vince young vs michael vick

So the consensus is as QBs go, it's pretty close between VY and Vick... but what if we asked the question differently: You have the chance to build a franchise around either Vick or Young - which do you choose?

As for who is better now, I might give a slight nod to Vince. As for who would I take to build a franchise - it's a no-brainer for me... Vince hands down.

 

Mj..

Obviously you would want the younger guy with fewer miles on him for the long term. I don't think it is a slam dunk but considering both guys use their legs a lot obviously the younger guy will be at the top of his game longer.

And you would give a slight nod to vince now, why?

 

Yeah, but we were mainly just talking about legs. Earl was incredible as an RB but he didn't have to make many moves because he could just crush whoever got in the way.
Sayers = Sanders. I used to deny it, but it's true.

 

Yea, I wasn't really thinking in terms of age and the long term when I said he'd be a slam dunk to build a franchise around. It goes to my thinking about why I'd give him the nod now over Vick... I'd agree that stat-wise Vick has the edge. He's a better runner than Vince, and at times he throws the most beautiful long ball of almost any QB I've ever seen. There are 3 relatively intangible areas that I think Vince is better, which are things I happen to value heavily for a QB:

1) Not that Vick is bad at this, but Vince handles pressure extremely well. He tends to make the biggest plays in the 4th quarter when he had to.

2) One of the only things you hear consistently from players who talk about legendary QBs is their presence in the huddle. Especially QBs like Montana and Elway who led so many comebacks... I hear similar comments coming from our veterans about Vince, which is almost unheard of for a rookie. Leadership seems to be Vince's strongest point, and I think this was part of the reason we took him over Leinart and Cutler.

3) This is totally unfounded, but my impression in watching them is that when Vick runs he is like a very fast WR with good moves, capable of the big play. When Vince runs he is more focused on simply moving the chains. Vick is more exciting, but I think Vince will be able to avoid the hits that do tend to plague mobile QBs. Also along with that - Vince is a little stronger and is able to break tackles to avoid sacks.

So yea - I like Vick. I actually think he's very underrated, but I don't see him growing into HOF material. He has what it takes to win a SB, though, which is more than I could say for a lot of QBs. I realize Vince has a lot to learn, but the things he needs are very teachable, and he has shown an ability to learn well. I guess going back to my comment about Steve Young... Vince plays the game in a similar fashion. He isn't really a running QB, but he can hurt you with his legs - that is his biggest difference compared to Vick IMO. Needs to improve accuracy - especially with the long ball (but even Steve Young only averaged around 53% his 1st several years). Vince completed 65% his last year at Texas - granted that's college, but he jumped from 59% to 65% in a year. So yea - I'd say his style is like a Steve Young or John Elway... less like a Vick or even a young McNair. Not implying he's as good or necessarily will be as good as them, but I could easily see him developing into a HOF QB.

 

My 2 cents:

When Vick breaks out of the pocket, there is very little threat he will pull up and throw the long ball. Until Vince crosses the line, DB's are stymied as to what to do. This phenomenon makes Vince a much more difficult QB to defend than Vick IMO.

No doubt in my mind that Vick appears to be a more agile runner. He sets his weight outside of heels often and quickly compensates. Vince has a long stride and keeps his weight centered. Another style difference- Vince never loses total field vision and directs blockers during his run as opposed to Vick. So- Vince uses his mind as well as his instinct and physical talent- a recipe that I believe will keep him healthier than Vick.

 

Vick has been durable lately, no doubt. I never said he wasn't. Vince has never, to my knowledge, missed any time due to injury. I would say "never" is better than "almost never", but hey, it's just a small point. After all, Vince has never broken his leg.

Again, the level of competition varies within the NFL, just as it does within any other league. The AFC is tougher than the NFC. If that is not common knowledge to you, perhaps you should dig up some stats.

In statistics, there is something called sample size. Looking at only last year (in particular, a mere 4 games against the AFC), one might assume that Vick plays better against the NFC. Still, even if this was the case - and it isn't... look at some of his previous years - that doesn't prove that the NFC has better teams.

If you want to argue that the NFC is better than the AFC, be my guest lol. It's a pretty simple conjecture that really doesn't even require stats to back up for anyone that watches football.

 

Vince is the version of Vick that the public always wanted.

 

Well said. It's amazing to me that Vick couldn't keep his image together. He's lost/losing out on millions because he can't control his actions. You can't make someone what they are not.

 

Yea, I didn't even mention that, but I should have. Vince is a role model's role model. Wish he had gone to high school and college with Pacman.

 

2008..

So we are including college now? Well hell rocky calmus was once the most reliable linebacker in history then. Can't we evaluate players based on what they do in this league only please or do you want to go back to high school also?

Again, again, let's see if vince young can start almost every game for three years before we start saying he has more durability than anyone.

I never said the nfc was better. Where did you get that from? I said that your point is meaningless drivel. Who gives a rats butt which division a player is in? Do we take dan marino and jim kelly off the hall of fame because a good deal of their careers were in the afc when that conference was inferior to the nfc. The afc didn't win a super bowl for 13 straight years! In the 70s the afc dominated so we can assume that roger staubach and fran tarkington got off light?

And tell me what in the hell was vick supposed to do different as a result of playing in the nfc? It's still the nfl!