Wow…you’re actually saying that Moon, Marino, and Manning didn’t have/haven’t had big success in the NFL. That cracks me up.
Big success- yes they did have big success, but just can’t be rated higher than Elway, Favre & Brady due to failure to win the big one, or for Moon & Manning, even get there.
That wasn’t my question, though.
Then why do we define Moon and Marino as great QBs? They are far, far greater than Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, or a number of other Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks.
Good point, maybe I should have specified:
Of QB’s with similar stats (Elway vs. Marino, Favre vs. Moon, Brady v. Manning) when you determine “which was better” people usually use which one won the big one to break a tie, or to give one the edge. Marino over Dilfer? No question. Over Elway? Can’t do it.
Terry Bradshaw is thought of as more of a success than Fran Tarkenton, but Tarkenton has far superior stats. Bradshaw barely has more career TD’s than INT’s. And Joe Namath is thought of a winner, but had only one really good year, and in that year had 28 picks I think. Ditto Stabler, thought of a winner (success), stats not that great.
Good point, maybe I should have specified:
Of QB’s with similar stats (Elway vs. Marino, Favre vs. Moon, Brady v. Manning) when you determine “which was better” people usually use which one won the big one to break a tie, or to give one the edge. Marino over Dilfer? No question. Over Elway? Can’t do it.
Terry Bradshaw is thought of as more of a success than Fran Tarkenton, but Tarkenton has far superior stats. Bradshaw barely has more career TD’s than INT’s. And Joe Namath is thought of a winner, but had only one really good year, and in that year had 28 picks I think. Ditto Stabler, thought of a winner (success), stats not that great.
Still wasn’t my question, though.
Sorry, My standard:
Never really thought of it, but I would say good quarterback, someone like Cunningham, Grogan, Grbac, Brunell- good stats, decent logevitiy, but no wins deep in playoffs.
Great- good stats, longevity, but big playoff wins. Marino maybe an exception and is considered great because his stas are so massive and he did make the Super Bowl once.
I can buy that. Would you put Vick in with the Good group, or is he not quite there yet?
(Sorry for being snippy, by the way…I’ve been in a mood lately. No offense intended.)
I maybe biased but If Vick is in the good category, he’s in the bottom tier. Average at best. Poor stats, injury prone, but has made the playoffs twice, but also wonder if that was due to him or the team around him- i can’t recall those teams.
Quarterback scrambling is one of the strongest indicators of not having success in the postseason. No QB has ever scrambled for 300+ yards and won a Superbowl, despite there being quite a few opportunities to do so. So far in my research, I’ve only located one QB (Steve McNair) to ever even reach the Superbowl in a season where he scrambled for 300+ yards. Even more damning is that if you combine all scrambling yards for a team, the 300 barrier still seems to be in effect. The 1989 49ers, with Steve Young and Joe Montana, appear to be the only Superbowl winners to have scrambled for 300+ yards during the season, and neither of them even cracked 200 yards.
Here’s as far back as I’ve researched: (Only playoff teams are considered.)
2005: 0-0 (No playoff teams posted 300+ yards rushing from the QB position)
2004: 0-2 (Falcons, Vikings)
2003: 0-1 (Eagles)
2002: 0-4 (Eagles, Falcons, 49ers, Titans)
2001: 0-3 (Dolphins, Eagles, Steelers)
2000: 0-6 (Bucs, Eagles, Raiders, Saints[sup]1[/sup], Titans, Vikings)
1999: 0-2 (Bills, Titans[sup]2[/sup])
1998: 0-1 (49ers)
1997: 0-2 (Jags[sup]1[/sup], Steelers)
1996: 0-2 (49ers, Jags)
1995: 0-0 (No playoff teams posted 300+ yards rushing from the QB position)
1994: 0-0 (No playoff teams posted 300+ yards rushing from the QB position)
1993: 0-1 (49ers)
1992: 0-2 (Eagles, 49ers)
1991: 0-1 (Bears)
1990: 0-3 (Bears, Eagles, 49ers[sup]1[/sup])
1989: 1-1 (Eagles, 49ers[sup]123[/sup])
[sup]1[/sup]Team scrambled for 300+ yards combined from the QB position; no one QB broke the mark.
[sup]2[/sup]Made it to the Superbowl.
[sup]3[/sup]Won the Superbowl.
The breakdown is as follows:
Playoff teams with…
…a single QB who scrambled for 300+ yards have made 1 Superbowl appearance out of 28 playoff appearances with no Superbowl wins.
…a combined 300+ scrambling yards from the QB position have made 2 Superbowl appearances out of 32 playoff appearances with 1 Superbowl win.
Why wasn’t it a successful gameplan? It succeeded with flying colors. Vick is an awful passer. It’s not surprising at all that the Falcons were bad on 3rd downs, because that’s usually a passing down. Scramble all you want, but as soon as you fall behind, you’re done because you have to pass to win.
Scrambling has been proven to be ineffective at the elite levels. Plenty of scrambling teams have made the playoffs, and yet no QB has ever scrambled for more than 300 yards and won the Superbowl in the same season. Hell, only one team (the 49ers) has ever managed to win it all in a season where their entire QB position (Young & Montana) have scrambled for more than 300 yards combined. So discounting the bias against scramblers who played on shitty teams, even on good teams scrambling appears to be anathema to winning the Superbowl. Or even reaching it.
Vick carried his team to the playoffs both times.
They gave up 377 yards of total offense. Everyone is “results oriented” when they look at football games, but if you give up 377 yards per game, you’re going to be fucking toast. Try to find some stats about how many times a team rushes for 230 yards in a game and loses. Don’t call this a successful game plan just because the Giants won.
Did somebody in this thread really claim that the Falcons would win two more games per year with Matt Schaub in there?
Without following it with 3 million smiley faces?
Did I actually see that or was it something I dreamed last night?
Did you see Michael Vick single-handedly defeat the Green Bay Packers in the snow in the playoffs 3 years back? Did you see the Falcons put up 47 on the Saint Louis Rams in the 2004 playoffs?
Falcons were 14th in total offense in 2002 with Vick at the helm. Playoff victory.
30th in total offense in 2003 when he was injured. No playoffs
18th in total offense in 2004 when he was leading them again. lost in NFC championship.
13th in total offense in 2005 with Vick playng again.
Address THAT, Matt Schaub, then get back to me about how Vick is just a jersey seller. Because, that, to me, looks a lot like the Chicago Bulls when Jordan decided to walk away for a couple years.
As **Ellis Dee’s ** stats show, if your goal is to get to the playoffs every other year and win a playoff game or two, Vick may well be your guy. If you’re goal is continued success and Super Bowl appearances, you may want to look elsewhere.
With all due respect, what Ellis Dee posted was nonsense.
What does “2004 0-2 (Falcons, Vikings)” even mean?
In 2004, the Falcons and the Vikings each had a playoff victory! What it looks like to me is that teams with QBs who rush for more than 300 yards were 2 for 2 in getting to the playoffs, and 2-2 in the playoffs. Yeah. .500 against the remaining best teams in the league.
And, in 2004. . .they each lost to McNabb. . .a scrambling QB who was scrambling at little less at that point. Although in the Atlanta game, he ran 10 times fro 32 yards. . .a pace that would put him at about 500 yards over the course of a season.
You want to measure it by SB victories? Get off it. It’s like saying the Braves formula was wrong because they won the division 15 years straight and only won one world series ring.
Besides, Ellis cherry picked one statistic to focus on and then claimed that that statistic is indicative of playoff failure. You don’t think I could find a stat like “TE yards receiving” or “tackles by the weak side linebacker” and draw some conclusiong like “if the weak side linebacker leads your team in tackles you do poorly in the superbowl.”
How about in 2004, the 2-14 49ers had 67 yards rushing from their QB position?
How about, the 4-12 Cardinals had 150 yards QB rushing?
The 4-12 Dolphins had 70 yards rushing from the QB?
Gee, I think that if I want a winner, I better start looking at QBs who can scramble.
Going back to 2002, the Falcons have had 2 playoff victories. I bet you could find about 25 teams that would happily switch places with that success. (I’d rule out the Pats, Colts, Seahawks, Eagles, Steelers, Panthers, Broncocs and maybe a couple more. Maybe)
Yes, but you named 8-10 teams- which would place the Falcons just in the upper third of the league- Vick is supposedly a gift from heaven and is what, the second or third highest paid quarterback in the league, for that I would expect a lot more than I’m getting.
Well – In 2005, the quarterbacks who were paid higher than Vick were. . .
Favre, Harrington, Culpepper, Manning, Brady, and Brees so what he’s making is not exactly out of whack. I don’t give a shit if you think he’s regarded as a “gift from heaven” and he doesn’t meet that expectation. I don’t consider him a “gift from heaven”.
Why don’t we look at a few more Superbowl winners while we’re here. If you want to focus on quarterbacks who are known for getting the job done with their feet. . .going back to '88, we find
1988 – SF QBs combined for 316 yards and won the superbowl.
1989 – SF QBs combined for over 300 yards rushing, and they won the SB.
1994 – Young rushed for 293. Won the SB.
1997 – Elway rushed for 218 and won the SB
Jesus – we’re up to about 10% of superbowls WON by scrambling QBs. No, the last two didn’t achieve some arbitrary number like 300, but make no mistake, they are scramblers.
And, Elway won another one.
Hey, look, somebody besides me is calling Ellis Dee’s scrambling thesis bullshit! It warms my heart.
Anyway, Trunk’s got it right with regard to Vick. He wins games. Pointing to statistics and saying this formula or that formula isn’t a “winning” formula just doesn’t work. How many quarterbacks have thrown for more than 33 or more touchdowns in a single season and won the Super Bowl that same year? Three, I think. Does that mean that you want your quarterback to keep his touchdown passes down? No, it means it’s hard to throw that many touchdowns, and it’s fucking hard to win the Super Bowl.
If Vick’s such a bad football player, his team should lose more games than it wins. If his team keeps winning, the coaches on the other side must be pretty stupid, am I right? No, he hasn’t ever beaten teams consistently with his arm. But he beats teams all the time with his legs! You can’t just brush that aside.
And since the knock in this thread is the postseason, two quick things: right now he’s got a better career winning percentage in the postseason than Peyton Manning (but he hasn’t gotten there as many times). Manning never runs! And Vick runs all the time! It doesn’t add up, I tell you; something must be wrong with the numbers. Well, either that, or it’s fucking hard to win in the postseason, and it takes more than a quick review of the box score to figure it out.
Second, the man’s played 63 career games. A little early to write him off as a quarterback, I’d say.
Again, if he’s a great runner but poor passer, make him a running back. And I personally don’t consider Elway or Young running quarterbacks in the sense that that is their main path to success. Elway and Young were great passers, very high QB ratings, lots of TD passes, who on top of all those superlatives, could run if need be. Vick’s raison d’etre is that he can run- if he couldn’t he wouldn’t be a starting NFL QB- Elway and Young would still be highly successful QB’s without the run.
Why should they make him a running back? As their quarterback he’s got one of the best winning percentages in the league. Why do you insist that there’s such a thing as what a quarterback “should” be? Reggie Bush is 4th in the league in catches, but he’s not running the ball that well. But running backs are supposed to run the ball, right? Quarterbacks throw, running backs run, receivers catch. Should he be converted into a receiver for the rest of his career, or is the fact that he’s being used effectively an indicator that he should continue to be used in that manner?