Vick on the Pack?
by sdsowlsa on Aug 4, 2009 1:31 PM CDT
Email
PrintOn ESPN.com today, I noticed this little blurb: GM Thompson won't rule out Vick. Now I completely understand that Ted Thompson is the kind of guy who doesn't know the words "no" or "yes", so I would say the Packers have as much (or as little) interest in Vick as every other team that hasn't given a downright "no" thus far. I guess I'm a little intrigued about other Packers fans' thoughts about Vick joining the team. Personally, I want the Packers to field the best team, and I know that Vick is better than Flynn and Brohm combined. I know there is more of a concern with Vick being a cancer for a team than there is with just about any other player in the NFL (until the 2010 Bills' season, when TO's traditional one-year honeymoon is over). I feel, however, that Green Bay is the kind of place that could show Vick how to be a teammate, and more so, a man. Thoughts?
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Vick is a gifted athlete, but a terrible QB. Considering he missed 2 NFL Seasons, his value is just as good as Flynn and Brohm’s. However, considering Flynn and Brohm are “quarterbacks” and not just athletes, I’d take them over Vick any day. Plus, we don’t need that negative outlook on the public.
How does
a terrible QB throw 71 TD and 52 INT in his career? How does a terrible QB lead his team to the NFC Championship game? How does a terrible QB earn a 100 million dollar contract?
By running like a running back
while completing only 53% of his career passes, averaging a mere 6.57 yards per pass attempt his final three seasons combined, and not reaching a passer rating of 80 since 2002.
terrible, according to dictionary.com
terrible- 3 dictionary results
Terrible Definition
ter⋅ri⋅ble /ˈtɛrəbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-buhl] Show IPA
Use terrible in a Sentence
–adjective 1. distressing; severe: a terrible winter.
2. extremely bad; horrible: terrible coffee.
Average, perhaps. terrible, no way. Ryan Leaf was terrible. Your retort was terrible.
I did not choose the adjective, but
Jabooty wrote:
Vick is a gifted athlete, but a terrible QB.
A quarterback’s job is to efficiently run an offense, especially the passing game. He is a great runner, but unlike players like Donovan McNabb, Steve Young and Warren Moon, who could run and throw accurately… Vick runs incredibly but passes lamely. Numerous studies have shown the importance of yards per pass attempt— and less than 7 yard per is terrible. Completing barely over 50% of pass attempts is terrible in this day and age. Worst of all, if you watched his passing in the final couple of seasons before his incarceration, he was making horrible decisions and throwing wounded ducks far too often.
The only relevant thing that you said to answer the original comment was giving his TD-INT ratio. The size of his old contract and his team getting close to the Super Bowl one time have nothing to do with the original point. On the TD-INT ratio, there are numerous reasons that his TD-INT ratio is not terrible, despite his not being a good QB. For example, the fact that he can keep plays alive with his running ability in the red zone may have gained him a few more TDs in his career. (HOWEVER, please note that 71-52 is acceptable, not spectacular in this era.)
Consider further that he has not read a defense, thrown an NFL pass, or done anything football at NFL speed for two years, and he is likely now a gifted athlete who is truly a terrible QB, just like Jabooty said.
I would say...
…that, for an NFL quarterback, “[completing] only 53% of his career passes, averaging a mere 6.57 yards per pass attempt his final three seasons combined, and not reaching a passer rating of 80 since 2002” pretty much fits the definitions for ‘terrible’ that you have supplied; especially the ‘6.57 yards per pass attempt’ part.
The glass is more than half-full.
Nothing to lose.
Sign Vick at a low salary and use him as needed at various plays and positions. As long as we win forget about what the public thinks.
Vick #3 QB + more
I agree that vick is not the best qb out there but he can make plays and be very unpredictable for defenses. Make him a solid 3rd string qb and work in the wildcat maybe?!? He can run and has a cannon, he could at least give our offense a few looks they don’t have right now. Plus as packersmmx stated he would be cheap and he’d have a hunger to prove his ability.
Good for Vick? Yes. Good for GB? Maybe.
Vick isn’t going to get a starting gig anywhere in the NFL this year, barring some sudden desperation by a GM. What he is looking for (if wise) is just to get reestablished as a player, get himself into NFL shape physically and mentally, and get some coaching. He also should be looking to go somewhere like GB: minimal “fun” distractions ala Pacman Jones as well as good position coaching. Spending a year successfully just being a good citizen and teammate will go a long way towards his comeback. Say what you want, he had a $130M contract for fairly good reasons.
Now that we’ve established that GB would be a good place for him to go (good QB coaching, no starting pressure, minimal off-field hazards) lets see if HE would be good for GB. He is incredibly fast, has a very strong arm, and has plenty of quickness. His achievements as a throwing QB have been moderately good and he is a phenomenally good running QB. Throwing QB defined as five-step drop, three or four receiver read progression, run from pressure to set up a throw only. Running QB defined as two to three reads, three to five-step drop, running from pressure to gain yardage replacing the third or fourth receiver read.
Now, what that all means is that his QB style is quite different than Roger’s. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. Knowing that going in I’m sure that Vick would be looked at as a QB. He would replace one of the two current second/third string guys. Vick would likely be around for only one or at most (unlikely) two years. For the Pack to buy into bringing him in Thompson would have to believe some sort of valuable contribution could be had for his price. The Wildcat formation seems to be hovering somewhere between one-year-wonder and The Next Big Thing for NFL offenses, and Vick is perfect for the role. He has also thrown (ahem) a lot more regular season passes than any of the Packer’s current QBs, Rogers included, so has experience. If Vick is done as a QB (only time will tell) then he would be valuable in the same way Reggie Bush is: outside the tackles and as a receiver. GB has two carved-in-stone wide receivers and one above-average running back. There is room for another player who could contribute at one of those positions.
I believe that the Packers could use Vick and that he could use the Packers. Thompson didn’t take the chance that he should have on Randy Moss partially out of charachter concerns (I hope) so he may not take a chance on Vick. Alternatively he might have learned his lesson and try him out instead. Look how that Moss thing worked out for the Patriots, eh? Summary. The Pack could use him and should pick him up if the price is right and he will be able to contribute physically this season. Vick could do far worse than come to Green Bay so he should be waxing Ted Thompson’s car right now trying to get on his good side. Holy Cats, this is a long post!
his QB style is quite different than Roger’s.
A great cue for this question:
When has Vick ever played in a system even remotely like Green Bay’s?
The glass is more than half-full.
not so important
GB isn’t going to remake its offensive system to suit Vick, even if he is signed, even if he still has starting QB skills, even if Rogers goes down with injury, and Vick has a good year in his place. Unless Rogers has some sort of career-ending injury GB is his team. That said basic football skills generally transfer to different offensive schemes. Running is running, catching is catching, throwing is throwing. The mental skills of course don’t. Read progressions, protection schemes, yadda yadda are all scheme specific and take time to learn well. Vick would make a good COMPLEMENTARY player for the offense again assuming that he was still physically able. In dire need he might even make a good backup QB if he adapts to the system. No matter how good he looks though, the most he (and GB!) could hope for is increasing his possible trade or free agent value. Rogers looks like a good QB and TT isn’t going to be getting rid of him anytime soon. In the end Vick is still a QB and that is where he will play eventually regardless of what he does this season.
Huh?
Since I thought that I was more or less agreeing with your post (a sentiment which I felt was expressed by my line, “A great cue for this question”) and your reply to me seems to me to indicate that you thought that I was DISagreeing with it and needed to be rebutted, let me try again.
As you say, the Packers are NOT going to remake their offensive system to suit Vick.
To me, that means that there is NO WAY that Vick would be a good fit in Green Bay, if he has never played in a system that is even remotely like the Pack’s; hence the question that I put forth.
The only real disagreement that I feel that I have with you is with the subject line of your first post, which I would have written as, ‘Good for Vick? Maybe. Good for GB? Decidedly NOT!’
The glass is more than half-full.
Yeah
I posted that comment just for added emphasis on my no vote in the poll.
I find it incredible that any Packers fans would really want MV on the team.
The glass is more than half-full.
I cant believe
people are actually serious about this…. Vick was a joke for a QB to begin with. Now i will say i was a huge fan of his back in the day at Vtech, but a college QB is completely different than a NFL QB!! ask Matt Leinart about that.. and probably Tim Teabow in a year! This is the NFL a QB actually has to throw the ball you cant run first and think pass second! And unless prison made him alot tougher that he can be a running back there is no need for a below average passing QB on this team.
Vick just does not have what it takes to be a good NFL QB. For those of you think he was with the Falcons that is because they create their offensive system around him. You think the Pack would create their system around Vick?? Heck NO! If they did MM should be ran out of town and TT would have to be leading the way.
thank you for being the voice of reason
I was beginning to wonder what was happening to this place. Between Vikings trolls coming over here talking nonsense and people actually advocating signing Vick to backup Rodgers and jettisoning guys like Flynn and Brohm I was beginning to worry
Frye is honestly gotta be one of the top 10 3rd Stringers in all of the NFL right now--colbyb
Too many assumptions
I agree that we don’t need Vick as a QB. But does that mean he couldn’t play another position? He has more yards per carry than Brady has in yards per attempted throw. You could bring him in as a change of pace RB and then give him a passing option. Imagine Vick running right after a hand off. The defense has three things to cover: Maybe Aaron still has the ball on a bootleg, maybe Vick is going to pass, or maybe Vick is running a sweep. When the safety peaks into the back field, which one should he watch?
I don’t see how a defense stops the combination of a top ten pocket passer with a running back that can throw. But I’m an amateur. Any thoughts?
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 5, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
While I understand you thoughts...
I think that there is a fundamental flaw. The presumption that you are making is that running the football is the same as a QB and as a RB. When Vick ran as a QB, it was usually after the defense had deployed into a cover scheme, reducing potential defensive pursuit when he broke containment.
As a full running back, he’d not be getting the broken field he got to attack when he ran as a QB.
The NFL website lists Vick as 6’0" and 215#. Does that sound like the measurements of someone who could hack running against anything but a broken field?
by NYCPac on Aug 5, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I see your point
Your right that he wouldn’t be a between the tackles kind of runner. But we have Grant for that.
Think of the inverted wishbone with Vick on the right, Quin on the left, and Grant behind Rogers. Line your TE up on the left side, split Jennings a few yard to the right. I don’t see how you defense that. But like I said, I’m an amateur.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 6, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions
There is a damn good reason...
…why the wishbone, in any form, is not used in the NFL.
It leaves the quarterback way too exposed to the possibility of serious injury.
The glass is more than half-full.
Please read more carefully.
I didn’t say wishbone. I said inverted wishbone.
The backfield is a diamond with the QB under center, a full back to two steps back and two steps to the left, another full back mirroring the first full back, and the half back straight back from the QB and two steps behind the full backs.
We ran this formation at least once every game last year. I’m putting Vick in the full back position away from the tight end. As the offense comes to the line, the defense has about 1 second to figure out where Vick is a try to adjust. I just don’t think it can be done.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 8, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think
Bringing in Vick would be a bad thing at all. We could impliment the Wildcat offense with him, which would likely be very, very effective considering he has the best ypc in the history of the NFL. It would be a good change of pace.
first off
with preseason starting in a week there would be no time to change an offense,
2. Why would we change our offense??? We have a very solid offense. The running game could use a boost but not the passing game
3. why would we change our offense for a guy that has not played football in two years?
Haha
I didn’t ever say change, I said implement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with our offense now, it’s one of the best in the NFL. If we brought Vick in and implemented the Wildcat offense it would only help our offense more. Teams would have to gameplan against it, which could cause them to not be entirely ready for Rodgers and our aerial attack.
by packallday555 on Aug 6, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions
As you say,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our offense now.
without Vick.
As for the wildcat, it is my very firm belief that, in the long run, it will prove to be even less effective than the old run-n-shoot, which nobody uses anymore (very ineffective in the red zone).
I think that the only real way for the wildcat to be effective at all is as a trick play, used, at most, once or twice a game.
The glass is more than half-full.
+1
The wildcat is not an every down offense. You use it to stun the D maybe get a big play and then its pretty much done for the game because now you will have the D on their toes. Also to use the wildcat it is almost a hit or miss. Either you get a big play or it will get blown up and bad things happen..
I didn’t say I want to run it as an every down offense, because I don’t. We wouldn’t even have to run the Wildcat with him everytime. If we simply put him at RB or WR on some plays it would have teams scrambling. They would have to respect us handing the ball of too him, and it could open up things for the pass game. I see where you guys are both coming from. The only reason I wouldn’t think signing Vick is a horrible idea is because our run game was so poor last year. I think him coming in could help improve it, and that would make our offense very well rounded and probably one of the top ones in the league. I’m not giving up hope on Grant either, I think he is going to be the Grant of 07’ this year, but if he is not then I don’t see any problem with bringing in Vick.
by packallday555 on Aug 7, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
see
NYCPac’s comment above about Vick as a RB. He perfectly states why Vicks numbers while running are so good and why he is not a RB
Artificial limts
NYC is absolutely right that Vick is too small to be an every down, between the tackles kind of runner. But is that the only kind of runner in the NFL? Barry Sanders only weighed 203 during his playing days.
Put Grant or Wynn in the back field with a fullback and Vick. Run the fullback and Grant up the middle. The defense has to respect it. The LBs have to bite and the safeties come up. Now either Jennings is open or Vick can run wide. Or both, Or Rogers bootlegs and throws long to Jennings.
What have I missed????
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 8, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
what did i miss here?
So then you want to take DD or Jordy Nelson or Jones off the field for Vick to play running back? And you really want to see the Packers take the media hit for Vick to play your wishbone offense once or twice a game???? NO THANKS!!!
I don’t think he is concerned about the media. He sees Vick as a great talent, just as I do. Is he a pocket passer QB? No. Should we change our offense just so it fits his style? Of course not. Did Vick do a horrible thing? Hell yes he did. Did he pay for what he did? Yes, he did. Could Vick help our team in certain situations? Yes, I think he could.
Are you against the Packers signing Vick because of the crime he committed or because you don’t think he could help our team?
by packallday555 on Aug 8, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions
You are asking a good question, but...
it is the wrong one. The proper question is if there is any chance that Vick will mean more to the 2009 team than the final player who is instead getting cut. This is the ACTUAL cost of signing Vick… the opportunities abandoned to choose Vick instead.
—If he is on the team as a QB, that means that Brohm or Flynn is gone, a price not worth the payoff in my book.
—If he takes a spot from one of the RBs, I am sorry but Vick is not going to be versatile enough to justify cutting Lumpkin, or one of the fullbacks who can help in short yardage. Vick is not going to pick up blitzes, so he is useless as a “3d down” back, and he would never be able to cover should Grant or Jackson get hurt.
—If he is on the roster, as others have suggested elsewhere, as a WR, please tell me that Vick promises more than our final WR despite never showing the ability to run routes, catch tough passes, or drag his toes on the sideline.
In other words, Vick does not fit. He can take a spot from a young, talented backup QB or he can take a roster spot from a position where he is unqualified to play. Either way, the cost is too high without ever discussing money in any manner. If Vick proves expensive, then add one young player who we can no longer lock up in a long-term deal to the opportunity costs.
Well reasoned.
Thanks NYC. A very well reasoned response.
You think Vick brings less upside than our fifth WR. I agree that I never thought of Vick as WR, just him taking the fifth spot. You could still go empty backfield with Finely. But you have no depth. One injury and you loose options. You would be loosing the growth of a backup WR for a (perhaps) more explosive player this year.
As for the idea that running from an offset position is different, I disagree. He should have had a linebacker or two to dodge in his old position. You seem to want to limit him to the traditional RB role. I want him running wide pulling a LB with him when the ball gets handed to Grant. Or Rogers is hitting Lee on a seam. I want him taking a lateral when the tackling of the LB/safety in front of him is the weak link in our opponent’s defense. He used to be good at making the first guy miss.
Is having this extra ability worth loosing Martin or Jones? Maybe not with Driver nearing retirement. Still… having him as an option should drive defenses crazy.
All of which is moot, since his bankruptcy agreement almost requires him to make QB size money, and the role I’m suggesting would only get him a RB’s paycheck.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 9, 2009 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Not to argue, but...
As for the idea that running from an offset position is different, I disagree. He should have had a linebacker or two to dodge in his old position. You seem to want to limit him to the traditional RB role. I want him running wide pulling a LB with him when the ball gets handed to Grant. Or Rogers is hitting Lee on a seam. I want him taking a lateral when the tackling of the LB/safety in front of him is the weak link in our opponent’s defense. He used to be good at making the first guy miss.
I am not speaking in absolutes, since different defenses play differently depending on the team. However, passing defenses tend to use everyone in either pass rush or coverage. Even if a defense used a spy, that still means that after 2-3 seconds of play have passed, there was almost no chance of serious “pursuit” or group tackling on Vick.
Now, if I were a D-Coord for an opponent who put Vick into a non-QB backfield position, I would know one of a few things: 1) the play will be a slow developing play, to get Vick the ball with less than normal pursuit or 2) Vick is merely in as a decoy or 3) your team is willing to essentially play with only 10 players, since Vick most certainly cannot block, pick up blitzes, catch, etc. Not actually being a d-coord, I am not knowledgeable on EVERYTHING that can be done, but I am pretty sure that there is a combination of blitzes and scheming that can force the play to be fast and put Vick under pressure to block or otherwise do what he cannot do.
He would be totally one-dimensional… with that dimension not being all that sizable.
All of which is moot, since his bankruptcy agreement almost requires him to make QB size money, and the role I’m suggesting would only get him a RB’s paycheck.
I presumed that signing Vick is possible on the cheap for the purposes of our strategic conversation… I hope no one minds. :-)
But
“Now, if I were a D-Coord for an opponent who put Vick into a non-QB backfield position, I would know one of a few things: 1) the play will be a slow developing play, to get Vick the ball with less than normal pursuit or 2) Vick is merely in as a decoy or 3) your team is willing to essentially play with only 10 players, since Vick most certainly cannot block, pick up blitzes, catch, etc. Not actually being a d-coord, I am not knowledgeable on EVERYTHING that can be done, but I am pretty sure that there is a combination of blitzes and scheming that can force the play to be fast and put Vick under pressure to block or otherwise do what he cannot do.”
What 50 years is presenting is very similar to the wildcat. Everything you have said regarding how to defend what 50 years is proposing is smart and well though out. The thing is, teams probably still wouldn’t be able to stop it (at least not this year.) The Wildcat is more basic then what 50 years is proposing, and most teams couldn’t stop it. I just think there are ways we could utilize Vick’s talent and athleticism. Am i going to be disappointed if we don’t sign him? No. Rodgers is a top 5-6 QB in the league right now, and that’s only going to improve.
by packallday555 on Aug 10, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually
The Wildcat is more basic then what 50 years is proposing, and most teams couldn’t stop it.
Here is an article that would take issue with your claim:
Bleacher Report Article
Remember how devastatingly the Ravens D crushed the Dolphins in the Wildcat in the playoffs. I say that we should sign Vick only if we think that he is a valid QB backup immediately despite the two seasons off AND that we consider Brohm or Flynn to really have no future in the NFL. We should NOT sign him simply to be some type of gimmick or “slash” type player, and we should not leave our team exposed at some other position since Vick is a QB, not a RB or WR.
Right
But only the Ravens stopped it, and they had one of the best defenses in the league.
by packallday555 on Aug 11, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Now we're getting somewhere
My question all a long has been how do you stop the inverted wishbone when Vick lines up in it. NYC, you’re the first person to actually attempt to answer the question. Thank you.
Using your suggestion of a fast attacking defense let’s say a defense sees Vick in the backfield and that triggers a blitz from the side Vick is on. You’re probably right that we can’t hope that Vick will pick up the blitz. And that prevents Rogers from dropping back. That also leaves the defense in its normal count on the strong side so we don’t have an advantage if we run.
But, if Vick sees the blitz and slides out into the flat, he’s alone. Rogers hits him with a screen over/around the blitzer and Vick has one or two guys to beat to the endzone. What have I missed?
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 10, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I believe that the issue would then be...
But, if Vick sees the blitz and slides out into the flat, he’s alone. Rogers hits him with a screen over/around the blitzer and Vick has one or two guys to beat to the endzone. What have I missed?
The only problem with this scenario is that we have no reason to think that Vick has the ability to catch passes out of the backfield, especially those tossed out of duress. Most running backs work extremely hard to get good at catching those passes… and some never can do it well despite the effort.
Now, I realize that QB is a hands position, but keeping one’s eyes on a softly floated ball as a myriad of action is going on around you cannot be easy for someone who has never done it.
haha
I hear what your saying but I think he could perfect catching passing in the flats. And if he did catch it, the chances are pretty good he can get past the first ensuing defender, and probably the second one as well.
by packallday555 on Aug 11, 2009 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions
I think
He could be more valuable then Brohm or Flynn. He is so explosive. Like I said before I don’t necessarily think he is a true QB, but rather a scrambling QB. I don’t think he would be a good RB or WR. I think we could utilize him in certain ways to help our team, which is the only reason I would be interested in him.
by packallday555 on Aug 10, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not seeing this,
Hi 555,
I guess I wouldn’t let Brohm go for Vick. After two years Vick is going to be pretty rusty. We would have to install a second offense to use his skills if Rogers went down. If you staid with the current offense I don’t think Vick gives you any advantage this year.
I do think he gives you more help than our current #5 WR. Though I wouldn’t play him at WR.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 10, 2009 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't necessarily
Think so either. I was kind of just saying we could let one go because if Vick came we might have to. But I think we could drop Lumpkin at RB. It has been mentioned he could play some FB earlier but we already have 3 FBs, and 2 of them have proven to be pretty solid.
by packallday555 on Aug 11, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
With all due respect,
Michael Vick cannot run the ball like Barry Sanders did. Perhaps only 5 players in all history could.
You seem to have missed some of the point. The issue is more than just Vick’s size. He has never read blocks at the line of scrimmage, for example. He has never needed to have patience to hit the hole. Heck, he has NEVER run from a position other than QB, and he almost always ran only after all of the LBs were already running away from the LOS (except maybe a spy or two). No matter what your formation is for him, if he is getting a play that is designed for him to run from somewhere other than QB, that is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT from anything he has done.
The bottom line is that I do not understand why everyone thinks that someone with talent can just change positions from QB to somewhere else (whether DB, WR, or RB) while already on the professional level. This is not baseball, where the same skills (throwing, catching, and running) are essentially used everywhere on the field. Even in baseball, the time to make a serious position change is significant.
In football, the skill sets for QB, RB, WR, DB, etc. are so different from each other that expecting a 30 year-old player to make such a drastic transition while 1) on the pro level after 2) not playing football for two years is a bit absurd in my opinion.
I hope you're wrong
We have number of defensive players that are moving to knew locations. Kampman fits the profile you just described to a T. If you’re right then he’ll be with someone else next year. I have to hope you’re wrong.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 9, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
Kampman
is a completely different story… he has been playing the last 2 seasons for starters. He has had OTA’s and now training camp to learn. And he is not starting from scratch, as a DE you do drop into zone coverage at times although the Pack never really used it. So it is not completely foreign for him.
Perhaps I need to clarify a tad
I was not speaking about “tweeners” moving between the positions which are more closely related. For example moves between 4-3 DEs and 3-4 rush LBs can sometimes work out, but even those fail sometimes. Other examples could include CBs and Ss and (more rarely) Ss and LBs. Even in these doable transitions, though, there are sometimes cases where the players fail to make the transitions… which might be why I recall seeing an article about Kampman being shopped in the off-season, although I now forget where.
What posters are suggesting that Vick do is immensely harder. The differences between a 3-4 LB and a 4-3 DE are important, but much remains in common between the roles. There is very little in common between serving as a RB and as a QB. (Even in your more qualified role, please see my comment above.)
You could argue
That no one runs the ball like Vick does. After all he does average the most ypc in the history of the league. Though it’s much easier to run from the QB position, then the RB position.
Just wanna say I don’t think Vick’s running ability to Sanders’, but I think he is up there with the best of them.
by packallday555 on Aug 10, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
