Another ESPN Writer Bashes Vick

I don't even remember the guy's name. I want to say it was Jason Whitlock or something along those lines. I read a question and answer op-ed piece of his yesterday and he complained that Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick shouldn't be the only quarterback in the league who is judged based on his win-loss record. He said it's not fair to judge Vick on his win-loss record, considering that he's one of the top paid players in the league.

If one is a traditionalist when it comes to the quarterback position and they don't like Vick's style of play, hey, that's fine. I'm not a big fan of the Texas Tech-style offense where it's commonplace to see the quarterback throw the ball 50+ times, but if works more times than not for Mike Leach and his Red Raiders. I'm not a personal fan of the offense, but I'm not going to bash it if they win 7-9 games a year. It's just personal taste.

But, I thought this writer's comments were, how do I put it? Mmmm... Stupid. There, I said it. Pittsburgh Steelers' quarterback Ben Roethlisberger doesn't put up the best numbers in the league. Numbers wise, he had a horrible Super Bowl. But, you know what? The guy is a leader and a winner. That's all that matters. Tom Brady had a 11-23 outing last week. He threw one interception and fumbled the ball on the opening play of the game, which Buffalo took back for 6. But, the guy still found a way to win. Trent Dilfer didn't put up the best of passing numbers when he was the starting quarterback of the Baltimore Ravens, but do you know what? The guy has a Super Bowl ring for his leadership and effort. Peyton Manning had one of the best seasons (number wise) in NFL history just two seasons ago. Guess what? No Super Bowl ring. They didn't even make the Super Bowl. Dan Marino is arguably the best quarterback of all time (especially number wise), but guess what? No Super Bowl ring. Quarterback Aaron Brooks has put up some decent numbers in his career as a quarterback, as he has now eclipsed the 20,000 yard mark. The guy has rarely made an appearance in the playoffs, let alone a Super Bowl. He threw for so many yards because his team was down by a couple scores (or more) and needed some quick scores to get back into the game.

While, in the fantasy era, some may obsess about numbers, we typically measure quarterbacks by one thing and that's winning. Tom Brady is the prime example. He is a cool customer in the pocket, poised under pressure, and even when he's having an off game, he finds a way to keep his team in the game and usually come out victorious. Trent Dilfer, Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, Donovan McNabb, Brad Johnson, and Michael Vick are all winners. It doesn't matter what numbers they put up on a given week, chances are, they're going to manage the game well on offense, be poised under pressure, and make enough plays to keep their team either in the ball game or in a position to win the game. Ben Roethlisberger is 27-4 as a starter. I don't care what the guy's numbers are or what his numbers were in the Super Bowl. The guy is a natural born leader and a winner. Michael Vick is a winner also.

This writer claimed that Vick is just riding along for the Warrick Dunn bandwagon. The Atlanta Falcons are 3-12 without Vick starting at quarterback. That's a winning percentage of .200. They lose 80% of the games he doesn't start. Keep in mind, those are games that Dunn starts. To say that Atlanta moves offensively and wins ball games solely because of Dunn is an ignorant statement. While Atlanta wins 60% of their games with Vick as starter, they win only 20% when he is not the starter. That's a huge difference. This guy can say all he wants to. All he has to look at are the scores at the end of the ball game when Vick plays and when he doesn't. The difference is enormous that even a blind man could see. For some reason, this man can't even see as clearly as the blind man.