Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
  1. #31
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    17,991
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6 View Post
    Fair enough, who did you have in mind? Would you be accepting of Vick if none of the guys you like are available?
    I've answered this before but, just to name a few: Jason Campbell, Tarvariss Jackson, Kyle Orton, Chad Pennington (if healthy) and Chris Redman would all be preferable. Marc Bulger would also be preferable.

    The bottom line is... and I don't know how to say this any more clearly...

    I don't think Michael Vick is a good NFL quarterback!


  2. #32
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,907
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    I ment to write, who is your option?

    People say that Vick didn't play at philly. Kolb didn't play either. I am saying any other QB that could potentialy be the Rams Quarterback next season wouldn't have started over McNabb.

    It is a tribute to Vick's atheltism that he was able to find a way on the field. Kolb couldn't take snaps away from McNabb. Vick did.
    Comparing Vick to Kolb is apples to oranges. Kolb is the legitimate back-up quarterback and quarterback of the future; it's the reason why he's likely the one guy of the three who will be staying in Philadelphia. Furthermore, I find it pretty ridiculous to praise Vick for finding a way onto the field. The Eagles signed him with the intention of getting him on the field! It's not as if Vick was signed purely to be a back-up and was just so good they had to showcase him.

    But again, if Vick is so great, I'm baffled as to why he was only used on average for one pass per game and two runs per game. No one is saying the guy has to throw 20 pass attempts, but clearly if the guy's a game changer, you get him on the field more than they did. Unfortunatley Vick advocates have no logical answer for this, because there simply isn't one.

    I've said this before and Adam Schefter touched on this a few days ago - the Eagles plan for Vick this entire time was likely to pick him up, incorporate him here or there with a couple plays specifically designed for him to make him look good, and then reap the benefits by trading him away to someone who gets flashbacks of what Vick maybe used to be. I really hope the Rams don't become that team.

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    Vick will probably get waived or traded for next to nothing. He can't demand a high salary as his options are limited with many teams having already committed their money into a QB.
    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    Vick will be available for the Rams at a considerably cheap price for a starting NFL quarterback, no matter what salary you think.
    If he's traded, then the team he's traded to assumes his $3.75 million in base salary. That's not cheap, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    I disagree, and contend that he is low risk. His time in the media is over. If Philly can accept him in the media, the Lou can too. Its now about Tiger Woods and Gilbert Arenas. Time heals wounds.
    You'll notice I said, "Ignoring for a moment the public relations risk should he falter in some manner," yet that's all you seemed to address.

    The fact that he scored three touchdowns in 37 plays specially designed to feature him doesn't make him less of a risk. Simply put, it's very risky acquiring a player who has been so minimally involved in football for the last three seasons and expecting him to be a starting quarterback for you. His touchdown-to-play ratio from this season doesn't change the risk factor. If acquiring Michael Vick as a starting quarterback despite his minimal involvement in football over the past three years isn't risky, then I don't know what is.

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    Because of his dogfighting sentence many people here personally don't like him. What more could he have done to prove he is sorry and truly happy to be playing in the NFL again.
    My desire to see the Rams look elsewhere at the position has little if anything to do with his dogfighting sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    I am open to other QB's as well, but you should be open to Vick.
    Sorry, but I'm not. There are other QBs I'm not open to as well, so it's not like I'm open to everyone but Vick. I generally don't want the Rams to consider players that I don't think will provide much beneift. IMO, Vick fits into that description.

  3. #33
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by txramsfan View Post
    What could be worse.....0-16? How much worse is 0-16 versus 1-15? How much more risky is 0-16 versus 1-15? One thing I do know, that if these WR's don't start getting open, a scrambling QB is much better than a pocket QB......I'm not advocating signing Vick by any means but I am saying I wouldn't be surprised if he was signed. It's just odd that the game winning TD pass for this season came from a fake punt attempt by the kicker. Again, drastic times sometimes call for drastic measures.
    This past season, and this coming season, should been seen as the needed sacrifices to get this franchise back to a position where it needs to compete year in and year out. If we go 0-16 as part of the rebuild, so flippin' be it. It is less important to win 6 games next year and 3-4 games in 2011 and 2012 than to win 4 games in 2010 and 8-10 games in 2011 and 2012.

    To conclude. THE FUTURE IS NOT NOW.

  4. #34
    Molotov's Avatar
    Molotov is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    120
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    The Rams are forming a solid nucleus of high character, reliable, productive players. What they are lacking is GAME CHANGERS on offense and defense. For that reason, I say bring on Vick and draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round. Give the starting job to Vick, line him up with SJ, and see what happens.

  5. #35
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,506
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    You know I find it rather ironic that some on this board are intimating that Michael Vick would not come cheap, when we have the most overpaid player in the NFL starting at QB.

    When you look at age, ability/inability, wins/losses and salary, there is not a more overpaid player anywhere in the NFL than Marc Bulger.

    So as far as I'm concerned, anybody is welcomed.

  6. #36
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Molotov View Post
    The Rams are forming a solid nucleus of high character, reliable, productive players. What they are lacking is GAME CHANGERS on offense and defense. For that reason, I say bring on Vick and draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round. Give the starting job to Vick, line him up with SJ, and see what happens.
    And how do you know Vick is still a game changer as a starting QB? The only Vick who might still be one is Video Game Vick. However, Video Game Vick, like his predecessor, Video Game Bo, is a fictional construct, not the real player.

  7. #37
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,907
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortuninerhater View Post
    You know I find it rather ironic that some on this board are intimating that Michael Vick would not come cheap, when we have the most overpaid player in the NFL starting at QB.

    When you look at age, ability/inability, wins/losses and salary, there is not a more overpaid player anywhere in the NFL than Marc Bulger.

    So as far as I'm concerned, anybody is welcomed.
    I'm struggling to see the irony, since there's an obvious difference between committing resources to a guy coming off of a Pro Bowl season and commiting resources to a guy who has had minimal field experience after being out of the league for two years.

    Furthermore, since this topic is about Vick and his chances of being a Ram in 2010 and not another outlet to complain about Bulger, I'd ask that we stay on the original topic.

  8. #38
    rob6465's Avatar
    rob6465 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    228
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomahawk247 View Post
    Lets look at some 2009 season stats:

    Bulger
    Completion Percentage: 56.7
    Rush Average: 2.8

    Boller
    Completion Percentage: 55.7
    Rush Average: 5.8

    Null
    Completion Percentage: 61.3
    Rush Average: 1.2

    Vick
    Completion Percentage: 46.2
    Rush Average: 4.0


    If we want an upgrade at the QB position, do we really want a guy who completed under half his passes in 2009? And as for Vick's supposed rushing threat, Kyle Boller averaged more per rush than Vick. So what kind of upgrade would Vick be? I know Vick only played in limited time, but in limited time playing for Minnesota, Tarvaris Jackson completed 66.7 percent of his passes

    So really, what reason is there to get Vick? Because he won some games in the past? So did Bart Starr

    Even more reason not to get vick.

    Michael Vick Career Stats: 2001-2009

    Games6
    Passing Yards:11,591
    TD's:72
    Int: 52
    QB Rating: 75.9


    Marc Bulger Career stats: 2001-2009

    Games: 96
    Passing Yards: 22,814
    TD's: 122
    Int: 93
    QB Rating: 84.4

    The NFL is a passing league and we know Vick rushes way more than Bulger, but i'm sorry, Bulger is a better QB if both have same team.

  9. #39
    Bralidore(RAMMODE)'s Avatar
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    If Eagles release Vick, by all means you have to bring him into camp and at least work him out, if he doesn't perform up to par, cut ties, simple. If you see that speed still there along with his arm, give him a chance this preseason if he survives camp. What's the harm in giving him a shot? Honestly...

    Worst case is he's not the game changer some think he is and you let him go.

  10. #40
    bruce4life's Avatar
    bruce4life is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hemet/San Diego CA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,760
    Rep Power
    31

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Nick could you imagine if they gave Vick more than 5 snaps a game in Philly and he actually flourished and thrived? Mcnabb would throw a **** show over the sudden QB controversy and the fans in philly would be calling for Mcnabb's head like they always do just sooner in the season.

    Do that make sense?

  11. #41
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    69
    Posts
    4,598
    Rep Power
    76

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    If Devaney and Spags really feel that Vick brings something to the Rams that would improve the team dramatically, then they'll probably make an effort to acquire him. I have no idea if he'd dramatically improve the team. My gut reaction is no, (accuracy, age, career QB rating, etc.) However, Spags and Billy have far more football moxie than I do. Vick as a Ram might put more butts in the seats for the first couple of games, but that wouldn't last very long if we weren't winning.

    Could he be an option for the Rams? Who knows? In the unlikely event he does end up wearing horns, I'll pull for him as will most of us I'd imagine ..

    I'd rather we continue the re-building with younger players, but bringing in a savvy QB vet is a bonafide need if we let Bulger walk .. Is Vick a savvy vet at this point ..??

  12. #42
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,602
    Rep Power
    67

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by MauiRam View Post
    Vick as a Ram might put more butts in the seats for the first couple of games, but that wouldn't last very long if we weren't winning.
    Well, I hate to say this, but I know I won't have my butt in those seats if they bring in Vick. None of my family would, either. To us, signing Vick would be like driving a truck full of dynamite off of the edge of the Grand Canyon - self-destructive and unwise, and would probably end up blowing the team apart. Would it drive us away as fans? No. We bleed Blue & Gold.

    I'd have to start something like S.L.O.P. - maybe call it M.V.P. or V.I.T.A...Michael Vick Protesters or Vick Isn't The Answer.

  13. #43
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam View Post
    Well, I hate to say this, but I know I won't have my butt in those seats if they bring in Vick. None of my family would, either. To us, signing Vick would be like driving a truck full of dynamite off of the edge of the Grand Canyon - self-destructive and unwise, and would probably end up blowing the team apart. Would it drive us away as fans? No. We bleed Blue & Gold.

    I'd have to start something like S.L.O.P. - maybe call it M.V.P. or V.I.T.A...Michael Vick Protesters or Vick Isn't The Answer.
    BDOP.

    Did you know the Falcons never had consecutive winning seasons when Devaney was with them?

  14. #44
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,907
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by bruce4life View Post
    Nick could you imagine if they gave Vick more than 5 snaps a game in Philly and he actually flourished and thrived? Mcnabb would throw a **** show over the sudden QB controversy and the fans in philly would be calling for Mcnabb's head like they always do just sooner in the season.

    Do that make sense?
    Reports indicated that McNabb advocated for Vick to join the team in the first place. Besides, there is a possibility McNabb won't be back in Philly next year anyways if they decide to go with Kolb as their future, so I highly doubt the Eagles are keeping a playmaker on the bench to not risk upsetting someone they might deal soon anyways.

    There was an Adam Schefter video posted a few days ago that basically echoes what I think the Eagles' intentions were all along - bring Vick in, experiment with him enough to boost his stock so that they could trade him in the offseason to a team that has a need at the position. They weren't a team that believed Vick had amazing playmaking ability; if they were, they would have used him more. Instead, they're a team that recognized the upside in signing him and using him enough to try and convince someone else he's worth trading for.

    Frankly, I'd prefer not to see the guy in horns. I don't think he's a very good passer, and I think he lacks the accuracy you need to be an effective WCO quarterback. I think he'll probably be able to make some plays here or there with his legs, but to a lesser extent that's what many people said about Kyle Boller, and ultimately his lack of accuracy and poor abilities as a passer were bigger detrements than his mobility was a positive. Vick is obviously a better athlete and runner, and the point wasn't to compare him to Boller. Rather, it was meant to illustrate that mobility has never been enough and doesn't mean much when it comes at the expense of passing skills.
    Last edited by Nick; -01-17-2010 at 04:34 PM.

  15. #45
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Could Michael Vick be an option for St. Louis Rams?

    No need to get worked up, either it will happen or it won't. Although I find it funny, with the horrible play at QB last year, people would be unwilling to take a risk to improve the position. This is especially the case if the Rams choose to draft a QB in the second round or later. QB is the most important position in the NFL, period. As long as the Rams keep drafting Def linemen with their high picks and treat the QB position as an after-thought, we are going to suck. I think it is utter folly to put off getting a potential franchise QB another year. I think the management realizes this, so they will take a risk with the QB position in the off season. Whether that means getting a QB with the #1 pick or getting Vick. They will not throw next season in the garbage by making a new QB an afterthought. I don't care how good Su might be, he will not make us a winning team and they know that. They will make a big move, my prediction is they pick up Vick or draft a QB #1. Jason Campbell is only a marginal upgrade to the position, I don't think he is a consideration in front of Vick.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chat w/ Jim Thomas - Feb 24th
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -02-25-2009, 07:01 PM
  2. Thomas Chat --Jan 27th
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -01-28-2009, 01:40 PM
  3. Thomas Chat--Jan 6
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-07-2009, 08:38 AM
  4. Jim Thomas Live: 12/11/07
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -12-11-2007, 07:59 PM
  5. Postgame With Gordo
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-22-2007, 02:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •