Simple Poll to see where Clanram stands on #7

[AvengerRam]

Your argument is flat weak.

1) In your book, Su is the first round pick and we should use a 2nd/3rd round pick for a QB, right? Let me break it to you, Vick is going to be many times more effective than a QB picked up in the later rounds for at least a few years. If we pick up a QB in the 2nd or 3rd rounds, that is also in essense (overwhelmingly likely) putting off the QB decision till later anyway. Unless we get very lucky, we are going to be stuck with worse than average QB talent for years to come.

So instead the Rams should sign a worse than average passer who has not been a starting QB for over three years?

2) Name a free agent to would be better than Vick?

How about Jason Campbell, Tarvaris Jackson, Chad Pennington, Chris Redman and Kyle Orton, just to name a few.

If you want to make an argument that you don't want him because of his past off-field actions, I can respect that. At the same time, just be upfront about it.

If I thought Vick was a good QB, I'd struggle to balance the desire to improve the Rams with my feelings about his off-field conduct. However, because I don't think Vick is a good QB, I don't need to touch that issue.

[Truth]

So instead the Rams should sign a worse than average passer who has not been a starting QB for over three years?



How about Jason Campbell, Tarvaris Jackson, Chad Pennington, Chris Redman and Kyle Orton, just to name a few.



If I thought Vick was a good QB, I'd struggle to balance the desire to improve the Rams with my feelings about his off-field conduct. However, because I don't think Vick is a good QB, I don't need to touch that issue.

Kyle Orton, historically, when pressured (and let's face it, if he plays for the Rams next season, he'll be pressured), is not one of the most reliable QBs in the league. I'd see this as a lateral move.

Chris Redman is currently playing the position he is most suited for, backup QB. He's 32/33 years old. is play hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

Chad Pennington wouldn't even make it through 1/2 a season. He has spent too much time on the bench due to injury.

As I said in another thread, I live in Minnesota and have had a significant exposure to the play of Tavaris Jackson. There's a reason the Vikes were willing to sell their souls to bring in Brett Favre, Before Favre signed, Tavaris was going to have to fight for his position with Sage Rosenfels. I like his mobility and his arm, but his decision making is beyond questionable.

Jason Campbell is probably the best of the bunch you've mentioned. He has a huge upside. The question for him is the same as for any QB we get; can they handle lots of pressure?

So, if you're willing to consider the QBs you've mentioned, you should also be willing to consider Vick; he was an integral part of a winning team. That is if his off-field escapades do not hinder your decision. If they do, I certainly can respect that opinion.

[AvengerRam]

I find it amusing that people think they can change my mind about Vick by simply saying "he was on a winning team."

If it were 2005 and you asked me about Vick, I'd say that I was intrigued by his running ability but concerned about his inability to throw the ball with consistency.

Now its 2010. He has not been a starter in years. While some think he can just pick up where he left off before his legal troubles, I see no evidence of that (certainly, his extremely limited role with the Eagles has not proven anything).

So, to repeat, I'd rather have any of the free agents I listed in my previous posts than Michael Vick (2010). If you disagree, fine. But you're not going to change my mind on this one.

[Truth]

I find it amusing that people think they can change my mind about Vick by simply saying "he was on a winning team."

If it were 2005 and you asked me about Vick, I'd say that I was intrigued by his running ability but concerned about his inability to throw the ball with consistency.

Now its 2010. He has not been a starter in years. While some think he can just pick up where he left off before his legal troubles, I see no evidence of that (certainly, his extremely limited role with the Eagles has not proven anything).

So, to repeat, I'd rather have any of the free agents I listed in my previous posts than Michael Vick (2010). If you disagree, fine. But you're not going to change my mind on this one.

I don't think anyone on this board is foolish enough to think they can "change the mind" of Avenger. Many have tried. Many have failed. Just throwing an alternative opinion your way. However, your preferences haven't exactly lit the world on fire. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to advocate one way or the other. I'm just offering my opinion.

[richtree]

So, to repeat, I'd rather have any of the free agents I listed in my previous posts than Michael Vick (2010). If you disagree, fine. But you're not going to change my mind on this one.

Av, I have no problems with you not wanting Vick. I do want Vick because I think we are one of the least "athletic" teams in the NFL.

I think you bring good points against him, and I think you are smart enough to understand why some of us wouldn't mind having him here.

My only problem is that you put Chad Pennington on this thing, lol.
Post arm surgery chad. The post dolphins injury prone Chad. He simply is old, un-atheltic, and will be a worse version of the aging Bulger.

I felt that was a slap in the face to some of us here and thought you intentionally (even if subconciously) wanted to make a point by saying you rather have Chad, old, hurt, and done over a still young Vick.

Please do not argue that Chad completes 99% or above., etc.
He is no longer young and healthly. That was my only problem with you saying you don't want Vick.

That fine, just don't put Chad Pennington above him. I don't think Pennington will ever play well again, if even play again.

[swatter555]

I like Chad Pennington, but I agree with the other poster, his durability is a major concern. If we can sign him to a reasonable deal, maybe. I don't like Jason Campbell, he has been too inconsistent and probably not a long-term solution for the Rams. The others listed are as good as any option we already have on the team.

Vick wasn't the best passer, but he made things happen. He was a playmaker at QB, something the Rams have lacked at QB for years. Vick was also maturing as a pocket passer before he went into the slammer.

From a talent perspective, I am a little shocked that so many people are passing up Vick (at least that is the excuse). He is most likely the only player (minus a resurgent and healthy Pennington) that might actually make the Rams compete right away. I would agree soaking big bucks into Vick would be too risky, but we simply cannot pass him up if his demands are reasonable. This is especially the case if we do not draft a top QB in the first round.

[swatter555]

You argument is just as weak. How do you know vick will be a better QB then those picked in round 2 and 3? Can you base that off of a few Gimmick plays he has run in Philly. I can base that vick is a horrible QB from the years he was a starter in ATL, that was in his prime now that his athletic ability has declines, and at age 30 it does, he just isnt starting material anymore. Meanwhile, from the draft you would have a young impressionable QB that you can mold into a starter, and there are plenty to pick from in the draft this year.

As for who is in the FA that is better then vick? How bout Jason Campbell, Kyle Orton, Chad pennington. Not to mention names like troy smith and kevin Kolb likely want to be traded to a team so they can get a starting position.

I saw with my own two eyes that Vick was an excellent playmaker. His playmaking ability meshed with his team in such a way as to take them from a bad team into a playoff team. In my book, he will still have great athleticism, having rested the last 3 years. The people downing Vick on a talent basis are too biased to be taken seriously.

[PeoriaRam]

Av, I have no problems with you not wanting Vick. I do want Vick because I think we are one of the least "athletic" teams in the NFL.

I think you bring good points against him, and I think you are smart enough to understand why some of us wouldn't mind having him here.

My only problem is that you put Chad Pennington on this thing, lol.
Post arm surgery chad. The post dolphins injury prone Chad. He simply is old, un-atheltic, and will be a worse version of the aging Bulger.

I felt that was a slap in the face to some of us here and thought you intentionally (even if subconciously) wanted to make a point by saying you rather have Chad, old, hurt, and done over a still young Vick.

Please do not argue that Chad completes 99% or above., etc.
He is no longer young and healthly. That was my only problem with you saying you don't want Vick.

That fine, just don't put Chad Pennington above him. I don't think Pennington will ever play well again, if even play again.

If you want athleticism, we can do better than a 30 year old who has not played QB full time since 2006.

In fact, let's emphasize the 30 year old part. Once you hint that age, your "athleticism" ceases to be an effective way to "make plays". At that point, you had better develop an effective throwing ability, or else you are a complete liability on the field.

I would like to ask the Vick supporters this. If Vick is still good, why has he not been plugged in in place of McNabb during one of the games against good teams in which Philly is getting housed? If Andy Reid lacks the confidence that Vick can turn things around, we should we think otherwise?

[AvengerRam]

Obviously, Pennington would have to be healthy to be considered.

If he is cleared to play, however, I see him as a guy who could hold down the fort while the Rams develop a rookie. Don't forget, Chad is only one year removed from a season in which he started all 16 games and had a passer rating of 97.4.

[THOLTFAN81]

In Bernie's 5 minutes he has a poll:

Michael Vick as Rams QB: Yes or no?

Yes has 787 votes
No has 495 votes as of right now

[PeoriaRam]

In Bernie's 5 minutes he has a poll:

Michael Vick as Rams QB: Yes or no?

Yes has 787 votes
No has 495 votes as of right now

This would be actually worthwhile and scientific if St. Louisans knew half as much about football as they did baseball.

[THOLTFAN81]

This would be actually worthwhile and scientific if St. Louisans knew half as much about football as they did baseball.

All I know is those results are making me really happy because alot of people on here yell at me as if im in the minority in regards to if the Rams should go after Vick when clearly i am in the majority.

[RamsFanSam]

All I know is those results are making me really happy because alot of people on here yell at me as if im in the minority in regards to if the Rams should go after Vick when clearly i am in the majority.

But on this board, you are in the minority.

[THOLTFAN81]

But on this board, you are in the minority.

I would rather be in the minority in a poll that has 153 votes...as opposed to a poll that has a little over 2,000.

[rampower]

Either way, Every quaterback that has replaced or played alongside vick has done better than he has. He simply is not good enough. Why waste more time on a QB that we know is not going to be our future? We might as well spend even less and throw null in for next year.

If we want a veteran presence on our team to teach our QB of the future why use one who doesn't pass all that well and has no experience of our team and offense when bulger and boller have that said experience and would throw the ball at least as well as vick?

The whole premise of taking a qb because he can run from the trouble, but cant really pass all that well (ahem boller is the same) when we know there is no way in hell he is our future doesn't work for me. Under his current contract he will earn over 5 mill next year.

I'd rather keep boller if we ar that set on hiring losers, thats what vick is.