Forever21 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 You would trade JC in one second for Vince Young. So would every other football fan on earth. Wow. I thought you had no sense after the whole Betts' fiasco. Anyway. Young's career will mimic Vicks'. Lots of close calls, potential and fun plays running around the field, lots of plays on Sportscenter and of course a billion jersey's sold. But he won't win ****. He'll be fun to watch, if you enjoy unorganized simpleton football. I'm not saying that JC is going to be Joe Montana. But I would take JC over VY because JC is a quarterback and an athlete while VY is simply an athlete, a kick returner with an arm. The Bears should be Devon Hester at QB, he'd probably be about as successful as VY or Vick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMU1330 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Why exactly is it shocking that a guy who has played less than half of a season in the NFL is rated in the 20's? He is SEVEN games into his career. What exactly would you expect? Top 10? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 You would trade JC in one second for Vince Young. So would every other football fan on earth. Well, others have clubbed you around and driven the point home pretty well, but I'll pile on, anyways, just because you deserve it . Most FANS may very well take VY over JC - he shows brilliantly on SportsCenter. It would be a tough call for coaches, though. At this point, Young is the classic NFL coach-killer - dripping potential and raw athleticism, makes spectacular game-changing plays, but has very little maturity when it comes to playing QB at the NFL level. That same jaw-dropping ability to improvise becomes a crutch that hinders the actual development of the player, and therefore, the team. The team has other, well-paid guys to make plays when the QB delivers the ball to them. If the QB is doing it all himself, those guys become pretty irrelevant. One of the big complaints that the Vick jock-sniffers have is that the Falcons haven't surrounded him w/talent. Why should they really? He isn't going to use them. The talent and money are just wasted on premium players as long as Vick continues to play QB as he does. These guys also make the OLs job a nightmare - they never know where he is going to be. Nothing more frustrating for an OL as to do his job perfectly, but the QB allows his guy to sack or impact the play somehow, thus making that OL look bad. The coaches may know that it was the QB's fault, but that never goes back to the masses. Of course, a running QB takes touches away from the RB, as well, not to mention the fact that defenses play very tight against this type of QB, thus giving less room to run. So, what we have is a situation where no one on the offensive side is really terribly enthused with the notion of a QB whose primary weapon is his legs. Coaches want players that execute the plays as the plays are designed, resorting to improvisation only as a last resort. A player like VY or Vick is so tantalizing because of the possibilities they provide by combining great improvisational talent with the ability to smoothly run an NFL offense. That ability is incredibly elusive, though. The best ever at it, of course, was Steve Young. For awhile, he was as lethal a QB as I've seen - but that wasn't until he mastered the offense. To do so, he had to suppress his natural improvisational instincts. McNabb is another example, though to a much lesser degree. The fact is, history has shown that you can win championships with QBs in the mold of JC. There is scant evidence that you can do the same with a VY-type of player. So, proclaiming your undying preference for VY shows just how little you know and understand the game of football. Not surprising, you've been displaying that lack of knowledge since you started posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RypienUmApart Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 They put JP Losman at 20 after he had a top ten QB rating last year with one reciever and a bum running back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Queeny is really trying to boost his "credibility" rating here by rating Homo-the-Fumbler higher than Campbell?! Homo The Fumbler. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Ok Riggo your comparison to Big Ben I do not think is accurate. Big Ben did not lose them the Superbowl or any other game the prior year. I'm not disputing that. The point is, Rothlisberger won, and won big and consistently for 2 years. Unlike, say, Grossman, who had an even better defense, Rothlisberger came through when he had to. Might Campbell turn out to be better than Big Ben? Sure, but he's only had 7 games. As of this moment, he's still a relatively unknown quantity, and lots of players with great beginnings and tremendous athleticism never live up to the expectations. My point was that it's ridiculous for people to get their panties in a wad over the fact that he's not getting high rankings (yet) because he's simply unproven. Now, if he throws for 3000 yds next year and is still at 26, then people will have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan81 Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Again I ask why is anyone reading anything from Sports Illustrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aston Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Again I ask why is anyone reading anything from Sports Illustrated?Same reason homeless people eat other people's trash. When you're starving for something, you lower your standards and will take just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.