Vince Young overrated?

[RobH4413]

I pointed this out earlier. One QB will put the "wins are most important" to rest. Trent Dilfer.

The year he won the Super bowl, the biggest trophy for any QB to get, he was mediocre at best. He won the big game, and yet... here are his stats...


134 for 226 which is a 59.3% completion percentage.
12TD and 11 INT. Not spectacular. To top it off, his super bowl season he managed to compile an unimpressive 76.6 QB rating. Seriously. Let's be rational here.

For a QB. It's not about wins. It's honestly about how you win. VY has shown promise, and has succeeded in clutch situations. I think he'll develop into a very good QB, but statistically so far, he's much less than average. I love the debate, but let's not lose our heads here.

For the record. Mr. Dilfer's QB rating over his career is 70.8

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I looked a little deeper on Grossman (since Big D thinks the best stat is wins).
In 03, he played in 2 games, 2-0.
In 04, he played in 3 games, 1-2.
In 05, he played in 2 games, 2-0.
In 06, he played in 16 games, 13-3.
In 07, he played in 3 games, 1-2.

That's a total of 19-7 AND a Super Bowl appearance.

You said: most important stas of all, in my opinion at leas, which is WINS?
Hmmm, Grossman, 19-7, VY 11-9.

Still think we should ignore all the other stats?

Oh come on, we all know that the Bears D and Hester were the reson. Be honest here, do you think Young is as bad as Grossman?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

Oh come on, we all know that the Bears D and Hester were the reson. Be honest here, do you think Young is as bad as Grossman?

Hester didnt get there until 2006. But the Defense was alot of it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

Oh come on, we all know that the Bears D and Hester were the reson. Be honest here, do you think Young is as bad as Grossman?

I think that's the point he was trying to get across to you.

It's the same deal in Tennessee, except the defense and special teams weren't nearly as dominant as the Bears last year, so they won 8 games instead of 13.

Tennessee has an outstanding defensive unit this year. Vince is playing better, but still not good. They are a top 12 NFL team right now and that's a good place to be.

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think that's the point he was trying to get across to you.

It's the same deal in Tennessee, except the defense and special teams weren't nearly as dominant as the Bears last year, so they won 8 games instead of 13.

Tennessee has an outstanding defensive unit this year. Vince is playing better, but still not good. They are a top 12 NFL team right now and that's a good place to be.

OK, tell me this, why wasn't Grossman benched last year? His stats were horrendous last year (one game he had a QB rating of less than 1) and still played in the SB. If the team wins, the QB the coach, the whole organization looks good, and not many care about stats. Stats matter a lot more when the team is losing.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

OK, tell me this, why wasn't Grossman benched last year? His stats were horrendous last year (one game he had a QB rating of less than 1) and still played in the SB. If the team wins, the QB the coach, the whole organization looks good, and not many care about stats. Stats matter a lot more when the team is losing.

You're seeing the reason Grossman wasn't benched last year. Their names are "Griese" and "Orton" respectively.

If a team needs to win with a weak QB, you might as well do it with the one who has the future ahead of him, not the veteran who has sucked up the joint since his career began.

Grossman was the best option for the time, and probably still is all things considered. Now that the Bears don't have a top defense anymore, they aren't winning anymore.

I'm not even sure what you are saying anymore. Are you saying Grossman shouldn't have been benched simply because he was winning? Are you saying that he should of because he was sucking, but not because of his stats...somehow? Or is this about how everything is subjective and we don't know anymore about Grossman now than we ever did, and he only got benched because he wasn't winning?

Your argument is very confusing.

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not even sure what you are saying anymore. Are you saying Grossman shouldn't have been benched simply because he was winning? Are you saying that he should of because he was sucking, but not because of his stats...somehow? Or is this about how everything is subjective and we don't know anymore about Grossman now than we ever did, and he only got benched because he wasn't winning?

Your argument is very confusing.

LOL, I did confuse myself a bit too.

Yes, what I was trying to say is that Grossman should have been benched if stats are that important. The media, the fans, and the Bears organization could care less about Grossman's individual stats. When they were winning, you heard it many times, "Rex is our starter." Once the Bears started losing, and it could be more because of their D, he HAD TO be benched. What does that tell you? Isn't everyone crazy about WINs and not stats?

BTW, I thought they should have stuck with Orton, I liked watching him play when he played for Purdue and thought he had a better chance of developing than Rex.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

LOL, I did confuse myself a bit too.

Yes, what I was trying to say is that Grossman should have been benched if stats are that important. The media, the fans, and the Bears organization could care less about Grossman's individual stats. When they were winning, you heard it many times, "Rex is our starter." Once the Bears started losing, and it could be more because of their D, he HAD TO be benched. What does that tell you? Isn't everyone crazy about WINs and not stats?

BTW, I thought they should have stuck with Orton, I liked watching him play when he played for Purdue and thought he had a better chance of developing than Rex.

Yeah, winning is pretty important from an emotional standpoint. Ideally, it should not be, but in reality it certainly is.

Still, if there was a better option, Rex would have been benched last year. Orton was horrible as a rookie, and Griese, save 2004, has been pretty horrific for many seasons.

I don't really look at it as if the Bears waited to start losing to pull Grossman. I see it more as that they were hoping he would progress and become a franchise quarterback. Once they had benched him, it was pretty clear they no longer would value him as their QB of the future. Thing is, you don't want to bench him only to cut him, and have him be successful elsewhere.

So they waited a bit into this season to see what kind of progress he had made in the offseason. When your guys made him look as bad as he did, it became apparent that he was now in his 5th year in the NFL, and still wasn't very good. Now with any reasonable hope of having a decent player out the window, the Bears felt justified in making a change.

At this point, I'd like to see Orton also. He's going to have progressed from his 2005 disaster, and if you have a player in him, now would be the time to find out. Griese isn't taking them anywhere with a mediocre defense.

The Bears could be back and dominant as soon as next season, but they have to get the OL shored up and get a QB in there who they trust, and chances are neither is on the roster right now.

I don't think it was a deal of not caring about his performance. You don't bench a guy with a career winning percentage around .700 for starting 1-2 unless he was hurting his team with his play. Grossman never really proved good value for a first round pick at any point in his career, and that's why he got the quick hook this season. Not because he began 1-2.

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't really look at it as if the Bears waited to start losing to pull Grossman. I see it more as that they were hoping he would progress and become a franchise quarterback. Once they had benched him, it was pretty clear they no longer would value him as their QB of the future. Thing is, you don't want to bench him only to cut him, and have him be successful elsewhere.

Exactly, that is how YOU look at it.

Let's assume Grossman had won 3 games, even with his horrible stats, do you think Greise would have taken a snap in a real game? No chance!

Put it this way, if I told you that if JC had 3 more INT and two more fumbles, the Skins would have won the game in GB, whould you have have taken that over a loss?

[The Zimmermans]

JOHN ELWAY has a career passer rating of 79. And 47 of his 148 wins were 4th quarter comeback drives.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by TheBigD

Oh come on, we all know that the Bears D and Hester were the reson. Be honest here, do you think Young is as bad as Grossman?

Just wanted to point out GTripp did a pretty good job of mirroring my sentiments, so to not duplicate ideas or opinions, I will go down a different road here.

This is the EXACT reason VY is overrated. Grossman put up better numbers accross the board for his career, yet he never got any respect even when he took his team to the super bowl. Vince Young on the other hand is considered to be the future and has been exhaulted by the media. So you need to ask yourself...why? Why is Grossman hated while Young is exhaulted? What is the differences in their games? There is only one glaring reason, and that's one QB can run and the other can't. If Young couldn't run, where do you think he'd be right now? The fact that Young can run (and run well) is the reason why people are blinded into thinking he's a good QB.
There have been many "scrambling" QB's that have come into this league, not a single one was successful until they learned that pocket passing was a priority. McNabb, Culpepper, Steve Young and even Campbell to name a few are those that figured it out. Kordell Stewart, Mike Vick, and right now Vince Young, haven't. You don't need an all around athlete to succeed at QB (see Manning, Brady, Montana, Marino etc) you need someone that trusts his pocket and works on his throwing ability.
I said it before, and I'll say it again, VY will never win anything significant until he learns to run as a LAST RESORT, not option 1, 2, 3, or 4.
AGain, I think he's a good kid, I wish him success, and I hope he developes into a good overall QB, but right now, he's not going down the right road.

[jsarno]

For the record, Griese is better than Grossman.

[The Zimmermans]

for the record.........McNabb is a scrambling QB that made it to the Superbowl, he leaves the pocket A LOT, plus Kordel took the steelers far that one year. And what about flutie magic????????????JK

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

for the record.........McNabb is a scrambling QB that made it to the Superbowl, he leaves the pocket A LOT, plus Kordel took the steelers far that one year. And what about flutie magic????????????JK

If you look at his stats, he didn't make it to the super bowl until he stopped running first. In 04, 41 rushes for 220 yards, which were the lowest of his career at that point. That's not a scrambling qb AT ALL. He did have 469 passing attempts, 3875 yards, 31tds, and only 8 ints, with an 8.3 Y/A though.

Kordel NEVER led any team. He rode others coat tails.

[The Zimmermans]

McNabb was better when he scrambled....he was so difficult to stop... the only reason he didnt make the superbowl the first two years in the NFC championship was good oponents in Carolina and Tampa, Atlanta was horrible.....so eagles made it by default....I blame the receivers in regards to McNabb never winning a superbowl, not his scrambling habits, we beat mcnabb this year cause he couldnt move