Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 He's not going to have near the time he would to throw, and his motion, I feel, will lead to problems. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/...yQB_RATING.html He also didn't lead the NCAA's. Was behind two others in I-A and like 8 in I-AA. I'm gonna not say anything more about this, but he's not going to be going up against crappy Big 12 secondaries anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 08:29 PM) He's not going to have near the time he would to throw, and his motion, I feel, will lead to problems. I've said this countless times, but it just gets ignored. Whatever.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:29 PM) I'm gonna not say anything more about this, but he's not going to be going up against crappy Big 12 secondaries anymore. Neither will Leinart go against crappy overall Pac-10 defenses period. And nor will he have superstar type WR's to throw to. And since when is Kansas and OSU's secondaries crappy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 08:34 PM) And since when is Kansas and OSU's secondaries crappy? Kansas passing defense = #54 (out of 117) Oklahoma St. passing defense = #53 (out of 117) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:34 PM) Neither will Leinart go against crappy overall Pac-10 defenses period. And nor will he have superstar type WR's to throw to. And since when is Kansas and OSU's secondaries crappy? Did I say anything about Leinart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:38 PM) Kansas passing defense = #54 (out of 117) Oklahoma St. passing defense = #53 (out of 117) 9-3-05 LOUISIANA-LAFAYETTE WON 60-3 (92nd in passing efficiency D) 9-10-05 at Ohio State WON 25-22 (30) 9-17-05 RICE WON 51-10 (115) 10-1-05 at Missouri WON 51-20 (53) 10-8-05 vs. Oklahoma @Dallas, TX WON 45-12 (21) 10-15-05 COLORADO WON 42-17 (43) 10-22-05 TEXAS TECH WON 52-17 (15) 10-29-05 at Oklahoma State WON 47-28 (95) 11-5-05 at Baylor WON 62-0 (13) 11-12-05 KANSAS WON 66-14 (40) 11-25-05 at Texas A&M (Fri.) WON 40-29 (104) vs. Colorado @Houston, TX WON 70-3 (43) ROSE BOWL @Pasadena, CA 1-4-06 vs. Southern California WON 41-38 (42) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) I think Mike Vick (who I think is overrated, unless of course, you're into Madden 06) shows that you need to be able to pass, and the running aspect isn't terribly important. Let's see if he's actually figured out how to pass. like someone before me said, that's only from a fantasy football standpoint. the Falcons were a playoff team in 2002 and 2004, but were terrible in 2003. so answer this: what was the only major difference between the 2003 team and the 2002/2004 teams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(AirScott @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:49 PM) like someone before me said, that's only from a fantasy football standpoint. the Falcons were a playoff team in 2002 and 2004, but were terrible in 2003. so answer this: what was the only major difference between the 2003 team and the 2002/2004 teams? Vick. Passer Rating by year: 2002: 81.6 2004: 78.1 2005: 73.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Vick is NOT a good way to grade out Vince Young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 07:58 PM) Vick is NOT a good way to grade out Vince Young. It was just a comparison, because who else are you going to compare him to as far as playmaking ability with his legs. I just think that he's not going to be as studly as everyone thinks when he comes into the NFL, because his passer rating went way up when the Big 12 went way down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 It was just a comparison, because who else are you going to compare him to as far as playmaking ability with his legs. I just think that he's not going to be as studly as everyone thinks when he comes into the NFL, because his passer rating went way up when the Big 12 went way down. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats just his legs, he has much better decision making ability and 10X the accuracy of Vick. He's also bigger than most LB's. The guy has one thing in common w/ Vick, his speed. There are almost no other similiarities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 on the running spectrum, Young is right in between Culpepper and Vick. faster than Culpepper, but not as fast as Vick. bigger than Vick, but not as big as Culpepper. the minus is he doesn't really have arm strength that compares to those two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 08:10 PM) Thats just his legs, he has much better decision making ability and 10X the accuracy of Vick. He's also bigger than most LB's. The guy has one thing in common w/ Vick, his speed. There are almost no other similiarities. That's a damn big similarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 arm strength in the regard of Vick and Culepper is completely overrated, they can really flight the ball, but unless they have Randy Moss its as useless as tits on a bull. The best "strong arm" in the NFL easily is Palmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 That's a damn big similarity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You take away Vicks legs (not literally, smartass) and you dont even ahve a CFL QB. You take away Youngs legs and you still have a pretty good QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Oh, and guess what? Mike Vick led division I-A in passing efficiency as a freshman. But damn, that's not a connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 then left a year later. Young has spent 3 years (pretty much) starting at QB, thats just as much as a Leinart or any other QB in this draft. Young has gotten better over the years in his passing. Vick has gotten worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 09:21 PM) Young has spent 3 years (pretty much) starting at QB, thats just as much as a Leinart or any other QB in this draft. Young has gotten better over the years in his passing. Vick has gotten worse. Better over the years? From 2003-2004, one can argue that he got worse, and the only time he got better was between 2004-2005. He's shown he can do it once, but does that make up for being a far worse QB the first two years? Not in my opinion. If he stayed around for his senior year and had another good passing year, my thoughts might be different. But as of now, I see 2 bad years and 1 good year. And by the way, Leinart is just about the same size (weights a little less than him, but is the same height) as Young, has had a far superior college career, has been more successful winning games (something you seem to think makes Young so great, but choose to ignore about Leinart). Tell me which QB is better over a 3 year basis: QB A 84/143 1155 yards 6 TD 7 INT 148/250 1849 yards 12 TD 11 INT 212/325 3036 yards 26 TD 10 INT QB B 255/402 3556 yards 38 TD 9 INT 269/412 3322 yards 33 TD 6 INT 283/431 3815 yards 28 TD 8 INT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I have grown to the point where I can't stand people that lump all running QB's together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Imagine Vince Young with the two best RBs in the game, the best OL in the game, the best WR not named Rice or Johnson in the game and Dom Byrd. Leinart is a product of his teammates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) I have grown to the point where I can't stand people that lump all running QB's together. Vick and Young are so similar!! Vick: small, skinny QB who is really fast. Has a strong arm, but no accuracy. Young: HUGE, STRONG QB who is quite fast (but not like Vick). Has a average to slightly above average arm, but is pretty accurate. But they both black and can run, so what's the difference?? :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 09:30 PM) Vick and Young are so similar!! Vick: small, skinny QB who is really fast. Has a strong arm, but no accuracy. Young: HUGE, STRONG QB who is quite fast (but not like Vick). Has a average to slightly above average arm, but is pretty accurate. But they both black and can run, so what's the difference?? :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I would take the guy who progresses. Its not where you start the race, its where you finish isnt it? Leinart arguably has regressed. His lowest TD output combined with his second highest int ratio. The biggest question I have is why did Leinart not progress? With the superior talent of USC, he should have been able to put up BYU numbers. Instead we are forced to argue whether he is better than Vince Young in the air only. Leinart should have smashed Young's numbers. The reality is, Young probably is going to go into a situation where he will get to sit for 1 year maybe more. If he goes to the Titan's hes going to get Chow as an OC, who developed Leinart and get to sit behind McNair who is already a friend of his, and who can teach him how to be a big physical QB, who can use his legs to break a defense's back. I think what is being underestimated most, is that Vince Young may be one of the most gifted running Qb's. He is not small, he is a giant. When those twins tried to tackle him it looked like midgets against an ogre. He has an outstanding ability to see the field and make the "smart" decision. He does not force bad plays. Even at his worst he's only thrown 11 picks in a season, and went the national championship game with out 1 turnover. That shows that he has a good ability to manage the game, and that he does not make bad errors. When he played Michigan a season earlier, he had less rushing attempts than Cedric Benson but ran for over 120 more yards and 4 more tds. (Benson had 23 attemps for 70 yards 0 td, Young had 21 attempts for 192 yards 4td.) In the championship game against FSU, Vick put up: Vick 23-97. In my opinion Young is a once in a life time talent, and I will be here when he gets the chance to play. Given time to develop and learn the position and how to be effective like McNabb, McNair, and Culpepper, Young will win some games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 The one place where numbers don't matter is projecting college players to the pro's. Nothing is more deceiving in sports than a college players numbers, even if they are against top notch opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) Um so what do you judge them by, who has the coolest name? All you have is tape and numbers. Tape is an explanation of the numbers, in case there is some abberation that the numbers deceive, ie Florida or BYU. I think at the combine you will see Young really start to get hot. (Edit) Actually what do numbers really mean about a players ability at the pro level either? Maybe they are a system back and in another system wouldnt excel. Maybe they are a qb that puts up big numbers but does not win a lot of games. Or maybe the reverse. You can really attack any way of judging a player. So what else should we do? Throw darts at a board. Edited January 29, 2006 by Soxbadger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.