"If you could add one player to your favorite team..."

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Vick has made 3 pro bowls in 3 healthy seasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pro Bowl isn't a great way to judge which players are the best for a variety of reasons, the main one being that it is voted on by the fans. The average NFL fan is an idiot. For example, the average Eagles fan wants Reid fired and McNabb benched - they're idiots.

Obviously, you're not alone in thinking that Vick is a great player. But a lot of people thought that Alexander was the league's MVP last year - and you know what? All of them were wrong. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

[ QUOTE ]
The only people that I would say are wrong are those who say that its not close at all one way. (Brady/Manning)

[/ QUOTE ]

This I agree with. I'm in Peyton's camp, but I can see the argument for Brady that a) he has the rings and b) Peyton has had a better (offensive) supporting cast.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you disagree about "clutchness"? Are you saying that it doesn't exist at all and is just variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think clutchness is mostly a product of small sample size. There are so many players that are labled as chokers - and then they win the big one. What happened? Did they suddenly become clutch? What about players who win the big one early in their career but then struggle. Did they become chokers?

I think there are players who legitamtely become head cases b/c they screwed up in the clutch. But, in general, we use the labels "choker" and "clutch" way too often. It's mostly, not all, but mostly a product of small sample size.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that TOP helps a D?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think time of posession (in its current format) is one of the dumbest stats in football. One of the main arguments people make for TOP is that if you have a low TOP your defense doesn't get enough rest. As I have explained, this is utter crap, because TOP does not equal real time spent on the field. There are some other stats that have been brought up in this thread that are similar to TOP that I think would have an actual impact on defensive performance; sadly, I have no idea where to look them up.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a ton of my opinions on Mike Vick are due to me hearing scouts rave about him and always say how the common fan doesn't understand how great he truly is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to read those. Linky?

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm usually polite to others. The only things that get me upset are when people accuse me of being a troll jsut because I have a different opinion or if they're rude to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are polite and I think you catch a lot of unnecessary flack.

[Assani Fisher]

Regarding Vick, I brought up the pro bowls because you said "You have a lot of beliefs that many posters on this board would classify as "incorrect" to "flat wrong" to "absurd.""

I was merely pointing out that I am in the MAJORITY of people when it comes to thinking Vick is a great player. Maybe the majority is wrong, but if you accuse me of making statements that many on this board think are wrong, then the board is the minority here, not me.

Regarding clutchness, its a difficult thing to say for sure. I think that there are some cases in which it is proven. I think that Reggie Miller is much better in pressure spots. I also think A-Rod has become much worse, perhaps because its in his head. And, yes, I think Manning is worse. I always tried to give Manning the benefit of the doubt, but when its happened his entire pro and college career that hes always lost big games, its tough to keep calling it a coincidence.

I'll look for some links to scouts on Mike Vick.

[Assani Fisher]

Yahoo sports had Chris Landry writing a column for them at the beginning of the season, but they stopped having him. I have no clue why. He was one of my favorite guys to read. Here is a quick bio of hiim:


[ QUOTE ]
Chris Landry is a veteran NFL scout who has worked with the Cleveland Browns and Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans and worked with the Indianapolis Scouting Combine. He now runs his own scouting consulting business in which he analyzes NFL and college personnel for NFL teams and helps NFL and college teams in their coaching evaluations and searches.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy really knew what he was talking about, and I've heard everyone I respect have nothing but praise for his work. No clue why he was let go from Yahoo. Here were his columns:
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/expertsa...r=Chris+Landry

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Steelers is interesting. Despite his performance this year, we have our franchise QB. I would add a corner I think, though an argument could be made for Ladanian. OK so in reality I would say Larry Fitgerald as it would be amazing to see him play in Heinz Field again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you rule out a QB for Pittsburgh I don't think you would go RB or WR. Champ, Merriman, Seymour would be the three options to decide between IMO.

[Jack of Arcades]

Saints:
1. Champ Bailey
2. Julian Peterson
3. Troy Polamalu.

[Shajen]

For the Bears I don't know that Manning would be the best fit.

I think with the wide receivers that they have, I'd go with either LT2 (to make teams respect the run more) or Steve Smith, who would be a field stretcher opening up plays for Berrian and Mr possession-receiver Muhammad.

If I had to pick a QB, I think McNabb would be an awesome fit, a scrambing QB who can make plays is IMO better than an immobile QB like Manning. (The Bears O-line doesn't give enough time for a QB that can't move around in the pocket much a chance to throw the ball.)

This is probably going to be unpopular here, and to be honest, I'd take either Manning or McNabb truth be told.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
For the Bears I don't know that Manning would be the best fit.

I think with the wide receivers that they have, I'd go with either LT2 (to make teams respect the run more) or Steve Smith, who would be a field stretcher opening up plays for Berrian and Mr possession-receiver Muhammad.

If I had to pick a QB, I think McNabb would be an awesome fit, a scrambing QB who can make plays is IMO better than an immobile QB like Manning. (The Bears O-line doesn't give enough time for a QB that can't move around in the pocket much a chance to throw the ball.)

This is probably going to be unpopular here, and to be honest, I'd take either Manning or McNabb truth be told.

[/ QUOTE ]
McNabb tore his ACL yesterday. Bears already have Thomas Jones, Berrian's a good deep threat. Just imagine how good the Bears would be if Rex Grossman stopped throwing stupid INT's.

[capone0]

Manning moves around the pocket really well. Non-pocket passers don't win too often lately in the NFL. Montana, Young, Elway are about as much as your going to get with a SB winning QB who has mobility skills. The last couple of SB winners especially Brady are about all you need nowadays. Someone who can avoid the rush and make the big play. Manning for the most part avoids the sack. McNabb isn't a bad option though but it looks like his mobility is costing his team a lot of games with injuries the last 2 seasons.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to pick a QB, I think McNabb would be an awesome fit, a scrambing QB who can make plays is IMO better than an immobile QB like Manning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manning is very mobile and avoids pressure extremely well.

[PokerFink]

Re: Vick

This board's opinion of Vick is different from the general public's opinion of Vick. On this board, you're probably in the minority thinking that Vick is a superstar. Among the general public, you're probably in the majority. I didn't really clarify that before.

I'll get to those columns later.