Question. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Andrew · 12-17-2004, 06:53 PM

Who got the better of the San Diego/Atlanta trade?

At this point, I'd have to say San Diego. They got a number one quarterback, Drew Brees, and the finest back in the game, L.T. Atlanta got the most fascinating, but also the most inconsistant quarterback in the league.

radioguy · 12-17-2004, 08:56 PM

san diego, hands up ---- signaling many touchdowns

heccubusiv · 12-18-2004, 02:49 AM

Vick is an amazing athlete but is overrated as a qb and I have been saying that since week one and will continue to say that till he passes over 4k and gets a ring. LT is unreal and Brees and his mole are playing pretty well right now, if he can continue this through playoffs and into next year he has overcome his expectations

FlatLand Flyer · 12-18-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heccubusiv

Brees and his mole are playing pretty well right now, if he can continue this through playoffs and into next year he has overcome his expectations

Now that brings up an interesting question though. What does San Diego do at QB? Keep Brees and dump Rivers or vice versa? They can't afford both players.

Oh and San Diego definately got the better of this trade.

Cross-Over · 12-18-2004, 03:37 PM

Atlanta got the better deal. This is Brees' only good year, and the debate is between LT and Vick. LT is sick, don’t get me wrong. His numbers last year though, were on a horrible team that only had him as an option. Now that they are more balanced (yeah he has been banged up, but that’s not the only reason his numbers have declined) his numbers are more similar to other RB's. He had a hundred receptions last year and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. This year he is only averaging a mediocre 3.9 yards per carry and has a respectable, but not comparable to 100, 47 receptions.

Here is the most important fact. LT has been in the league since 01, and his team has gone 5-11, 8-8, 4-12 since. This year they are doing superb, yet he is not playing at his elite level. Those poor results over the years don't really show how the chargers got the better end of the deal.

As a starter, Vick has gone 21-10-1 (a tie to Pitt) in his career, and 1-1 in the playoffs (beating the Packers in Wisconsin).

He is a winner, bottom line.

Rdr4evr · 12-18-2004, 04:13 PM

San Diego definitely. Vick is not a QB, he is a running back with butter fingers, and until he actually learns other aspects of the QB position, he is nothing but a mere athlete who can run.

Brees on the other hand has all the necessary tools of a QB to be successful. Vick is an extremely over-rated player and his team will make it nowhere, don't let the record fool you.

Cross-Over · 12-18-2004, 04:37 PM

The record is what it is. It’s fantastic and includes two playoff berths in two full seasons. The question wasn't whether Vick is an all around Qb or if Brees was, the question was which team got the better deal out of LT and Vick. How about debating the question?

Btw, Vick is 24 years old. He threw well two years ago, throwing for twice as many TD's as Int's. He is so young, and Qb's have proven to take a while to develop. He has cannon for an arm, and a willingness to learn.

"don’t let the record fool you".
I am not fooled, I didn't know anybody was playing tricks. That is such a blanket statement, and backed up with no real argument.

"his team won't make it anywhere"
They are going to the playoffs, thats somewhere that only 11 other teams are going.

Rdr4evr · 12-18-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

That is such a blanket statement, and backed up with no real argument.

Very well, let me elaborate on my statement further. The fact that the Sparrows are 10-3 means nothing heading into the playoffs. Their inconsistent play will bite them hard when they actually have to face real opponents like the Eagles, not the likes of the sorry teams they have defeated thus far (aside from San Diego and maybe the Donkies).

Luckily the NFC as a whole is a miserable conference, but most of the NFC playoff contenders are stronger than Atlanta in terms of being well balanced.

As for Vick being a good passer two years ago.....I wouldn’t necessarily call 421 for 231 at a percentage 54.9 and a rating of 81 good......mediocre sure, but definitely not good. Yes he is young, and he does have a decent arm, but with a one track mind, he will not amount to a top QB. Those legs are not going to last forever and they surely are not going to take him to the SuperBowl.

So in conclusion, San Diego got the better deal.....you can't compare a RB to a QB (even though he is more of an RB himself), but if I have to, Tomlinson blows Vick out of the water in terms of knowing how to play his position. And Brees is hands downthe better QB...no comparison in that department.

stevo · 12-19-2004, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlatLand Flyer

Now that brings up an interesting question though. What does San Diego do at QB? Keep Brees and dump Rivers or vice versa? They can't afford both players.

Oh and San Diego definately got the better of this trade.

I say they trade him to miami for some draft pics. yeah.

Oh, and I'm not sure on who got the better end of the stick. I'll vote the third option.

Cross-Over · 12-19-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

The fact that the Sparrows are 10-3 means nothing heading into the playoffs.

A 4-9 Raiders fan calling the 11-3 Falcons (who thumped the Raiders) Sparrows is like, well, I guess I could use a hundred analogies...I'll just say its comedy gold.

djtestudo · 12-19-2004, 09:40 AM

It is definately about equal.

Atlanta got a player that makes them into the team EVERYBODY wants to watch. That equals almost as much as simple winning, even though Vick gives them that too.

San Diego got the best all-around running back in the league, and a quarterback who is finally living up to his potential as a franchise QB (whether its for the San Diego franchise remains to be seen, though).

Rdr4evr · 12-19-2004, 12:55 PM

Cross-over, how did I know you would ignore the rest of the post and bash the Raiders.......typical. By the way, did you like Vicks passing stats last night? I believe it was 11 for 28 for a 154 yards and 2 INT's. Wow, talk about an all-star QB.

Cross-Over · 12-19-2004, 01:46 PM

Don't say its "typical" after you started the bashing first. What do you expect when I see a fan of a poor Raiders team calling an 11-3 playoff team (that beat Oak.) Sparrows? Should I say, "great post, I loved the bird reference"? If you can't take it, dont dish it out

"By the way, did you like Vicks passing stats last night? I believe it was 11 for 28 for a 154 yards and 2 INT's. Wow, talk about an all-star QB"

Like I left off his completion percentage and QB rating from two years ago, you left off the fact that he also threw for two TD's.

I did like his clutch play though, 4th and Goal rushing TD, impressive.

djtestudo · 12-19-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross-Over

Don't say its "typical" after you started the bashing first. What do you expect when I see a fan of a poor Raiders team calling an 11-3 playoff team (that beat Oak.) Sparrows? Should I say, "great post, I loved the bird reference"? If you can't take it, dont dish it out

"By the way, did you like Vicks passing stats last night? I believe it was 11 for 28 for a 154 yards and 2 INT's. Wow, talk about an all-star QB"

Like I left off his completion percentage and QB rating from two years ago, you left off the fact that he also threw for two TD's.

I did like his clutch play though, 4th and Goal rushing TD, impressive.

68 rushing yards and a TD. But I guess Rich Gannon could do that, huh

Rdr4evr · 12-19-2004, 05:09 PM

dj...please man, you should know better! Gannon would rip Vick a new one in EVERY aspect of the QB position except running. No comparison can be made. It was Rich who was MVP in '02, not Vick.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, here is Gannons 2002 stats, the last FULL season he played.

618 of 418 - 67.6% - 4689 yards 26 TD's - 97.3 rating.

Vick couldn't put up numbers like that if his life depended on it.

You guys can move along now

grayman · 12-21-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cross-Over

Atlanta got the better deal. This is Brees' only good year, and the debate is between LT and Vick. LT is sick, don’t get me wrong. His numbers last year though, were on a horrible team that only had him as an option. Now that they are more balanced (yeah he has been banged up, but that’s not the only reason his numbers have declined) his numbers are more similar to other RB's. He had a hundred receptions last year and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. This year he is only averaging a mediocre 3.9 yards per carry and has a respectable, but not comparable to 100, 47 receptions.

I think the point you are missing is that the Chargers are more balanced this seasons because of the other player they also got in the Vick trade. Brees is having a career season and it allows LT to not have to win every game. They got a franchise back and a reliable QB who are both very young and could carry a less than stellar defense for years to come.
Yes, Vick is a tremendous athlete, but I would take a top-shelf RB and good to very good QB (and a decent WR who also excels at special teams) any day over an awful QB who will make plays until he gets hurt and your team is screwed because it is not designed to run a real offense.

View Poll Results: Which got the better end?
San Diego.	14	77.78%
Atlanta.	2	11.11%
About equal.	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

12-17-2004, 06:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Andrew Tilted	Question. Who got the better of the San Diego/Atlanta trade? At this point, I'd have to say San Diego. They got a number one quarterback, Drew Brees, and the finest back in the game, L.T. Atlanta got the most fascinating, but also the most inconsistant quarterback in the league.

12-18-2004, 02:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
heccubusiv #1 Irish Fan Location: The Burgh	Vick is an amazing athlete but is overrated as a qb and I have been saying that since week one and will continue to say that till he passes over 4k and gets a ring. LT is unreal and Brees and his mole are playing pretty well right now, if he can continue this through playoffs and into next year he has overcome his expectations __________________ Fuck Ohio

12-19-2004, 09:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	It is definately about equal. Atlanta got a player that makes them into the team EVERYBODY wants to watch. That equals almost as much as simple winning, even though Vick gives them that too. San Diego got the best all-around running back in the league, and a quarterback who is finally living up to his potential as a franchise QB (whether its for the San Diego franchise remains to be seen, though). __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

12-19-2004, 05:09 PM	#15 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	dj...please man, you should know better! Gannon would rip Vick a new one in EVERY aspect of the QB position except running. No comparison can be made. It was Rich who was MVP in '02, not Vick. EDIT: Oh, by the way, here is Gannons 2002 stats, the last FULL season he played. 618 of 418 - 67.6% - 4689 yards 26 TD's - 97.3 rating. Vick couldn't put up numbers like that if his life depended on it. You guys can move along now Last edited by Rdr4evr; 12-19-2004 at 05:18 PM..

12-17-2004, 08:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
radioguy Registered User Location: Texas	san diego, hands up ---- signaling many touchdowns

12-18-2004, 03:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cross-Over Psycho	Atlanta got the better deal. This is Brees' only good year, and the debate is between LT and Vick. LT is sick, don’t get me wrong. His numbers last year though, were on a horrible team that only had him as an option. Now that they are more balanced (yeah he has been banged up, but that’s not the only reason his numbers have declined) his numbers are more similar to other RB's. He had a hundred receptions last year and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. This year he is only averaging a mediocre 3.9 yards per carry and has a respectable, but not comparable to 100, 47 receptions. Here is the most important fact. LT has been in the league since 01, and his team has gone 5-11, 8-8, 4-12 since. This year they are doing superb, yet he is not playing at his elite level. Those poor results over the years don't really show how the chargers got the better end of the deal. As a starter, Vick has gone 21-10-1 (a tie to Pitt) in his career, and 1-1 in the playoffs (beating the Packers in Wisconsin). He is a winner, bottom line.

12-18-2004, 04:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	San Diego definitely. Vick is not a QB, he is a running back with butter fingers, and until he actually learns other aspects of the QB position, he is nothing but a mere athlete who can run. Brees on the other hand has all the necessary tools of a QB to be successful. Vick is an extremely over-rated player and his team will make it nowhere, don't let the record fool you.

12-18-2004, 04:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cross-Over Psycho	The record is what it is. It’s fantastic and includes two playoff berths in two full seasons. The question wasn't whether Vick is an all around Qb or if Brees was, the question was which team got the better deal out of LT and Vick. How about debating the question? Btw, Vick is 24 years old. He threw well two years ago, throwing for twice as many TD's as Int's. He is so young, and Qb's have proven to take a while to develop. He has cannon for an arm, and a willingness to learn. "don’t let the record fool you". I am not fooled, I didn't know anybody was playing tricks. That is such a blanket statement, and backed up with no real argument. "his team won't make it anywhere" They are going to the playoffs, thats somewhere that only 11 other teams are going.

12-19-2004, 12:55 PM	#12 (permalink)
Rdr4evr Banned	Cross-over, how did I know you would ignore the rest of the post and bash the Raiders.......typical. By the way, did you like Vicks passing stats last night? I believe it was 11 for 28 for a 154 yards and 2 INT's. Wow, talk about an all-star QB.

12-19-2004, 01:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
Cross-Over Psycho	Don't say its "typical" after you started the bashing first. What do you expect when I see a fan of a poor Raiders team calling an 11-3 playoff team (that beat Oak.) Sparrows? Should I say, "great post, I loved the bird reference"? If you can't take it, dont dish it out "By the way, did you like Vicks passing stats last night? I believe it was 11 for 28 for a 154 yards and 2 INT's. Wow, talk about an all-star QB" Like I left off his completion percentage and QB rating from two years ago, you left off the fact that he also threw for two TD's. I did like his clutch play though, 4th and Goal rushing TD, impressive.