Why Vick Could Become a Top 10 Quarterback AGAIN In 2010

When Vick went on the Dan Patrick Show and stated that he felt that he could still be a top 10 QB in the NFL, many scoffed at the notion. That's because many people are under the impression that Vick was NEVER a top 10 QB.

When measured by traditional statistics, such as passer rating and completion percentage, this was indeed the case. However, those stats never told the full story.

Vick’s career highs in terms of overall ranking in those two categories were best in his first year as a starter in 2002, when he ranked 18th in passer rating (81.6) and 25th in completion percentage. 

Here are his statistics in those two categories in his four years as a starter

2002
18th in passer rating (81.6)
25th in completion percentage (54.9%)

2004
21st in passer rating (78.1)
27th in completion percentage (56.4%)

2005
25th in passer rating (73.1)
29th in completion percentage (55.3%)

2006
20th in passer rating (75.7)
31st in completion percentage (52.6%)

An average ranking of 21st in league passer rating with an average of 77.1
An average ranking of 28th in league completion percentage with an average of 54.8%. A rank no higher than 18th in either category in any year as a starter.

How can someone with below average numbers like that EVER have been considered a top 10 QB in their own conference let alone the entire NFL?

Well, if you allow me to have a little bit more of your time, I will submit to you not only are those two statistics—completion percentage and passer rating—highly tied together in terms of formula, but they also happen to be the most overrated stats in football. This is even for a pocket passer.

For someone who had the tools of Michael Vick, these are even more overrated in evaluating overall effectiveness and abilities of the player.

First of all, let’s look at the definition of the word quarterback.

Quarterback

Noun:

The backfield player whose position is behind the line of scrimmage and who usually calls the signals for the plays.

Transitive Verb:

To direct the offense of.

To lead or direct the operations of

Nowhere in the definition of the word quarterback does it say one whose objective is to get the highest passer rating or completion percentage. The word pass is not even associated with the word. There’s a reason the position is not called passing back. The objective of the QB is to lead/direct their team.

The best way a quarterback can lead and direct their team is by putting points on the board and, at the end of the day. by leading them to victory. Those are goals that passer rating nor completion percentage measure.  

If those two stats are so important, then when we look at the all-time list in those two categories we should find some pretty highly-regarded quarterbacks, shouldn’t we?

Well, turns out only seven out of the top 25 quarterbacks in completion percentage are current/future HOFers (eight if you want to be really generous and include Big Ben or Drew Brees). That’s 28% (32% if you’re generous).

Only 10 out of the top 25 quarterbacks in passer rating are current/future HOFers. And that 10 is assuming both Donovan McNabb and Kurt Warner get in the HOF. If you want to be even more extra generous and include Drew Brees/Big Ben and make it 11, it's still not the greatest of percentage. So, basically 40-44% being extra generous.

So what all encompassing stat do I think there is with better numbers than that?

Well, how about touchdowns?

You know, the stat that actually measures how often you get points, which is kind of important in a sport where they keep score to decide the winner. Well, when you take a look at the all-time passing touchdowns leaders the results are telling.

There are 17 HOF/Future HOF QBs on the top 25 list of touchdowns.

And guess what? That’s not even including McNabb, which we included on the completion percentage/passer rating list to try to help out the low number. And it’s not even including Kurt Warner, who actually missed the cut by a mere one touchdown. Then it REALLY would have been even more lopsided, with 19 out of 25.

When you look at the top 10 alone in touchdowns, it’s about as many HOFers as there are in the entire top 25 for passer rating, and well past the number of HOFers in completion percentage.

So what does this all mean?   

It means that passer rating/completion percentage are vastly overrated. I could (and probably will) make an entire article devoted to how many ways those stats are deceptive and not credible in terms of being used to rank QBs overall. It's even more ridiculous for a QB with the talents of Michael Vick.

Again, I submit to you a quarterback should be judged by how often he gets the ball in the end zone, and how often he leads his teams to victories.

By that criteria, you will see that Vick was clearly in the top 10 as an NFL QB.

In three of his four years as a starter, he ranked in the top 10 in total touchdowns. 

In his four years as a starter, he led his team to two playoff victories, including a NFC Championship berth.

That production and success is why he was selected to three Pro Bowls. (Which, unlike the NBA All-Star Game, is not just voted by the fans. Two-thirds of the votes come from the coaches and players)

Now, those aren't HOF worthy accomplishments, or even elite, but the statement was TOP 10. When you judge a QB by that criteria, there isn't an argument to take Vick out of the top 10.

In fact, look at the list of win percentage of QBs the last decade who started at least 40 games.

QBs with at least 40 starts in the 2000s

Tom Brady, NWE            .763 (97-30)  (5-time Pro Bowler) (1-time All-Pro)
Peyton Manning, IND      .719  (115-45) (9-time Pro Bowler (5-time All-Pro)
Philip Rivers, SDG           .718 (46-18)  (2-time Pro Bowler)
Ben Roethlisberger, PIT   .698 (60-26) (1-time Pro Bowler)
Tony Romo, DAL            .691 (38-17) (2-time Pro Bowler/ 1-time Alternate)
Donovan McNabb,  PHI    .667 (90-45) (5-time Pro Bowler/1-time Alternate)
Brett Favre, GNB            .619 (99-61) (6-time Pro Bowler) 
Jay Fiedler, MIA             .610 (36-23) (no Pro Bowl appearances)
Kyle Orton, CHI             .591 (29-20)  (no Pro Bowl appearances)
Jake Delhomme, CAR       .589 (53-37) (1-time Pro Bowler)
Eli Manning, NYG            .575  (50-37) (1-time Pro Bowler)    
Michael Vick, PHI           .575 (38-28-1) (3-time Pro Bowler)
Drew Brees,  NO            .562 (68-53) (4-time Pro Bowler) (1-time All-pro)
Chad Pennington, NYJ     .558 (43-34) (no Pro Bowl appearances)
Kurt Warner, ARI           .540 (54-46)  (3-time Pro Bowler) (1-time All-pro)
Matt Hasselbeck, SEA     .538 (63-54)  (3-time Pro Bowler)
Jeff Garcia, TAM            .528 (56-50) (4-time Pro Bowler)

Now clearly we can't use win percentage as the only criteria when there are QBs who were on teams that won in spite of them. That is why there should also be a factor of individual accomplishments. Hence, the quotations noted next to the player.

Jay Fiedler, Kyle Orton, and Chad Pennington don't belong on that list. If you're not a fan of using Pro Bowls as a way of evaluating, again let's look at the production. The seasons with top 10 in passing/total touchdowns from those guys is just not there either.

And we also want to factor in playoffs, don't we?

Before we include playoffs, how about a criteria for regular season? Since this is based around where Vick ranked among his peers as a top 10 QB, let's use the factor of how many seasons the QB ranked in the top 10 in total touchdowns. Let's set three as the minimum.

QBs with at least 40 starts in the 2000s AND Three+ Seasons in the Top 10 in Total TDs

Tom Brady,    NWE        .763 (97-30)  (6 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Peyton Manning, IND      .719  (115-45) (10 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Philip Rivers, SDG           .718 (46-18)  (3 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Tony Romo, DAL            .691 (38-17) (3 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Donovan McNabb,  Phi    .667 (90-45) (5 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Brett Favre, GNB            .619 (99-61) (7 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Eli Manning, NYG            .575  (50-37) (3 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Michael Vick, Phi            .575 (38-28-1) (3 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Drew Brees,  NO            .562 (68-53) (6 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Kurt Warner, ARI            .540 (54-46)  (5 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Matt Hasselbeck, SEA     .538 (63-54)  (4 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)
Jeff Garcia, TAM            .528 (56-50)   ( 4 seasons in the top 10 in Total TDs)

Sorted by seasons in the top 10 you come up with Manning (10), Brady (6), Brees (6), Favre (7), Warner (5), and McNabb (5) at the top. Sounds like the best QBs of the last decade to me. A lot more credible than if I sorted quarterbacks of the last decade by passer rating or especially completion percentage.

Now, let's factor in playoffs. We established that Vick won two playoff games and took the Falcons to the NFC Championship Game.

So let's sort the list factoring that into account.

QBs with at least 40 starts in the 2000s AND three+ Seasons in the Top 10 in Total TDs with two+ playoff wins and Conference Championship berth

Tom Brady, NWE           .763  (97-30)   (3 Super Bowls, 4 Super Bowl Trips)
Peyton Manning, IND      .719  (115-45) (1 Super Bowl, 2 Super Bowl trips)
Philip Rivers, SDG           .718 (46-18)  ( 1 Conference Championship game trip)
Donovan McNabb,  Phi    .667 (90-45) (1 Super Bowl appearance, 4 CCG trips)
Brett Favre, GNB            .619 (99-61) (2 Conference Championship game trips)
Eli Manning, NYG           .575  (50-37) (1 Super Bowl)
Michael Vick, Phi           .575 (38-28-1) (1 Conference Championship game Trip)
Drew Brees,  NO            .562 (68-53) (1 Super Bowl, 2 CCG Trips)
Kurt Warner, ARI           .540 (54-46)  (2 Super Bowl appearances)
Matt Hasselbeck, SEA     .538 (63-54)  (1 Super Bowl appearance)

The numbers show that Vick was an above-average quarterback.

So who's ahead of Vick in terms of this criteria when sorted by win percentage factoring in post-season success? Four of the five active Super Bowl-winning QBs, a legend in Brett Favre, an elite QB in Philip Rivers, and a fringe HOFer in Donovan McNabb. Hence, in terms of wins and production, Vick was indeed an above-average quarterback.  

Now people may scoff at these findings and say that I contorted stats to make Vick look good, but it's not like I used some convoluted formula like passer rating.

You want to talk about abstract stats, it doesn't get more abstract than passer rating. 

I sorted these stats by stats of tangible production: wins and touchdowns. And the all-time list in those categories further validates the credibility of those statistics and invalidates the true arbitrary statistics of completion percentage and passer rating.

So how can Vick, even if he once was a top 10 QB, become one again?   

What is not factored into this is the fact that Vick accomplished aal this with an arguably below-average supporting cast. What's more impressive is this was accomplished with an admitted well below-average work ethic.

In every sense of the word, Vick has changed his work ethic. He finally seems to "get it" as a football player. Learning behind the tutelage of Andy Reid and a professional like Donovan McNabb, Vick—despite the two-year layoff—is arguably more mentally prepared than he ever was at any point in his career.

But we all know it's the physical gifts that made Vick special. So how can Vick be effective with diminished physical tools?

Well you have to understand that because his physical tools were so elite, even if they have slightly diminished, they would still be elite.

For instance, take a WR like Randy Moss. He comes into the league running a 4.25. Even with a lost step or two, Moss is still as fast if not faster than most rookie WRs, especially of the same size. There are other guys who are blazers late in their careers as well, like a Joey Galloway, who may be an even better example.

Vick, even if he doesn't run a 4.3 anymore, could more than likely run a 4.5 flat, which would still make his speed unprecedented for a starting QB and cause havoc for defenders in pursuit when plays break down. Perhaps it's a 10-15 yard gain instead of a 20-30 yard scamper, but effective nonetheless.

Also, take in mind a more mentally prepared Vick—one who actually takes the time to study film instead of worrying about troublesome outside interests.

That's a player with 4.5 speed who could be an even more effective player than he ever was with 4.3 speed. 

Now, I'm sure that as of right now, there are those who think all these statistics and the entire rationale behind what Vick was and still could be is completely absurd.

But as they say, the proof will be in the pudding. This is all contingent on the idea of a team being forgiving and bold enough to take a chance on Vick as a starting QB. 

Until then, the argument is only on what Vick was in terms of ranking. But I submit to you that if anyone is surprised two to three years down from the road of what he still is, they should not pretend that there wasn't anyone who could have seen it coming.