SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisMichael Vick
I devoted a few posts to Matt Schaub (I, II) awhile ago, so I may as well write a little about the other Atlanta quarterback.
Back in 2002, I was a serious Vick-backer. I no longer am. But that's not because I changed my mind. It's because Vick regressed. At least I think that's the way it happened.
He is incredibly fun to watch, so that ensures a lot of TV hype. Because of that, there will be haters. Peyton Manning collects haters for the same reason. But Vick generates extra animosity because he doesn't do things the way quarterbacks are supposed to do things. Johnny Unitas he's not. But for those that were able to get past that, it was easy to recognize that he was --- the occassional really ugly pass aside --- a great quarterback in 2002. He was confident, he was decisive, and his scrambling ability made him virtually impossible to defend.
In 2004, he did less but his team was more successful, so it's hard to complain about that.
Last year, he was not only not a great quarterback. He was a not even a good quarterback. In fact, he wasn't even fun to watch, and I thought his running ability was noticeably diminished. Here's what Vick says about it:
My knee was bothering me all year. I never cried about it. I never complained about it. I just tried to do the best I can for the team. Now, I'm 100 percent healthy. I'm where I used to be.
That's a common refrain in the offseason, so I'm skeptical. But I want to believe him because I sure do enjoy watching him run.
I said earlier that it was easy to recognize that Vick was a great quarterback in 2002 and 2004, and I believe that. In particular, I saw with my own eyes that on every running play the opponent had to keep its outside linebackers and/or ends home --- on both sides --- for fear of the bootleg. This opened up the middle for Dunn and Duckett to run wild, which led to all the ball-control-and-defense wins that Atlanta racked up during 2004.
Or so it appeared to me.
I went in search of stats to corroborate my impression and came up empty. Here are Dunn and Duckett's numbers from 2002--2005 with and without Vick in the game.
With Vick
RSH YD Y/R Y/G
============================================
Warrick Dunn 689 3048 4.4 72.6
T.J. Duckett 407 1591 3.9 41.9Without Vick
RSH YD Y/R Y/G
============================================
Warrick Dunn 211 1073 5.1 67.1
T.J. Duckett 144 584 4.1 38.9
[Fine print: a game was defined to be "with Vick" if Vick attempted 10 or more passes in that game. In other words, I'm not going down to the partial game level. Every game was either a "with Vick" game or a "without Vick" game.]
I'm really not sure what to make of that, except that it wasn't what I was expecting.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 at 4:14 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
It could be that they were getting more yards per carry because without Vick they were behind a lot and getting some long garbage yards at the end of meaningless games. Whereas in games with Vick they were often ahead and thus just content with running out clock and reducing their yards per carry.
Dudette, apples and oranges. Runningbacks might be more productive with a explosive running qb vs a non-explosive running qb like vick is not disproven by this data. There are two axi here - x being ability of qb to scramble and run; y being ability to complete passes, especially deep ones. All it proves is that a qb, such as schaub that can extend the defense vertically better than vick, provides a better environment for runners than a qb like vick, who extends the line of scrimmage horizontally. Vick helps runners -fine. a qb that can pass helps runners two - fine. Here, apparantly the latter envirnment is better for runners. The question is, what would dunn and duckett's numbers look like if vick couldn't pass OR run. What you need is games "good vick" vs games "bad vick, or "hobbled vick". My guess is if vick couldn't pass OR run, we wouldn't see him on gatorade or underarmor commercials and he'd be playing up in canada with marcus. Oh, and Dunn and Duckett would be averaging 5.1 and 4.1 yards per carry with Schaub at the helm - or even better, Dunn would be cleaning up 3rd downs for Cadallac Williams while Ladanian and Drew Brees crush domes in Atlanta. (but wait, lets not get too carried away).
There are the issues of level of competition (maybe Vick was out against inordinately bad run defenses) or one or two outlier games that may skew the numbers, right?
Assuming those aren't factors, maybe when the defense is keyed on stopping the QB scramble, it puts them in better position to stop any runs at all. LBs key to stop runs more than drop into coverage and stay inside more (I think). DEs go for containment. Wouldn't that make running harder, not easier?
I'd guess that the threat of the wicked scramble would be effective at opening up the intermediate passing game, not the run.
By your cutoff, there were five "Vickless" games total in 2002, 2004 and 2005, and twelve in 2003.
Of the five non-2003 games, only two games had good rushing performances: the 2004 Week 17 game against Seattle, when both guys went ape, and 2005 week 4 against Minnesota, when Dunn exploded.
Their performance in Vickless games in 2003 were both spectacular:
Dunn: 125 rushes, 672 yds, 5 TDs 5.38 yds/att
Duckett: 101 rushes, 426 yds, 7 TDs 4.22 yds/att
After Vick returned in 2003, Dunn was out for the rest of the year. Duckett's performance slipped to 3.68 yds/att for the last few games.
I have no idea what this means.
Vick has most assuredly regressed since 2002. He used to look confident, steady, cool. Now he usually looks flustered, confused, panicked. I blame the coaches for trying to force the player to fit their system, and not vice versa.
Also, TJ Duckett was TERRIBLE at the end of last season. Nobody really seems to now why, but if you look at the last three games, something like 30 of 32 carries gained 2 yards or less.
My theory: defensive coordinators keep more men close to the line of scrimmage in an effort to contain Vick's scrambling (i.e. assigning a "spy"). With a less mobile Doug Johnson/Kurt Kittner/Matt Schaub in the game, more manpower is devoted to coverage downfield, meaning fewer men near the line of scrimmage, accounting for the increase in YPC for the backs.
Two interesting methods for evaluating players' performances based on statistics are FootballOutsider's DPAR and ProTrade's dividends. For the most part, those methods end up grading players pretty similarly. Vick is the most notable exception: he's #22 in DPAR (passing plus rushing) and #7 in ProTrade dividends. For whatever that's worth.
My long-running question continues to be, "Why use quantitative data to measure Vick's effectiveness"? For all of the yards that Dan Marino racked up over his hall of fame career, it was ultimately worth two AFC Championship appearances (1-1 record) and a Super Bowl loss in his second season. Speaking of Vick's alleged regression, the Dolphins were the Super Bowl runner-up when they drafted Marino and by 1990 they were consistent AFC bottom-feeders. Analysts continue to insist that Vick become a pocket-passer. Quantitatively speaking, Vick has a much better W-L percentage when he throws for less than 200 yards. Does that make sense, of course not. Because it is intangibles that make him great. The runs to make a first down in the Green Bay playoff game to keep the offense on the field and the "superman" touchdown dive to ultimately beat the Panthers, statistically were unimpressive but thoroughly effective. Peyton Manning has broken multiple passing touchdown records and he is invariably sitting at home at least by the second round of the playoffs. (Note: Please stop blaming Manning's failure on the defense; in his nine playoff appearances the Colts offense has scored 21.8 points on average while the defense has allowed an average of 23.6 points - and these numbers are skewed by the Jets debacle where the offense scored nothing but the defense surrendered 41 and the 2004 Patriot loss where the defense actually held the defending champs outdoors in Foxboro in the frozen mud to 20 points while the offense only scored a field goal). Before media complaints during 2005 arose about Vick not being a pocket passer, the Falcons were winning. He then proceeded to take the comments to heart and put on a passing clinic against the Dolphins and almost lost and also lost the Tampa Bay game after essentially his best statistical performance of his career. He had a 337 yard game against I believe the Lions his second year. The coaches have seemingly given up play-calling and are now working in too many quarterback draws which make his run-threat less effective ("going to the well" too many times-it is what happens on a madden video game if you were to decide to make Manning throw every down; every incidence statistically edges you toward calamity). The Falcons need to reassess what made Vick effective (great) in college and up until halfway through last season; post-route passes to receivers that cannot get yards after the catch (except for Andre Davis at VT) and bootlegs behind a line that cannot pass block to make him a constant threat to run. Sorry this comment is so long guys! I'll break it up into volumes later!
"Vick has a much better W-L percentage when he throws for less than 200 yards. Does that make sense, of course not."
Of course it makes sense. The team that passes for more yards usually loses. Teams that are behind a lot rack up lots of passing yards; teams that are ahead a lot rack up lots of rushing yards. For most of Vick's Atlanta career, once his team gets an early lead, the team runs and runs and runs and rarely passes.
Vince, I wholeheartedly agree with you. That quote is extracted from the cynical. For some reason, it has become popular belief that passing quarterbacks going out and throwing for 300 yards at a clip with a 65% completion rate somehow equates to success. I think what I call the "Manning aficionados" need to go back and compare year for year the TOTAL OFFENSE statistics for Elway and Marino to determine who will ultimately have the more successful individual career, Vick or your archetypical pocket passer. And please do not include Brady in this discussion. He is essentially a mortal lock for Canton, why? Complete lack of ego. To this day I am convinced he still does not believe he is better than Drew Bledsoe. Arriving onto the Patriots in the position that he did (one of an inferiority complex) Brady has never done anything to question the ideology of the offense leading the TEAM to ultimate success while passing egomaniacs such as Marino, Bledsoe, or Manning would have felt that taking the ball out of their hands or not allowing them to throw deep on two of four downs would have led to imminent doom. That mindset has led to a complete lack of team success for all three latter quarterbacks while Brady's lack of an ego (the guy essentially turned down money for land's sake)has established him as the pre-eminent quarterback in the league (pocket passer or not).
"To this day I am convinced he still does not believe he is better than Drew Bledsoe."
Oh, I assure you, he does. Or he's an idiot.
"passing egomaniacs such as Marino, Bledsoe, or Manning would have felt that taking the ball out of their hands or not allowing them to throw deep on two of four downs would have led to imminent doom."
Number one, nobody thinks Bledsoe is anywhere near the class of anyone else in this discussion. (Also, all those years Bledsoe led the league in pass attempts, his coach was Bill Parcells. Who do you think called for all those passes? I would guess it was the Tuna.) Number two, Dan Marino would have loved to have Terrell Davis or Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith, but he had Bernie Parmalee and Mark Higgs. He never played with a halfway decent RB, so the Dolphins had to pass all the time.
Manning has pretty much always had Edge and calls all or most of the plays, so if you want to criticize him for passing too much, that's fine.
Wait, one more:
"Brady’s lack of an ego (the guy essentially turned down money for land’s sake)has established him as the pre-eminent quarterback in the league (pocket passer or not)."
Jon Kitna is also a humble, team-first guy and has bounced from team to team. Brady is the league's pre-eminent QB because he leads his teammates and makes a lot of really great passes.
Vince, I'm certainly glad you are confident with your knowledge of relatively recent football history because most discussants I listen to (or read on blogs) have either short memories or are stalwart revisionists. I definitely agree with you on not putting Drew Bledsoe in the same class as Marino (jury is still out on Manning). But if you can travel back with me to January of 1997 the week after the AFC Championship Game, Bledsoe was the second coming. The lump of bronze (or whatever) had already been selected out of which to carve his bust to be enshrined in Canton. So what has happened? A guy takes a really good shot to cause some bleeding in his lung (collapsed) and he's never quite the same again. But remember the AFC conference championship game after 2001. Belichick wasn't quite sure Brady was his guy and it was Bledsoe that led the Patriots back after Brady went down. I do not believe Brady eclipsed Bledsoe's talents in one week. I do believe if Bledsoe would have remained with the Patriots and Brady went to let's say the Bills (which of course would have never happened), the Patriots may not have won two more Super Bowls but then again Brady would definitely not have led the Bills to any. But delving into hypotheticals is too sloppy. Yet, that is what separates a Vick from a Brady. Certainly, criticize Vick and his passer rating. However, Vick got drafted by the third worst team in the NFL that year (in terms of draft position) and was drafted to lead that team which he has done so admirably (very much like a Manning). Brady was not drafted to lead a team, until probably this year has never been under pressure to carry a team, and has never had to do so. Since Vick has been in the league, on paper I have no doubt he could have led any team in the NFL to the playoffs save (perhaps)the Texans and the Browns. The same cannot be said for Brady. I back my statement that Brady is the pre-eminent QB because of his lack of ego. Peyton Manning could have led that same Patriots team to three Super Bowl victories as could many lesser QBs than Manning. What do I base this statement on? Do you know who had the best touchdown-to-INT ratio of any QB in the league from 2001-04? Not Brady in his heyday, but AARON BROOKS! Brady makes the same bonehead plays as Brooks (Brady has a tendency to still throw passes across the field while sitting on his butt and also fumbles quite a bit)but he does not play with the same buffoonish ensemble (particularly on defense) that comprises the Saints. The only team I have ever seen make Brady pay for his style of play was the Miami Dolphins in the Jim Bates Bowl. Brady always plays that way (he played that way in the Super Bowl vs. the Eagles) but I have seen no one (save the Dolphins in that ONE GAME) capitalize on his errors. Comparing Kitna and Brady is like comparing Michael Vick and Anthony Wright because they are both mobile. And I honestly don't see that big of a negative to Jon Kitna. No he's likely not going to lead the woeful Lions back to playoff contention as he did not do the same for Seattle and Cincinnati but in analyzing the teams he has played for he's acquitted himself rather well (it's not like he was drafted in Tim Couch's position). Once again, this is what separates Vick from most other quarterbacks in the league. He was picked number one overall and has been relegated to carrying a team with gaping holes on his back, often times to relative success. McNabb and McNair before him fall into the same category. When they play, the team is relatively successful; when they don't play, the team is absolutely horrible (recall Seattle vs. Eagles last season Monday night). Brady, Delhomme, and KURT WARNER
have been pleasant surprises. Look at Kurt Warner now. Brady is one good injury away from being Warner. That is how Warner got his job in the first place. But quarterbacks like Vick and Elway; different story. Maddox got drafted to be Elway's successor, the door opened wide when Elway went down in '92...I don't think I need to tell you how that story ended. Vick went down in '03, Falcons went back to the same team they were without him. When he came back, it was business as usual, just way too little way too late.
And about the Marino and the Troy Stradford Sammie Smith Irving Spikes argument. I live in Miami and have being hearing it for going on two decades now. Would have could have should have. If you look at all the powerhouse teams in both conferences during Marino's tenure prior to his Achilles rupture (a period of time in the NFL when the Dolphins were largely out of the playoffs anyway) check for the franchise back. In the AFC: Denver, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Houston, '85 Patriots? In the NFC: Chicago, New York Giants, Washington, Philadelphia? Not a franchise back among them. San Francisco -Roger Craig-maybe. But when you look at the fact that the Niners seamlessly transitioned from Craig to Watters and Montana to Young (heck, Steve freakin' Bono stepped in with no steam lost for 1/2 season)I think the franchise RB and QB had a lot to do with Jerry Rice being on the other side of the field. The Rams traded away Dickerson to the Colts; the Rams got better and the Colts got worse. In terms of Buffalo and Dallas on the back end, yes Marino would have fared the same as Kelly on the team that lost four straight Super Bowls; not too sure at that juncture in his career Marino would have been MORE effective than Aikman. But if Marino would have went to the Lions with Sanders, do you really think the results would have been any different? (Before you answer you may want to check Scott Mitchell's numbers from that time; he actually stepped in for Marino in Miami before going to Detroit.) Elway, Moon, and Kosar all performed without a franchise back while Marino was sitting at home. Yes Elway would have won a Super Bowl if he played with Jerry Rice, Yes Vick would have lost in the Super Bowl if he had Terrill Owens rather than McNabb, Yes McNair would have won a Super Bowl had the Titans drafted Randy Moss instead of Kevin Dyson; what exactly is Peyton Manning's excuse? And oh yeah, Bill Parcells didn't want Drew Bledsoe and he didn't want Terry Glenn; why did he quit the Patriots? "IF THEY WANT YOU COOK THE DINNER THEY SHOULD AT LEAST LET YOU SHOP FOR SOME OF THE GROCERIES!!!!"
And don't even think about calling Walter Payton a franchise back on the '85 Bears. That's like calling Earl Campbell a franchise back on the '85 Saints or Dorsett a franchise back on the '88 Broncos.
I'm not saying Dan Marino needed a "Franchise" runningback. He needed a "not horrible" runningback, and never got one.
Ok, let's be realistic. Since everyone seems to be biting their tongue I guess I will have to break the ice. I don't think that it's about Mike Vick not being a good Quarterback. I think that it's a combination of racism and placeism. European Americans like to pigeon-hole and stereo-type everything. They like to say things like a Quarterback is 6'5" 220 pounds, is intelligent, accurate, has a strong arm and stands in the pocket (And also they must be European but it goes unsaid). If a quarterback doesn't fit that description then as far as they are concerned he is not a "proto(stereo)typical" quarterback. For years I have watch African American QB's at High school and college level literally destroy their competition with just raw athletic ability. Their coaches just let them do what they do so long as they win games. They don't teach them about reading coverages, or mechanics, and they dummy down the offense to suit their physical attributes, then when these QB's get to the NFL the scouts say things like "His mechanics are off", "He doesn't have pocket pressence", "He doesn't know how to read defenses", etc. Unfortunately the scouts are absolutely correct in their evaluations which brings me to my point. European QB's are groomed for the NFL from the first day that they touch a football, whereas African American QB's are allowed to just do whatever. then when they get to the NFL they coaches say you can't do this or you can't do that; things that these QB's have been doing all of there lives. I think that Michael Vick and a lot of other African American QB's are going through this very thing right now. When Mike Vick was doing what he does best, he was virtually unstoppable, in my opinion, it was when he gave into the hype is when he degraded himself as a QB. He needs to take a page from Randall Cunningham or Donovan McNabb where they used their athletic abitlity until they learned how to play the game, then used their atheletic abilities as assets rather than obligation. This is evident when you look at the rushing statistics of the above mentioned QBs when they first appeared in the league to their 4th or 5th year rushing stats. Vick just needs to do what he does best until he learns how to play the game. The reason I didn't blame the entire situation on racism is because I believe that it's also placeism that plays a major role which affect European QB's as well as African American QB's. One of my favorite QB's in history is Doug Flutie. Everyone had something to say about him but no one wanted to play against him. We cast him off to Canada where he as Randy Moss would say "tore" the league up. He then returned to the NFL at age 36 (way past his prime) and gave defensive coordinators headaches. Bill Parcels once said that he hated playing against Flutie. That being said, Flutie was victimized by the placeism that plagues the league. Since he wasn't the prototypical QB that European Americans thought he should be, Flutie's every mistake was magnified 1000 times, just so they criticize his size or his arm strength, Then came along Rob Johnson, the 6'5" 225 pound, prototype who was supposed to be better than Flutie in everyway. The two years that Flutie started in Buffalo, they went to the playoffs. They haven't been there ever since, though no one admits it. As far as I know Rob Johnson isn't even in the league now, and if he is, what is he a 3rd stringer? My point is that European Americans need to stop trying to "Proto(Stereo)-typing" everything and let things be what they are. Take a page out of Andy Reids book and build a system around what your QB does best and teach him the game during the process. The Flacons are doing the opposite with Mike Vick, they threw him into a system that doesn't really support his god given talents that critics only dream of having. By the way, if you are wondering, my favorite Qb of all-time? Joe Montana.