Someone with a better memory of the early 2000’s help me with this. Through Michael Vick’s first 36 starts his numbers were freakishly similar to Fields. Similar passing yards, TDs and INTs, rushing yards and TD’s, similar fumbling problems. Fields has better completion percentage. Yet I remember Vick being viewed differently. He was so exciting and it feels like everyone considered him a super star in the making if he could just correct some flaws.
Am I just remembering this wrong? Is the reason he was viewed as a star because his team was playing well and winning? In 2004 he had pretty awful passing numbers but he rushed for 900 yards and the Falcons were 11-4 in his starts. What was the difference between wary Vick and current Fields?
It’s because QB’s like Vick were a rarity AND he was viewed as a QB with athleticism the NFL had never seen. The greatest “running QB” the NFL had seen before Vick was Steve Young, and then behind him were guys like Randall Cunningham, John Elway, Fran Tarkenton. But all of them were guys who could hurt you with their legs if there was no one to throw to. Passing was still expected to be option #1 for those guys…but if you let them escape the pocket, look out.
With Vick, he looked like a QB that could combine the rocket arm needed to be a great passer in the NFL, along with enough speed and toughness to make the option runs or designed runs that the most dangerous college offenses used into a viable threat in the League. Suddenly defenses had to be ready for a whole new dimension.
Michael Vick’s rookie year was 2001. NFL defenses have now seen two new generations of running QBs since then. And for all the offensive “innovations” (really just stolen from college and HS) in the running game, RPOs, the Wildcat, whatever Atlanta is trying under Arthur Smith, throwing the ball down the field has proven to be by far the most effective and efficient way to light up the scoreboard.
But back in 2001, no one realized that. A QB like Vick who could hurt you with his arm or his legs was terrifying. There were still coaches who believed the adage “when you throw the ball, three things can happen, and two of them are bad”, so facing a QB who could torch them on the ground for 100 yards a game in addition to whatever gained through the air passing was a nightmare.
Nowadays, NFL teams are perfectly happy to let Fields run for over 100 yards per game. It means he’s not throwing the ball, and thus the Bears are running a suboptimal offense and using their QB in a suboptimal way.
100 yards is 100 yards. The field is a finite, if he’s getting yards he’s moving the ball , he’s keeping TOS and moving the ball. All yards count, this neg that running yards don’t help is asinine.
Someone with a better memory of the early 2000’s help me with this. Through Michael Vick’s first 36 starts his numbers were freakishly similar to Fields. Similar passing yards, TDs and INTs, rushing yards and TD’s, similar fumbling problems. Fields has better completion percentage. Yet I remember Vick being viewed differently. He was so exciting and it feels like everyone considered him a super star in the making if he could just correct some flaws.
Am I just remembering this wrong? Is the reason he was viewed as a star because his team was playing well and winning? In 2004 he had pretty awful passing numbers but he rushed for 900 yards and the Falcons were 11-4 in his starts. What was the difference between wary Vick and current Fields?
It’s because QB’s like Vick were a rarity AND he was viewed as a QB with athleticism the NFL had never seen. The greatest “running QB” the NFL had seen before Vick was Steve Young, and then behind him were guys like Randall Cunningham, John Elway, Fran Tarkenton. But all of them were guys who could hurt you with their legs if there was no one to throw to. Passing was still expected to be option #1 for those guys…but if you let them escape the pocket, look out.
With Vick, he looked like a QB that could combine the rocket arm needed to be a great passer in the NFL, along with enough speed and toughness to make the option runs or designed runs that the most dangerous college offenses used into a viable threat in the League. Suddenly defenses had to be ready for a whole new dimension.
Michael Vick’s rookie year was 2001. NFL defenses have now seen two new generations of running QBs since then. And for all the offensive “innovations” (really just stolen from college and HS) in the running game, RPOs, the Wildcat, whatever Atlanta is trying under Arthur Smith, throwing the ball down the field has proven to be by far the most effective and efficient way to light up the scoreboard.
But back in 2001, no one realized that. A QB like Vick who could hurt you with his arm or his legs was terrifying. There were still coaches who believed the adage “when you throw the ball, three things can happen, and two of them are bad”, so facing a QB who could torch them on the ground for 100 yards a game in addition to whatever gained through the air passing was a nightmare.
Nowadays, NFL teams are perfectly happy to let Fields run for over 100 yards per game. It means he’s not throwing the ball, and thus the Bears are running a suboptimal offense and using their QB in a suboptimal way.
100 yards is 100 yards. The field is a finite, if he’s getting yards he’s moving the ball , he’s keeping TOS and moving the ball. All yards count, this neg that running yards don’t help is asinine.