Should Mark Brunell have gone to the Pro Bowl over Michael Vick?

[Sailskipper]

Michael Vick is a terrible QB. He has one of the worst completion percentages in teh nfl and i think he went even passing touchdowns and Interceptions. He is very popular but not all the effective. He gets by with his legs and because Alge Crumpler is a very good TE. He is very overrated and shouldnt ahve been at teh Pro-Bowl imo.

[tuna_h8r]

1) exciting is only relevant to the younger generation (no offense meant)

no offense meant to whom, youngster?

[The Bounty Hunter #21]

Hell ya he should of...Brunell had better numbers and we made the playoffs....

[bbuzz1962]

Statistically Brunell was better. Vick is a popular qb and that's why he made it.

[tuna_h8r]

provide a link showing Vick's and Brunell's career winning %'s. Brunell has been around 13 seasons, and had some really good years in JAX.

brunell looks to be 84-76 in his career for a .525 winning percentage

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/games/BrunMa00.htm#1995

but i can't tell for sure because it doesn't clearly show starts.

Vick is 31-24-1 including the 8-7 from this past season which is .564

and brunell is 5-6 in the playoff over is career, where vick is 2-2, so its not like either is hanging any banners, huh?

[tuna_h8r]

Holy crap how is this 9 pages allready...Anyway just look at the numbers.

Brunell

Passing yards: 3050

Passing TDs: 23

Intereceptions: 10

Fumbles Lost: 2

QB Rating: 85.9

Rushing yards: 111

Rushing TDs: 0

Total Yards: 3161

Total TDs: 23

Total Turnovers: 12

Vick

Passing yards: 2412

Passing TDs: 15

Intereceptions: 13

Fumbles Lost: 2

QB Rating: 73.1

Rushing yards: 597

Rushing TDs: 6

Total Yards: 3009

Total TDs: 21

Total Turnovers: 15

so is either one a probowl year? i don't think so.

[Enter Apotheosis]

so is either one a probowl year? i don't think so.

For the NFC, Brunell's passer rating warrants him a Pro Bowl spot. For some reason all of the gamebreaking QBs are in the AFC right now... Roethlisberger, Brady, Peyton, Palmer, formerly Brees, Green, etc. All the NFC has is Hasselbeck and Delhomme.

[tuna_h8r]

LOL, so where is you proof of deep ball touch. If he had that maybe he would completed more than 3 PASSES over 40 yards. He has a strong arm but he doesn't complete many long passes. You're still stuck on potential. You seem desperate. You state some fact and then when others on this board call you out and show stats that dispute it, you try and change the original thought. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.:doh:

vick had 8 in 04 and 8 in 02. bout the same brunell had in his prime. big deal.

but vick doesn't have a deep threat. the question was where vick might be better than brunell other than running the ball. the answer is that possibly he has a better deep ball.

then you decided that because moss can take a screen or a slant to the house that brunell has this amazing deep touch. a 40 yard pass in a stat column isn't necessarily through the air.

and when vick's best weapon in the passing game is a TE, it stands to reason that he's not exactly airing it out.

not to mention the line is so bad he rarely had time and he's in a WC scheme where most routed are under 15 yards anyway.

[Inxsive]

so is either one a probowl year? i don't think so.

Top 3 in your conference is a probowl year!

[tuna_h8r]

For the NFC, Brunell's passer rating warrants him a Pro Bowl spot. For some reason all of the gamebreaking QBs are in the AFC right now... Roethlisberger, Brady, Peyton, Palmer, formerly Brees, Green, etc. All the NFC has is Hasselbeck and Delhomme.

i'd say that all the passers are in the afc is because all the badass defenses are in the nfc... ours, tb, carolina, chicago...

[tuna_h8r]

Top 3 in your conference is a probowl year!

how do you want to rank that?

by rating brunell was 5th

by passing yards he was 6th

by passing tds he was T-4th

i guess manning and favre should be pretty pissed then, huh?

[Bigredskin77]

Michael Vick should not have went to the pro bowl over mark brunell. Vick isnt even the best at what he does and that is run. There are plenty people in the nfl with more rushing yards than him.

[Phixius]

Brunell gone to the playoffs Vick did not and that good enough for me.

[Inxsive]

vick had 8 in 04 and 8 in 02. bout the same brunell had in his prime. big deal.

but vick doesn't have a deep threat. the question was where vick might be better than brunell other than running the ball. the answer is that possibly he has a better deep ball.

then you decided that because moss can take a screen or a slant to the house that brunell has this amazing deep touch. a 40 yard pass in a stat column isn't necessarily through the air.

and when vick's best weapon in the passing game is a TE, it stands to reason that he's not exactly airing it out.

not to mention the line is so bad he rarely had time and he's in a WC scheme where most routed are under 15 yards anyway.

You are so full of crap. How many people here have to remind you we are talking about the 05 probowl. Who cares about 04 for this discussion?

Where did I say Brunell has an amazing deep touch? I just said Vick didn’t. Yes, the 40 yard stat isn't necessarily through the air, but if Vick could complete long balls they would definitely show up there, wouldn't they? :doh: :doh: :doh:

The greatest thing about your argument is that you say how bad your team is to try and justify him going to the probowl. You realize that if you later praise your players and they are still on the team your going to lose your credibility......wait......too late! :yikes:

[HoyaSkins28]

definatley. he had a much better season than Vick. but honestly that doesnt really matter. he may have had more yards, touchdowns, and less interceptions (not to mention a better passer rating and completion percentage) people in this country prefer watching a young, more athletic QB like Michael Vick, not an old not as athletic and mobile QB like Mark Brunell. Dont get me wrong, I thought Brunell should have been there in a heartbeat. I thought he had a great season. The real disapointment that beats them all is why Warrick Dunn made the Pro Bowl instead of Clinton Portis.

[HoyaSkins28]

Michael Vick should not have went to the pro bowl over mark brunell. Vick isnt even the best at what he does and that is run. There are plenty people in the nfl with more rushing yards than him.

yea, but how many more QBs have more rushing yards. plus Vick didnt play the full season.

[Inxsive]

yea, but how many more QBs have more rushing yards. plus Vick didnt play the full season.

So would you put the WR with the most passing yards in the ProBowl too? Or the QB with the most kicking points? I think Flutie got one!

[Phixius]

VICK IS OVERRATED AND ALL Redskins fans will find out Week 13 on 12/3 when his back is on the ground at FedEx.

[WHALEN]

Face it, donkeys, Brunell stinks. I love Campbell, but Vick is better than Campbell and Brunell is not better than both.

I'm not saying that Brunell belonged in the probowl but Vick had no business whatsoever being voted in the man couldn't lead his team to a play-off spot and his overall numbers didn't support the nomination. :eaglesuck :gaintsuck :dallasuck

[tuna_h8r]

You are so full of crap. How many people here have to remind you we are talking about the 05 probowl. Who cares about 04 for this discussion?

Where did I say Brunell has an amazing deep touch? I just said Vick didn’t. Yes, the 40 yard stat isn't necessarily through the air, but if Vick could complete long balls they would definitely show up there, wouldn't they? :doh: :doh: :doh:

The greatest thing about your argument is that you say how bad your team is to try and justify him going to the probowl. You realize that if you later praise your players and they are still on the team your going to lose your credibility......wait......too late! :yikes:

first, that's the second personal attack i won't stoop to. it's a discussion, keep it that way.

second, when you asked what i thought he was better at, is said *maybe* the deep ball. i wasn't definitive. and yes, if i was picking a QB for Al Davis' offense, i'd take Vick first.

Vick's deep passing game is far better than his short passes are. I cetainly expect that with the same weapons on the outside, Vick would have better numbers than brunell in that category.

you asked for an answer, an opinion. that's what i gave you. educated ones come from watching the guy play, not from looking at the stat sheet on monday. if you want to break down this years stats, fine. you win. brunell had better passing numbers. i still don't think it was a probowl performance (from either of them).

as apparently this years passer rating is the final word for some, i'll ask this:

I'll grant that Vick's rating was worse that brunell's, but by that logic shouldn't Brad Johnson have been in the probowl?

[Henry]

how do you want to rank that?

by rating brunell was 5th

He was 3rd amongst full time starters. QBs that get injured halfway through the season or pick up as a backup in week 7 don't exactly count.

The two guys ahead of him went to the pro-bowl, by the way.

I think you know that, though.

by passing yards he was 6th

This one is straight up.

by passing tds he was T-4th

Three players had 24. He had 23. Technically you're right, but that's a llittle misleading.

i guess manning and favre should be pretty pissed then, huh?

Manning threw 17 INTs. Favre threw 29. Brunell threw 10.

In fact, of the full time starters, only one QB threw fewer INTs than Brunell; Hasselbeck.

Of the full-time starters, only one had a TD/INT differential as good as Brunell: Hasselbeck.

Odd that you would leave that out of your analysis.

[tuna_h8r]

VICK IS OVERRATED AND ALL Redskins fans will find out Week 13 on 12/3 when his back is on the ground at FedEx.

i hope you're right. if there's anything the skins have to look out for its the bad angles and missed tackles that gave up long runs like we had against NY and SD. Dunn is the same type of slashing runner as those 2, I hope the skins are healthy and prepared going in.

[tuna_h8r]

Manning threw 17 INTs. Favre threw 29. Brunell threw 10.

In fact, of the full time starters, only one QB threw fewer INTs than Brunell; Hasselbeck.

Of the full-time starters, only one had a TD/INT differential as good as Brunell: Hasselbeck.

Odd that you would leave that out of your analysis.

tied for 4th is tied for 4th. whether all 3 in front had 1 more or 1000 more. i could have said 5th, that would have been cheap.

and i'm not arguing hasselbeck at all. in fact, i've been saying for about 4 pages now that he's the only one from the nfc that was really deserving this year.

if it really was about getting the best QB performances out there, they'd have selected a couple more from the afc to go instead.

[Inxsive]

first, that's the second personal attack i won't stoop to. it's a discussion, keep it that way.

Saying your full of crap isn't much of an attack but if you're that sensitive then the facts are enough to make you look foolish.

Vick's deep passing game is far better than his short passes are. I cetainly expect that with the same weapons on the outside, Vick would have better numbers than brunell in that category.

I imagine you would expect that, he isn't willing to stay in the pocket long enought to let his WR's actually get down field. Please don't blame the line and WR, you can't use that for the whole season. Whats your excuse for Schuabs numbers with the same players? He certainly performed better, 4 td's zero int's in his limited appearences. He had 2 over 40 yard plays by the way.

you asked for an answer, an opinion. that's what i gave you. educated ones come from watching the guy play, not from looking at the stat sheet on monday. if you want to break down this years stats, fine. you win. brunell had better passing numbers. i still don't think it was a probowl performance (from either of them).

Unless you went to HS in VA, you havn't been watching Vick longer than I have.

as apparently this years passer rating is the final word for some, i'll ask this:

I'll grant that Vick's rating was worse that brunell's, but by that logic shouldn't Brad Johnson have been in the probowl?

He certainly should have been considered before Vick

[Henry]

tied for 4th is tied for 4th. whether all 3 in front had 1 more or 1000 more. i could have said 5th, that would have been cheap.

and i'm not arguing hasselbeck at all. in fact, i've been saying for about 4 pages now that he's the only one from the nfc that was really deserving this year.

if it really was about getting the best QB performances out there, they'd have selected a couple more from the afc to go instead.

If Bledsoe or Manning had been selected instead of Vick, I'd agree with you. But Vick's performance was so far below those of the top echelon of NFC QBs, however pedestrian they may have been, that his selection was a big head-scratcher.

My issue is with Vick's inclusion. Not Brunell's exclusion.

That said, I really don't get the way some on here are skewing numbers to make Brunell's season look worse than it was. He's not Marino or Favre, but he's an ok QB who had a decent season. Why is that so hard to say?