Why do people try to make Vick out as such a great QB?

He is exciting and fast

Vick was an above average QB. He made it to the Pro-bowl multiple times.

"...but that's never going to lead a team to playoffs"

Vick took ATL to the NFC conference Championship and he took Va-Tech to the national championship game.

Since when is a 71/52 TD/INT ratio bad?

The following players had similar passer rating, but in all fairness the older QB's played under different rules.

63

Drew Bledsoe

1993-2006

77.06

64

Bill Kenney

1980-88

76.98

65

Jon Kitna

1997-present

76.75

66

Erik Kramer

1987-99

76.64

67

Gary Danielson

1976-88

76.58

68

Doug Flutie

1986-2005

76.34

69

Stan Humphries

1989-1997

75.83

70

Michael Vick

2001-06

75.75

71

Wade Wilson

1981-98

75.57

72

Steve Bartkowski

1975-86

75.44

73

Ken Stabler

1970-84

75.31

74

Scott Mitchell

1991-2001

75.28

Vick was not the world's best QB, but don't make him out to be a bad player. Also ATL did not have a good team as witnessed by the season before he arrived and after he left. Nobody is comparing Vick to Brady. Brady is one of the best QB's ever and the Pats are a much better team than ATL.

Guy, The QB ratings I posted were for reference. You claimed that Vick's passer rating was bad. I say based on QB's with similar ratings (but without Vick's rushing yards) that it is OK. You said that Vick was not a Playoff QB, which is incorrect, and actually Vince Young has a pretty gaudy winning percentage in the NFL. You may need to brush up on your football stats evaluation.

*Joe Horn never played with Vick he was signed the off season before Vick left.

Here are some random QB TD/INT ratios

Troy Aikman 165/141 85% INT to TD

Mike Vick 71/52 73 %

Terry Bradshaw 212/210 99%

Joe Namath 173/220 127%

Jim Kelly 237/175 74%

Completion percentage

Troy Aikman 61.5%

Terry Bradshaw 51.9%

Joe Namath 50.1%

Michael Vick 53.8%

Eli Manning 55.9%

People think Vick is such a great QB because he was unique. He might not have good stats, but he could run the best among QB's and throw better than about 1/3 of the quarterbacks in the NFL. Also fans like a QB like Vick a lot more than somebody like, ummm... say Kurt Warner. Vick would have a bigger fan base even though Warner is by far the better QB.

Brady had Deion Branch before Moss and Welker. I believe he was pretty good if the Seahawks would give up a first round pick for him. Branch isn't as good as Moss, but he's better than Welker.

Vick did have somebody to throw to. Ever heard of Alge Crumpler? He was considered a top Tight End for a long time and Vick had him.

Just so you know every single quarterback in the NFL has a go-to guy, some better than others, but there is always at least one good receiver/tight end on every team. So don't say that a quarterback has nobody to throw to. They always have somebody to throw to, just some chose not to throw to them.

I think what people like about Michael Vick is his ability to scramble and make running plays. He is basically a RB and a QB all in one. I won't lie, he is amazing when he scrambles in the backfield. However, he always seems to only trust himself and thinks about running and making the play first before thinking about throwing it and trusting his WRs. It may have been his reason why he could not develop as a passer. I think he was scanning the field for defenders to see where he can run. I could be wrong, but it is what I observed.

What people like about him is his unique ability to dazzle as a QB. He was different and not a traditional player. One can only think what could have happened if he developed into a passer, but he did not before his legal troubles. Matt Ryan only proved how it is more important to have a QB that can throw the ball better than running it. Let the RBs do their job. The primary duty of the QB is to pass the ball.

Thumbs up to those who agree.

B_Wells - You cant use a team's winning percentage during a QBs playing span because it is a team sport and a team effort. A QB does not win games, but he helps the team get there. If that is the case, then Rex Grossman for the 2006 season should make him one of the best ever. Same can be said of Trent Dilfer.

Micheal Vick was one of the best QBs in the NFL, thats why his off the fields problem made such a splash...because he was so good. Not only was he an amazing rusher but he had a cannon. Who knows what his stats might have been if he had some real recievers. His best reciever was his TE Alge Crumpler and he got the dropsies a lot too. I he was not one of the best already, how did he make the Pro Bowl in 2002, 2004, and 2006 (he entered the league in 2001). He won the 2003 Espy for NFL's best player.

And in his first year as a full time starter he too had the Falcons in the playoffs (2002) and in 2004.

I think he was a great RUNNING BACK who could throw the ball better than most running backs. He's exciting to watch and he can change the game with his legs. The reason people call him a great QB is because he IS a great football player and he happens to be the starting QB. If you break it down and actually examine him as a QB, you see that while he truly is a great football player, he's a mediocre QB at best.

He wasn't really a successful QB in the league to begin with. I think people fell in love with his playmaking ability in the running game, and therefore believe that he is better than he actually is. He did have a good winning percentage however, but I think that he was just as responsible for them losing games, as he was for winning them.

After leading them to the 2002-03 NFC Championship, he started to become injury prone and was turning the ball over at an average of at least once per game. His highest completion % was only 56.4 (2004), and during his last season it fell to 52.6%, so he wasn't improving. People will say that his accuracy has to do with poor receivers, but no Falcons receiver was anywhere near a league leader in dropped passes. He was just simply under & over throwing them.

Ultimately he was an average QB with injury, accuracy, and turnover issues, who could make plays with his legs.

I'm with you.

Everyone that watched him in college think since he can take off and run makes him some kind of great quarterback.

Not the case.

It makes him a good running back, or maybe a wide receiver, but not even close as a quarterback.

He tries to compensate for his lack of ability to read the defense and find the open receiver with his running skills.

Kind of like Forrest Gump.

"Run Forrest, Run!!!"

In the long run, he would have hurt Atlanta much more than help them.

Now, with all this "Wildcat offense" crap, some idiots will pick him up and try it.

you are completely correct. however i like challenges so i will try to argue. One reason people say Michael Vick is good is because he is a play maker. he can simply make plays. also he has very good armstrength. other than that there are no good reasons why. sure hes fast and can throw the ball 60+ yards in the air. but he cant hit the bronze side of a barn!!!!!

He's exciting to watch because of his speed and scrambling abilities. He's different from almost every other QB in the league. The guy had a 1,000+ yard rushing and passing season. He's fun to watch.

Doesn't mean he is a good QB though. That guys accuracy is terrible. I'm scared to see how it is after a few years locked up in a cell.

Michael Vick single handedly changed the game of football in his short career with the Falcons. In his final two seasons with the team he was improving his skills as a passer and he was still the biggest threat on the ground. The team around him was pretty good but they needed to improve the offensive threats around vick to better the team. He's no Manning or Brady but for a long time he was the most electrifying player in the game and with the right surroundings he might have gotten a lot better. Im no Vick fan but he did take the falcons to the superbowl twice in his 5 complete seasons there and the team just wasn't good enough both times.