Michael Vick Still Believes He Is Worth Big Time Dollars To Play in the NFL
Michael Vick has stated that he believes he is still worth a ten million dollar per year contract. Not for nothing, and believe me, I say this with as much respect as I can muster but, "what the hay are you smokin', Mr. Vick?"
Let's forget the fact that you have been in jail for the last eighteen months or so. Let's forget that you are the most polarizing figure in the NFL right now. Let's sweep aside the matter that some people despise you so much that vendors had to pull your No. 7 jersey off the racks.
Yes, let's forget all of that, and just go straight to the fact that you were never worth a big-time contract.
That's right, I said it.
I understand that you put a face to a franchise that had long since been forgotten. And, I do admit, you were the most exciting player on the field when you played the game at your position.
However, for all your excitement, here is what your resume looks like: 40-40 as a starter/games appeared, A career quarterback rating of 75.7 (which makes you a little better than average), a 71:52 TD:INT ratio, and a 53.8 percent completion rating.
Now, I understand he's got legs that makes the game hinge on a dime, but so what. That's why you have running backs.
Further, for all his running and juking, he's also got 1,153 sack yards and 55 fumbles to his credit. How does that help your team's bottom line?
That's not the kind of production you want out of your quarterback. I assure you, for all the excitement he can create on the field, it will still come down to one thing for the fan; winning games and getting in a position to play for a Super Bowl.
No way is Michael Vick worth ten million dollars a year. Why should he be?
More to the point, if you opt to pay him that kind of money, you may lose that much and then some in revenue because you will lose those fans who love dogs, hate Vick, and hate any team who thought it prudent to give him any money to play the sport on the public stage again.
I know there are those who will disagree and you have a right to, but as a once proud fan of Michael Vick and his exciting play, I say this; he was a running back with a big arm and no idea how to use it.
His legs got him out of trouble. However, they also got him in a lot of trouble.
I do not deny that Falcons' receivers had butterfingers and the offensive line was never up to par, but that excuse will only last so long when you are a quarterback.
Sacks and wide receivers who get the dropsy's at the wrong time are no excuse for a quarterback who relies more on his legs than his arms to make a play.
In his four seasons as a full-time starter, there were always quarterbacks who were sacked more, but passed better and won more games than Vick did. Vick just wasn't capable of making the right reads at the right times. If that first read wasn't there, he was running. That was how he played the game.
Sure, it frustrated the defenses for a time, made them cheat up, but what good is that if you cannot execute the passing game in an efficient manner?
That's why Vick and the Falcons only had one good season together. You have to have balance. Let the running backs do the running. Your quarterback needs to lead his team and be smart with his play.
Vick never evolved into that guy who you could be sure was your team's leader. My lasting visual of Michael Vick isn't the forty-yard scamper to the end zone against Minnesota. It's not the win at Lambeau. No, it's seeing Falcons' owner Arthur Blank wheel him onto the field after his injury. That told me all I needed to know about Vick and his legs.
Some team will give him a shot. Some owner will take the notion of "second chances" and hope that Vick can mature into that big arm. At 28-years old, there is still a chance that he might.
However, here is the ten million dollar question, should there be any team willing to take that chance?
As a former Vick apologist, I can only say this; if you do, be sure to draft a good backup.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?