Young outruns the field, is top offensive rookie

[Bleu Star]

I believe the point is - at this point, the answer could be either Young or Vick. Nothing's changed for Vick in 6 years.

Are we not counting coaches? The coach killer just killed another while Jeff Fisher is about to get extended. Just thought I would be sure to toss that in there.

 

[superpunk]

I understand your theory. I am offering my theory: A come from behind victory is a come from behind victory. I am not into qualifying them. You clearly are (and I do not mean Vince Young's necessarily, just in general).

Nothing's black and white. I wouldn't have been extraordinarily impressed with Romo had we beaten the Lions, since it's largely his fault that we were losing to begin with (whether it was being crap on our first two series, turnover, whatever). Lighting up a prevent defense and getting a chance to win it because your team held your under-performing behind close doesn't do it for me.

 

[rcaldw]

Bottom line: It's a simple matter of some people will never say ......I'm wrong.

Bingo. You are absolutely right.

 

[Bleu Star]

First off, if you haven't (by your own admission) watched him play, then why even offer an opinion on it?

Second, if you HAD watched him play, you would know he WASN'T the reason why they trailed in most of those games.

Third, if trailing before pulling out games negates greatness, would you PLEASE tell Cowboys nation that Roger wasn't really as good as we all thought he was, and inform the Hall of Fame too, since he has a bust there.

Ouch. Spot on sir.

 

[superpunk]

Are we not counting coaches? The coach killer just killed another while Jeff Fisher is about to get extended. Just thought I would be sure to toss that in there.

People were awful high on Vick after his first season playing, too. Defenses learned how to play him, and now those imperfections that his legs compensated for are huge.

 

[superpunk]

First off, if you haven't (by your own admission) watched him play, then why even offer an opinion on it?

Second, if you HAD watched him play, you would know he WASN'T the reason why they trailed in most of those games.

Third, if trailing before pulling out games negates greatness, would you PLEASE tell Cowboys nation that Roger wasn't really as good as we all thought he was, and inform the Hall of Fame too, since he has a bust there.

First of all, if you're not going to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, I'm not going to bother responding. NO need to wad up the panties because everyone doesn't bow at the Vince Young is God altar.

 

[rcaldw]

First of all, if you're not going to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, I'm not going to bother responding. NO need to wad up the panties because everyone doesn't bow at the Vince Young is God altar.

Hmmm. ok

 

[Bleu Star]

First of all, if you're not going to read what I ACTUALLY wrote, I'm not going to bother responding. NO need to wad up the panties because everyone doesn't bow at the Vince Young is God altar.

I read what you wrote. You said you never watched him play yet you have an informed opinion as to why he doesn't deserve the award. Who informed you? BSPN?

Not being a Titans fan, or even caring about them in any way, I don't watch him, or watch their games on shortcuts. People see him winning a few games in last second, dramatic fashion, and forget that he was part of the reason the team was losing in the first place. That's probably the reason for the runaway vote.

He was clutch, but it would be nicer if he wasn't crap before he needed to be clutch. <---(???)

 

[superpunk]

I read what you wrote.

No - you didn't. You cut off the end of my post, which you apparently didn't read, either. Good luck with that.

 

[gbrittain]

Nothing's black and white. I wouldn't have been extraordinarily impressed with Romo had we beaten the Lions, since it's largely his fault that we were losing to begin with (whether it was being crap on our first two series, turnover, whatever). Lighting up a prevent defense and getting a chance to win it because your team held your under-performing behind close doesn't do it for me.

Don't get me wrong Super I know what you are saying and even agree with you.

I am just saying in the grand scheme of things a come from behind victory is a come from behind victory.

John Elway and Joe Montana are famous for their come from behind victories. I could not even begin to tell you how many of them games they were somewhat responsible for being behind in. I have no idea. Maybe none, maybe half, maybe 3/4s or who knows.

As far as Vince Young and the award for rookie of the year the only consideration should be what he did this year and not what Vick did his rookie year versus what he is doing now IMO.

 

[aikemirv]

Bottom line: It's a simple matter of some people will never say ......I'm wrong.

Boy, there is a lot of evidence that one side or the other is wrong, isn't there?

Just now, after 5 years people are really beginning to sour on Mike Vick are they not. It took a long time because people could overlook the passing ability because of the running ability and yet, he cannot consistently get his team winning.

When Vince Young does it for 2-3 years and proves to be a good passer who does not rely on his legs then someone MAY be proven wrong, but certainly not now!

 

[Bleu Star]

Boy, there is a lot of evidence that one side or the other is wrong, isn't there?

Just now, after 5 years people are really beginning to sour on Mike Vick are they not. It took a long time because people could overlook the passing ability because of the running ability and yet, he cannot consistently get his team winning.

When Vince Young does it for 2-3 years and proves to be a good passer who does not rely on his legs then someone MAY be proven wrong, but certainly not now!

I never thought Vick was much of anything because he was never able to direct a passing offense. He always used his legs prematurely. VY does both. He can kill you either way. That's what I have seen this year with my own eyes. I've watched some of those spectacular plays, that some only saw as highlights on BSPN, unfold live. He's the real deal. Longevity is always the final determining factor but I don't remember seeing Vick do anything remotely close to what Vince has done this year.

Ronnie Mex remains a running back with a low number on his jersey.

 

[rcaldw]

No - you didn't. You cut off the end of my post, which you apparently didn't read, either. Good luck with that.

Cmon Superpunk. Can you at least be honest with yourself? You swoop in (staying with the Superman theme), drop your doubts about Vince (swoop and poop sound the same), then fly out under the cover of ignorance ("now I'm not sayin, cause I haven't seen him play, but I'm just sayin"), and then get defensive to the cryptonite observation that you have nothing to base your views on.

I'll say it again. Vince Young and Mike Vick are NOT the same players. They are just not. The only basis for the comparison is that they are both black, and they both run. Beyond that, what is there?

One is small - the other is huge.
One is unique because of his blazing speed, the other is unique because of the combination of speed, size, strength and an uncanny ability to get an entire team to believe in him as a rookie.

In fact, if you want to say that someone has bowed to the altar of Vince, IT HAS BEEN HIS OWN TEAM AND COACHING STAFF.

Have you noticed that?

Man, if your teammates believe in you, that says ALOT.

One is a guy who has played in the NFL for awhile now, the other is a rookie.

One is a guy who took a team expected to be in the playoffs to an 7-9 record.

The other is a guy who took a 4-12 team last year, with Steve McNair at QB, and took over an 0-5 team this year, and led them to an 8-8 record.

Use your X-Ray vision (you know I'm just kidding with you) to look beyond the similarities and see the differences.

 

[Cbz40]

Boy, there is a lot of evidence that one side or the other is wrong, isn't there?

Just now, after 5 years people are really beginning to sour on Mike Vick are they not. It took a long time because people could overlook the passing ability because of the running ability and yet, he cannot consistently get his team winning.

When Vince Young does it for 2-3 years and proves to be a good passer who does not rely on his legs then someone MAY be proven wrong, but certainly not now!

Ok I'll give you the 2yrs not 3......He's played one season or did you forget.

People were saying he would be a "Bust"....... that does not = O rookie of the year now does it.

 

[superpunk]

Cmon Superpunk. Can you at least be honest with yourself? You swoop in (staying with the Superman theme), drop your doubts about Vince (swoop and poop sound the same), then fly out under the cover of ignorance ("now I'm not sayin, cause I haven't seen him play, but I'm just sayin"), and then get defensive to the cryptonite observation that you have nothing to base your views on.

I was way down on his ability to grasp an NFL offense when he was drafted. I've seen four of his games. From that, I have said on here that it appears I was completely wrong about him. He wins, however that happens. I have said this already - on here. That I (so far) have been completely wrong. It has nothing to do with that. It was just a theory. I DID watch alot of Eli as a rookie. I know that was the case with him, and still is, because I watch all NFC East games.

I'll say it again. Vince Young and Mike Vick are NOT the same players. They are just not. The only basis for the comparison is that they are both black, and they both run. Beyond that, what is there?

There's alot, just looking at the numbers. No "running" QB can exist in this league. Ever. The sooner Young makes himself into McNabb (without the gagging) the better.

 

[joseephuss]

Don't get me wrong Super I know what you are saying and even agree with you.

I am just saying in the grand scheme of things a come from behind victory is a come from behind victory.

John Elway and Joe Montana are famous for their come from behind victories. I could not even begin to tell you how many of them games they were somewhat responsible for being behind in. I have no idea. Maybe none, maybe half, maybe 3/4s or who knows.

As far as Vince Young and the award for rookie of the year the only consideration should be what he did this year and not what Vick did his rookie year versus what he is doing now IMO.

Jake Plummer was a guy that many in the media thought could be very good because of his come from behind victories. Often the Cardinals were behind because of his turnovers and poor play in the first half.

Vince Young may not develop and get better, but he pretty much was one of the top rookies this season. Perhaps his popularity is what pushed him over the top in voting, but he didn't win just because he was popular. He put together a good season for a rookie. That is the main aspect. Compare him to other rookie QBs, not guys that have been around and should have higher QB ratings.

Maybe voters gave Colston less consideration after watching him miss two of the final 7 games, have 0 receptions in two other games in the final 7 played and score only 1 TD in the final 8 games. I think he had a great season for a rookie and could have easily won. As good as he was though, Brees was the bigger impact on that team as well as the return of a healthy McCallister and Sean Payton's presences.

Vince Young was viewed as the biggest impact on that Titans team and that is by his teammates and coaches. I keep seeing some inaccurate posts. He was the back up in the first 3 games(not the first 5) of the season and then came in and lost his first two. He went 8-5 as the starter.

 

[rcaldw]

I was way down on his ability to grasp an NFL offense when he was drafted. I've seen four of his games. From that, I have said on here that it appears I was completely wrong about him. He wins, however that happens. I have said this already - on here. That I (so far) have been completely wrong. It has nothing to do with that. It was just a theory. I DID watch alot of Eli as a rookie. I know that was the case with him, and still is, because I watch all NFC East games.

There's alot, just looking at the numbers. No "running" QB can exist in this league. Ever. The sooner Young makes himself into McNabb (without the gagging) the better.

This is where I completely disagree (respectfully) with you. In fact, this is where I disagree with myself for the first 42 years of my life.

I, with you, still believe that the RULE is that running QB's do not win. I have argued this forever.

In fact, just look at the Super Bowl winning QB's.

Big Ben (I just don't want to have to spell his last name)
Tom Brady
Tom Brady
Brad Johnson
Tom Brady
Trent Dilfer (need I go further)

This is the rule and the EXCEPTION PROVES the rule.

But I truly believe that Vince Young will be the exception.

Like you, I've seen the Mike Vicks do what I expected them to do, fail. They don't fail every time, they still make spectacular plays, but for game in and game out winning, and especially playoff winning, I don't like their chances.

So, I'm with you, normally.

But what I've seen out of Vince Young from the Rose Bowl to the present convinces me that he is indeed the exception. I think he will be highly successful. I think he is a winner. And winners sometimes defy explanation. They just win.

 

[superpunk]

With all you wrote, then rcaldw, I'm sure you can see why people who aren't as enamoured with Vince Young are very skeptical. There is no precedent for a player like he is - currently - having extended success. Running QBs may have a brief 2-3 year run of domination, but once those hits pile up, if they haven't taken the time to perfect the mental aspect, they just go to junk - and fast.

 

[Bleu Star]

I challenge anyone to go back and look at Vince Young in HS, Vince Young in College, and Vince Young in the pros. Then find a difference between what you see. Some people just have it. He's special and I will go on record as saying so. He's a man playing among boys as far as I am concerned. Vick is nowhere near his league nor has he ever been anywhere close.

 

[joseephuss]

This is where I completely disagree (respectfully) with you. In fact, this is where I disagree with myself for the first 42 years of my life.

I, with you, still believe that the RULE is that running QB's do not win. I have argued this forever.

In fact, just look at the Super Bowl winning QB's.

Big Ben (I just don't want to have to spell his last name)
Tom Brady
Tom Brady
Brad Johnson
Tom Brady
Trent Dilfer (need I go further)

This is the rule and the EXCEPTION PROVES the rule.

But I truly believe that Vince Young will be the exception.

Like you, I've seen the Mike Vicks do what I expected them to do, fail. They don't fail every time, they still make spectacular plays, but for game in and game out winning, and especially playoff winning, I don't like their chances.

So, I'm with you, normally.

But what I've seen out of Vince Young from the Rose Bowl to the present convinces me that he is indeed the exception. I think he will be highly successful. I think he is a winner. And winners sometimes defy explanation. They just win.

It should be Mike Vick, not Mike Vicks. There is only one. He is the only QB out there who is a running QB. There are others that have some mobility and good running skills, but they are passers first. Vick is the only who really isn't a passer first. I exclude Young at this point because he is only a rookie. I will give him a couple of more years to see if he develops into a passer first QB.

I haven't really seen many other Mike Vick type QB come into the NFL. There have been other good athletes come into the league, but not like him. And certainly none that don't develop their passing game, but still remain somewhat of a threat at the QB position.