Sorry but Vick article sighting...

by ninerfanNVA on Feb 21, 2009 10:47 AM PST

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3922780

I know most of you on this site and many others are fully against the 49ers bringing mike vick onto our team because of his past legal issues and also the potential of the fan fall out and medi fall out. But here's a question to consider...what if? What if Vick has learned from his past mistakes. What if Vick can get back into football shape? Are you guys telling me that the upside is not better than Shaun Hill or Alex Smith? Seriously? Don't get me wrong guys I am a Shaun Hill supporter and I feel Hill should be the leading candidate for the starting qb position. But sports is about competition and vick can only make them guys better. It truly is a win win situation for us? If the falcons try to trade him(they might cut him) the most they will get from anyone would be a 5th or 6th round draft pick? Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't most 5-7th round draft picks get either put on a practice squad or cut from the team? This is why singletary has not said no to vick..the only reason that unnamed spokesperson said they have no interest is to be careful. The 49ers do not want to get hit with another "tampering" situation. Its a win win in my book, if he gets his act together he makes us better, if he doesn't pan out as able to do it anymore at least the competition was for the better.

Come on guys...lets put aside the bias legal issues he had.I know its not a completely fair thing because Shaun Hill hasn't played as many but lets do what we can. Compare the stats....and lets not forget its not like VIck had playmaking receivers to throw to either(can you name them). He had to "play to win the game"...lol...that never gets old. What if we draft a qb and pay him more than what he's worth only to probably cut him in the future(hmmm) or what if we sign a free agent qb who's a veteran and pay him an over priced contract because we want the best competition(hmmm)..yeah what if's suck and aren't worth a stack of dimes.....but what if?

Vick

YEAR

TEAM

CMP

ATT

PCT

YDS

AVG

LNG

INT

RAT

2001	ATL	8	50	113	44.2	785	6.9	2	52	3	62.7
2002	ATL	15	231	421	54.9	2936	7.0	16	74	8	81.6
2003	ATL	5	50	100	50.0	585	5.9	4	49	3	69.0
2004	ATL	15	181	321	56.4	2313	7.2	14	62	12	78.1
2005	ATL	15	214	387	55.3	2412	6.2	15	58	13	73.1
2006	ATL	16	204	388	52.6	2474	6.4	20	55	13	75.7
Career		74	930	1730	53.8	11505	6.7	71	74	52	75.7

Hill YEAR	TEAM	G	CMP	ATT	PCT	YDS	AVG	TD	LNG	INT	RAT
2005	MIN	1	0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0	0	0.0
2007	SFO	3	54	79	68.4	501	6.3	5	26	1	101.3
2008	SFO	9	181	288	62.8	2046	7.1	13	48	8	87.5
Career		13	235	367	64.0	2547	6.9	18	48	9	90.5

Smith YEAR	TEAM	G	CMP	ATT	PCT	YDS	AVG	TD	LNG	INT	RAT
2005	SFO	9	84	165	50.9	875	5.3	1	47	11	40.8
2006	SFO	16	257	442	58.1	2890	6.5	16	75	16	74.8
2007	SFO	7	94	193	48.7	914	4.7	2	45	4	57.2
Career		32	435	800	54.4	4679	5.8	19	75	31	63.5

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Vick

led them to a NFC championship with a win at Green Bay along the way…nuff said

by Dub4lif3 on Feb 21, 2009 11:18 AM PST reply actions

And Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl and he didn’t magically make the 49ers a winning team. Your point?

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions

my point is

that vick led his team, dilfer didn’t his defense did. Vick was the cataylist to their success, give him a chance and he’ll prove all ya’ll wrong

by Dub4lif3 on Feb 21, 2009 4:06 PM PST up reply actions

How did Vick lead his team? By being the most visible player?

Listen, I’m not saying that Vick and Dilfer are comparable. I’m saying that “he wins” and “he’s a leader” are very, very amorphous concepts. Vince Young was a winner and a leader, and then he ended out of a job because of the quality of Kerry Collins’ play, a guy who has made a career creating a reputation for being neither a winner nor a leader.

I just want this discussion to stay away from these opaque, almost meaningless catch phrases and to stay in the realm of concrete evidence.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

those games he won

are all the evidence u need about how good vick can be

by Dub4lif3 on Feb 21, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions

That’s a very base metric. Rex Grossman is 19-11 as a starter, with a Super Bowl appearance. That’s an even better winning percentage than Vick with an even higher ceiling of accomplishment.

Grossman must be really great!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions

WOW

Rex just like Trent didn’t lead his team..
The Defense lead the team.

Vince Young was benched because he was alledgely suicidal.

http://www.runboard.com/bsanfran49ers

by supraman on Feb 21, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions

Okay, then.

Brett Favre really led his team. Except the seasons they were terrible and the team lost.

This is a dumb argument we’re all having. There are hundreds of quarterbacks with all sorts of different winning percentages over different periods of time that completely belie that quarterback’s ability.

TEAMS win games. Individual performances only win games in basketball.

And Vince Young wasn’t benched because he has reported mental problems. He was benched because his production was awful and Kerry Collins very literally gave that team a better chance to win any individual game.

I also think it’s very weird that if a quarteback isn’t leading a team, it seems to be “THE DEFENSE.” Not another player. A whole group of players. That kind of runs completely counter to the idea that an individual can provide wins in and of himself.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions

all im saying is

vick has proven he can be really good, but at times he can be bad, it wouldn’t hurt us at all to let him play. he’s man trying to return to his life after making a mistake, give him a chance.

by Dub4lif3 on Feb 22, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions

I agree that he’s proven he can be really good, and that quite a lot of his ability to influence a game as a quarterback comes from his skills as a runner. I’m not convinced that he’ll still be effective enough as a runner to make up for his deficiencies as a passer, but who really knows for sure?

The thing about this is that I’ll always comes out strong against rhetoric like “winner!” or “leader!” because all it serves to do is distract, detract, and undercut any kind of more in depth analysis of that player’s actual abilities, including “intangibles” (so far as they can be qualified).

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 22, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions

wins and losses

Sorry, but winning percentage of a QB is even less useful than a pitchers wins and losses in baseball.

by David Fucillo on Feb 21, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions

yeah I agree

yeah man I agree with you nuff said…bring him in and lets see what he can do. They all will be starting a new offense(YET AGAIN) so the playing field would be even….with hill and smith having the edge because they should be in football shape.

by ninerfanNVA on Feb 21, 2009 11:25 AM PST reply actions

O'sullivan

and I didn’t even dare put up I.T. O’sullivan stats we all know how horrific those were….Did we cut him? Please tell me he’s gone already.

by ninerfanNVA on Feb 21, 2009 11:31 AM PST reply actions

I'd hate to see smith as a starter again

Michael Vick would be an interesting conundrum in Mini Camp, but it’s really unfair to Hill who has proven he can do the job yet Staff in his own “family” doubt him

http://www.runboard.com/bsanfran49ers

by supraman on Feb 21, 2009 12:14 PM PST reply actions

Unfair?

Nothing is unfair Football! Haha, na… But I think if you bring any one player on board your franchise, you make them compete for the starting job. Whether Shaun Hill proved worthy of the starting position is irrelevant. The Martz system is gone and whichever quarterback seems to take to the Raye offense best (which I couldn’t fathom being as complex as Martz’) should win that starting job.

On the subject of Vick, he’s great on camera for sure. I mean, we’d sell a whole lot of jersies, but can he still play? What kind of contract would he be asking for? What about locker room etiquette (any dog-lovers on our team)? Do all of our young guys need the negative press meetings and media spotlight? Vick is a great household name, but he comes with alot of extra luggage. People are talking about the Niners picking up Housh and Vick and all of these knuckleheads, but I don’t so McCloughan going all Jerry Jones on us. So it’s a yes and no.. If we only knew the outcome, can’t wait till my crystal ball comes in from eBay, I’ll let you guys know whatever you want.

by J.SANCHEZ on Feb 23, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions

agreed supraman

I do not want to see smith as a starter again at least not for us…unless he has finally got it together but who knows maybe new oc raye’s offense will suit smith for the better…again its another what if. It is not fair to Shaun Hill that “his parents” don’t feel he is the answer. I see shaun hill leaving after this year if he is not given the nod.

by ninerfanNVA on Feb 21, 2009 12:23 PM PST reply actions

If Hill has a great year, Foresight, 27 TD and 15 INTs
Will the niners have the money to Lock him up for 3 more years? especially with the trust issues like you said.

http://www.runboard.com/bsanfran49ers

by supraman on Feb 21, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions

Against vick not for the legal stuff

Blind devotion.

by ProfessorBigelow on Feb 21, 2009 1:05 PM PST reply actions

I suck at posting

Many people on this site have said no to vick, not because of leagl issues, but because when he had these troubles, he was visibly not the athletic talent he was at his peak. He didn’t have the zip, teams figured out how to defend him, he was on the decline. And this is before he went to jail for two years. I would rather not take the bad press, and potential cap hit/amount we would have to give up for a mediocre to crappy qb prospect, at best.

Besides, the Niners organization has said NO. there is very little point to these posts. You have intellect and research skills, spend them on the draft, or free agents, or on something that could actually happen with the franchise, not this kind of useless dreaming.

Blind devotion.

by ProfessorBigelow on Feb 21, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions

He was on the decline???
He just came off his best passing and rushing season ever?

Scot said No
Singletary said Maybe

Who’s steering the ship? McCloughan’s job title may say GM, but who’s the reason for Firing Martz? Singletary..

http://www.runboard.com/bsanfran49ers

by supraman on Feb 21, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions

decline

Actually his second season was his best passing season. Fewer TDs that year but also fewer INTs, more yards, better rating, better completion %. He had more yards because teams were covering the pass better.

by David Fucillo on Feb 21, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions

That’s true. 2002 was by far his best passing season. I don’t think that diminishes the idea, though, that, statistically speaking, Vick was arguably not on the decline in 2006. It’s hard to say he was on the upswing, but you could easily argue that he was in or entering his prime.

When we’re talking about Vick’s 2006 season, we are talking about his best overall season and, quite likely, the second best passing season of his career. So, when he last played in the league, he was still the "good Michael Vick. But let’s put it in context. If we’re going to talk about his passing in 2006 like it is some kind of sign for optimism, I just want to point out that his 2006 passing season was arguably not much better If it was better at all) than another mystery NFL quarterback’s 2006 season. A quick look at the stats:

Michael Vick:
G, 16; Comp %, 52.6; Yards, 2474; TD, 20; INT, 13; Yrd/Att, 6.7; Yrd/G, 154.6

Mystery QB:
G, 16; Comp %, 58.1; Yards, 2890; TD, 16; INT, 16; Yrd/Att, 6.5; Yrd/G, 180.6

Which is really to say: Don’t ever ever ever ever use Michael Vick’s passing game as evidence that he should be signed to any team ever. Because you’re just asking, begging, and pleading for roughly the production of a 2006 Alex Smith if you do.

The only way to defend any argument in favor of Michael Vick is to point to the impact he makes on the ground. Which is a fine way to go. Just don’t talk about his passing game because it empirically sucks.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions

What I mean is...

Teams were beginning to figure him out, the way I saw him in-game. Was he still effective? Very. A threat? No question. But now I can’t justify the Niners spending anything to bring him into an offense that isn’t designed to his strengths. Could another team find a role for him? Sure, teams like the Cheifs and the Browns are desperate to become relevant again, they just might take the gamble. But for the Niners, its not worth it.

And thats all I have to say about that. Vick is on the same gossip rumor level as Favre, and I can’t stand it anymore. I’m tapping out.

Blind devotion.

by ProfessorBigelow on Feb 21, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to provide a vote of confidence for Vick in any way. I think that in general he would be a poor investment. I’m just trying to infuse a little bit of a numbers game into a discussion that is citing numbers without providing any.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Feb 21, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

Didnt see that 2002 stat

..
still very weak evidence to convince me he was on the decline.

http://www.runboard.com/bsanfran49ers

by supraman on Feb 21, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions

Redemption

Yes, Mike Vick had some serious issues. Still, those issues should be put behind him unless there is some evidence that he hasn’t been rehabilitated. Vick served his time (2 years in prison), apologized and come clean. That is more than Pacman or Tank or Henry or any number of other players have done. What he did was terrible. But this is America and he deserves a second chance after going through the proper channels in the legal system. It is time to move on and let his talent talk.

by thefaithful on Feb 23, 2009 5:41 PM PST reply actions