1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

VIVA LA VICKBALL!!!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Oz, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. Chuck~Taylor

    Chuck~Taylor Active Member

    I'm sorry, but I never gave Vick all the credit when he did good. I always said it was a team effort. The O line needs to protect better and receivers need to stop dropping balls. When they played against the Steelers and Bengals, they were great. That's why Vick played so well. The NFL isn't like the NBA. You can't have one guy go out there and take all the shots and pray to god you'll win. It dosn't work that way in the NFL. It's the ultimate team sport. I'm not saying Vick is a great passer(those interceptions were terrible). But I'm saying he's better than you think.
     
  2. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Chuck, sometimes you don't need to be flashy to produce. Take Roethlisberger, who some -- people like you -- say is overrated in another sense. Here's what he did leading up to the Super Bowl ...

    AFC wild card at Cincy -- 14 for 19, 208 yards, three touchdowns, 148.7 rating
    AFC divisionals at Indy -- 14 for 24, 197 yards, two touchdowns, INT, 95.3 rating
    AFC title game at Denver -- 21 for 29, 275 yards, two touchdowns, rush TD, 124.9 rating

    ... Now I'm not saying Roethlisberger revolutionized the game, but he did make the Steelers a Super Bowl champion less than two years after they held the No. 11 pick for a reason. And Vick's never won more than one playoff game in a row.

    I know which I would want taking snaps for me in January.
     
  3. Chuck~Taylor

    Chuck~Taylor Active Member

    I see your point. You left out that terrible game he had in the Super Bowl but I see your point.
     
  4. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    I ask you one question, would they have won the Super Bowl with Tommy MaddoXFL or Charlie Batch at quarterback? Yes or no.
     
  5. Chuck~Taylor

    Chuck~Taylor Active Member

    No, but they could've won it with a guy like David Garrard.
     
  6. Chuck~Taylor

    Chuck~Taylor Active Member

    DING DING DING DING WE'VE GOT A WINNER!

    :)
     
  7. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Who's under contract with the Jaguars and was not an option when the Steelers picked Ben two years ago. So how did the Steelers become a better team? What changed from that to 2005?

    Not much, except for the quarterback. A change at quarterback can often change a team's entire outlook.

    As for the Steelers possibly winning with Vick, I have two words for you -- Kordell Stewart.
     
  8. Chuck~Taylor

    Chuck~Taylor Active Member

    I'm not saying they could've picked him up. I'm saying they could've won it if he was the starting QB on the team.
     
  9. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Truer words...
     
  10. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    VIVA LA ROETHLISREVOLUTION!!!!!!
     
  11. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Yeah, but Ben Roethlisberger never ran so fast that he beat the arc-lights to the far end of the field.
     
  12. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    But he wasn't. They MIGHT have, but we don't know. Maybe Garrard is a great regular season quarterback who flops in January.

    I mean, we saw Garrard go 3 for 8 for 68 yards in that 28-3 playoff loss at New England last January, but we still don't know he would react as a starter in one road playoff game, let alone a second or third if given the chance. Maybe he turns into Kordell, we don't know.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page