not 3 extra, Vick has played 3 less) and has been stellar in them. That's the only thing proven.
Has Vick proven to be a great QB in the 11 he's played? Absolutely. But you can't take those 3 games and add/subtract it from him.
|
|
Dexter Morgan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 15:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 3,130
|
Post by Dexter Morgan on Dec 26, 2010 5:58:24 GMT -5
Anyways who the hell cares about MVP. Number #1 pick is where I'm looking. Luck HERE WE COME  |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Dec 26, 2010 10:36:24 GMT -5
LMFAO at "Carolina's Savior" in your sig, and you wanting Andrew Luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Ralphio on Dec 26, 2010 12:31:08 GMT -5
Someone said Andrew Luck > Matt Ryan, if thats the case, I can see why the Panthers would just draft him. Ryan was an insane college prospect.
|
|
Jamal
Main Eventer
Joined on: Nov 24, 2005 14:53:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,877
|
Post by Jamal on Dec 26, 2010 12:37:54 GMT -5
Someone said Andrew Luck > Matt Ryan, if thats the case, I can see why the Panthers would just draft him. Ryan was an insane college prospect. Actually I remember all the draft "gurus" saying there were no great QB prospect that year. So Ryan was #1 by default. |
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Dec 26, 2010 12:38:58 GMT -5
Vikings-Eagles game moved to Tuesday
Sunday night's Minnesota-Philadelphia contest is postponed until 8 p.m. ET Tuesday because of a blizzard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hollywood Asia on Dec 26, 2010 12:51:47 GMT -5
RAIDERS MUST LIVE ON FOR ANOTHER WEEK!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Ralphio on Dec 26, 2010 13:04:56 GMT -5
Someone said Andrew Luck > Matt Ryan, if thats the case, I can see why the Panthers would just draft him. Ryan was an insane college prospect. Actually I remember all the draft "gurus" saying there were no great QB prospect that year. So Ryan was #1 by default. Not as a ranking, but in pure prospects. People say "Best QB prospect since XX" |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Dec 26, 2010 13:06:53 GMT -5
Vikings-Eagles game moved to Tuesday Sunday night's Minnesota-Philadelphia contest is postponed until 8 p.m. ET Tuesday because of a blizzard. I'm mad. Of course, it's cool to be safe, and be sure the roads are drivable to the fans can get to the game safe and enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Dec 26, 2010 13:54:32 GMT -5
I was really hoping Vick would play in the blizzard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Weinstein on Dec 26, 2010 14:05:41 GMT -5
Hey Titans,  you. |
|
