Vince Young overrated?

[jsarno]

Of course most of you know I am one of the few people in the world that thinks that Vince Young is just a glorified Mike Vick or Kordell Stewart, but he proved yet again that he is overrated. They needed Kerry freakin Collins to come in to tie that game up after Young went down with an injury. (although they still lost)

Yes, they are 3-2, but as I have pointed out before, they would have lost had Scobee not got hurt in week 1 vs the Jags because the Jags were in the redzone twice and couldn't kick field goals that would have won them the game. The other two wins were vs doormats in Atlanta and New Orleans.

Young in 5 games has thrown for a meezly 703 yards, 3 td's and 6 ints. He does have 129 yards and 1 td rushing. As many analysts have pointed out, it's Tennessee's D that is winning them games. Vince Young is not doing anything to help.

Looking at the stats:
He is dead last in passing yards in regards to ANY player with 5 or more starts.
He's dead last in TD passes for any player with 5 or more starts.
He's 8th worst in the entire league in int's.
He is dead last in passing yards per game for any starter playing 5 or more games.
He has the 2nd worst passer rating for starters with 5 or more starts at 68.0. (Brees is only one worse but he will pass Young soon) Young ranks 39th overall in passer rating, and there are only 32 teams. WOW.
He is on pace to throw for a pitiful 2,249 yards for the season.
He is on pace to throw for a pitiful 9 tds for the season.
He is on pace to throw for a pitiful 19 int's for the season.
2249 yards, 9 tds and 19 ints makes him the worst QB this league has seen in a while.

So how many people still think he's a great player?

[Duffman003]

I'm not a big Vince Young fan, but it's only his second year in the NFL and he still has a lot of room to improve and probably will become a very good quarterback in the future

[12thMan]

I don't know how you could conclude he's overated in just his second season. He's still as green as grass.

Now if what you're getting at is that Campbell is a better quarterback, I think the jury's still out on that one. But there are pluses and minuses to be argued to be honest.

You're certainly not going to convince anyone in the state of Tennessee that Jason Campbell is better than Vince Young, that's for sure. However, I would take Campbell over Young any day of the week.

[Skins fan 44]

Vince was my starting QB and I benched him yesterday and started JC. I would say that I made a good choice. Vince showed some good signs last year and I think he has alot of potiential.

[jbcjr14]

And the most important stat of all??????? What is their record? 3-2 without near the weapons most teams have on the offensive side of the ball. I believe he will be fine and he has that special something about him that drives him and wins football games whether he plays poorly or not.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

And the most important stat of all??????? What is their record? 3-2 without near the weapons most teams have on the offensive side of the ball. I believe he will be fine and he has that special something about him that drives him and wins football games whether he plays poorly or not.

Isn't having the No. 2 defense in football a weapon? Is it not the biggest weapon a team can have (exception of course to the No. 1 defense) with regards to winning games?

News flash: Vince Young has that.

You can't play poorly and be the reason your team wins. You just can't make that argument and be taken seriously.

[Defensewins]

Jsarno
Why do you hate?
You must be one of those bitter Matt Leinart fans that all but guaranteed Leinart would be a better pro thatn Young. That turned out to be wrong.
Young is still the best young QB regardless of how you spin the stats. You can't get around the fact the he just wins. Stats are for losers.
I would rather win the Superbowl and have JC, CP and SM be the worst rated players in the league. Just win baby.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Jsarno
Why do you hate?
You must be one of those bitter Matt Leinart fans that all but guaranteed Leinart would be a better pro thatn Young. That turned out to be wrong.
Young is still the best young QB regardless of how you spin the stats. You can't get around the fact the he just wins. Stats are for losers.
I would rather win the Superbowl and have JC, CP and SM be the worst rated players in the league. Just win baby.

So he's a Vince Young hater, and your a VY fanboy? How can you attack him for having a position equally as radical as yours?

For the record, Leinart had a better rookie year than Young, and neither played well in the first quarter of this season. So if you consult the facts, you can't say that Young is a better pro thus far than Leinart.

I understand that facts are for losers and emotions are wayyyy cooler and allow one to be blissfully ignorant about football, but I tend to get edgy when people ignore facts and try to make "holier than thou" arguments. Those pretty much suck.

Nothing personal, but if you are going to defend your boy, I think there should be an argument there that isn't a personal attack.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

So he's a Vince Young hater, and your a VY fanboy? How can you attack him for having a position equally as radical as yours?

For the record, Leinart had a better rookie year than Young, and neither played well in the first quarter of this season. So if you consult the facts, you can't say that Young is a better pro thus far than Leinart.

I understand that facts are for losers and emotions are wayyyy cooler and allow one to be blissfully ignorant about football, but I tend to get edgy when people ignore facts and try to make "holier than thou" arguments. Those pretty much suck.

Nothing personal, but if you are going to defend your boy, I think there should be an argument there that isn't a personal attack.

Let me spell this out for you since you are obviously a little hyper sensitive and emotional about this. You mistakenly took my post as an attack. The expression 'Stats are for losers' comes from the situation of a player that plays on LOSING TEAM and has nothing to point to but his own individual stats, despite his teams being a big failure. So I was not attacking or calling your friend Jsarno a loser, I was calling the Cardinal TEAM losers. FACT #1.

FACT #2 is we are different when it comes to sports. I played a ton of sports during my life time. I played this game to win, not to be #1 in the stats department. By the way you cling to stats as the end all of fact, you might be more of a sports fan than an actual player. Stats are very misleading. Look at the Pats game this weekend. Randy Moss was doubled and received most of the attention of the Cowboys Defense. So his teammates benefited from it and a guy like Wes Welker had a career day. Well according to your non-bending "Stats Never Lie" theory Wes Welker is a better receiver than Randy Moss. We all know that is not the case. All of the Pats WR's benefited from playing opposite R. Moss and that does not show up on a stat sheet. Moss was statistically was 4th in receiveing that day, stats by themselves are not fact. You also have to consider who you are playing against when looking at stats.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. You asked me to back up my points with fact and I have. I am just stating a different opinion on the whole stats issue. However your comments on your highly emotional post challenging my football knowledge and calling me "blissfully ignorant" is a personal attack. Someone starting a thread every two weeks calling a QB on a winning team and singling him out is also an attack.
Football players are paid to win, not be #1 in stats.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Let me spell this out for you since you are obviously a little hyper sensitive and emotional about this. You mistakenly took my post as an attack. The expression 'Stats are for losers' comes from the situation of a player that plays on LOSING TEAM and has nothing to point to but his own individual stats, despite his teams being a big failure. So I was not attacking or calling your friend Jsarno a loser, I was calling the Cardinal TEAM losers. FACT #1.

FACT #2 is we are different when it comes to sports. I played a ton of sports during my life time. I played this game to win, not to be #1 in the stats department. By the way you cling to stats as the end all of fact, you might be more of a sports fan than an actual player. Stats are very misleading. Look at the Pats game this weekend. Randy Moss was doubled and received most of the attention of the Cowboys Defense. So his teammates benefited from it and a guy like Wes Welker had a career day. Well according to your non-bending "Stats Never Lie" theory Wes Welker is a better receiver than Randy Moss. Well e all know that is not the case. All of the Pats WR's benefited from playing opposite R. Moss and that does not show up on a stat sheet. Moss was statistically was 4th in receiveing that day, stats by themselves are not fact. You also have to consider who you are playing against when looking at stas.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. You asked me to back up my points with fact and I have. I am just stating a different opinion on the whole stats issue. However your comments on your highly emotional post challenging my football knowledge and calling me "blissfully ignorant" is a personal attack. Someone starting a thread every two weeks calling a QB on a winning team and singling him out is also an attack.

Stats never ever ever tell the real story. I think JC should have a better competion % and two less INT's. But all of the drops have hurt him in both those areas. That is why I really never pay too much attention to it.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Stats never ever ever tell the real story. I think JC should have a better competion % and two less INT's. But all of the drops have hurt him in both those areas. That is why I really never pay too much attention to it.

That was my whole point. I don't give a crap if this guy has better stats than that guy. You are only as good as team you played against. If I played against the Patriots 5-0 and the Colts 5-0 and you played against the 0-6 Dolphins and the 0-6 Rams, who do think is more likely to have a bigger stats? Stats are not a good way to determine how good a player is.
For example the winner of the weak NFC South will most likely have inflated stats because that divison is currently the weakest top to bottom in teh NFL. That may change, but they are not very good right now. Well if I had 6 games against the saints, falcons and the panthers I would be beter off than if I were in the AFC North or AFC South.

[Skinsfanmania]

I believe it is much too early to say whether he is overrated or not, but I wouldn't trade him for JC. I believe JC is the best quarterback to come out of the draft since Carson Palmer.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Let me spell this out for you since you are obviously a little hyper sensitive and emotional about this. You mistakenly took my post as an attack. The expression 'Stats are for losers' comes from the situation of a player that plays on LOSING TEAM and has nothing to point to but his own individual stats, despite his teams being a big failure. So I was not attacking or calling your friend Jsarno a loser, I was calling the Cardinal TEAM losers. FACT #1.

That was quite the stretch twisting the very non-specific "stats are for losers", to "The Arizona Cardinals have a losing record". I think a better approach may have been, "My bad, I apologize, You may have misinterpreted my vague as hell statement of "stats are for losers" as calling someone a loser. Next time I will be more specific."

I think G-tripp is simply pointing out that it's a very weak argument to just start chucking out things like "Young is still the best young QB regardless of how you spin the stats.". What does that mean? Why is he the best young QB. How is he "spinning the stats". Are you saying wins define how good a QB is?

Let me ask you something...Do you have a Trent Dilfer poster on your wall? No. Why? Because he sucks. He won a superbowl, so by your standards he's a great QB? That's an insane argument.

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FACT #2 is we are different when it comes to sports. I played a ton of sports during my life time. I played this game to win, not to be #1 in the stats department. By the way you cling to stats as the end all of fact, you might be more of a sports fan than an actual player. Stats are very misleading. Look at the Pats game this weekend. Randy Moss was doubled and received most of the attention of the Cowboys Defense. So his teammates benefited from it and a guy like Wes Welker had a career day. Well according to your non-bending "Stats Never Lie" theory Wes Welker is a better receiver than Randy Moss. We all know that is not the case. All of the Pats WR's benefited from playing opposite R. Moss and that does not show up on a stat sheet. Moss was statistically was 4th in receiveing that day, stats by themselves are not fact. You also have to consider who you are playing against when looking at stats.

The problem here is that you're taking a situational stat here and using it to benefit your argument, so I'm going to call you out on it. In Chemistry class did you ever take one reading out of 1,000 and just use that to base your conclusion? No. You don't because it's bad reasoning.

I see your point, but I'm saying it doesn't apply here.

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Please don't take this as an attack on you. You asked me to back up my points with fact and I have. I am just stating a different opinion on the whole stats issue. However your comments on your highly emotional post challenging my football knowledge and calling me "blissfully ignorant" is a personal attack. Someone starting a thread every two weeks calling a QB on a winning team and singling him out is also an attack.
Football players are paid to win, not be #1 in stats.

I think you need to calm down. G-Tripp was attacking your argument, and not you. See- "Nothing personal, but if you are going to defend your boy, I think there should be an argument there that isn't a personal attack."

I understand your opinion on stats, and I tend to think it's a dual edged sword.

Sometimes stats are taken out of context, sometimes they're misleading. They're are many occasions where many here on the warpath, including me, use them inappropriately.

IMO if you're arguing about the success of a quarterback, stats are very effective. Also, if you want to get technical, saying "He's 3-2" is also a stat.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Let me spell this out for you since you are obviously a little hyper sensitive and emotional about this. You mistakenly took my post as an attack. The expression 'Stats are for losers' comes from the situation of a player that plays on LOSING TEAM and has nothing to point to but his own individual stats, despite his teams being a big failure. So I was not attacking or calling your friend Jsarno a loser, I was calling the Cardinal TEAM losers. FACT #1.

FACT #2 is we are different when it comes to sports. I played a ton of sports during my life time. I played this game to win, not to be #1 in the stats department. By the way you cling to stats as the end all of fact, you might be more of a sports fan than an actual player. Stats are very misleading. Look at the Pats game this weekend. Randy Moss was doubled and received most of the attention of the Cowboys Defense. So his teammates benefited from it and a guy like Wes Welker had a career day. Well according to your non-bending "Stats Never Lie" theory Wes Welker is a better receiver than Randy Moss. We all know that is not the case. All of the Pats WR's benefited from playing opposite R. Moss and that does not show up on a stat sheet. Moss was statistically was 4th in receiveing that day, stats by themselves are not fact. You also have to consider who you are playing against when looking at stats.
Please don't take this as an attack on you. You asked me to back up my points with fact and I have. I am just stating a different opinion on the whole stats issue. However your comments on your highly emotional post challenging my football knowledge and calling me "blissfully ignorant" is a personal attack. Someone starting a thread every two weeks calling a QB on a winning team and singling him out is also an attack.
Football players are paid to win, not be #1 in stats.

Firstly, you did attack Jsarno for making an arguably unessecary but solid argument highlighting Vince's struggles until this point. My post was more of a defense of Jsarno than an attack on the you, and so far you've kept it clean and professional so I have no reason to be irate. Please don't mistake my passion for anger.

The problem is you have no idea what my stance even is. I use facts to analyze players to best evaluate them. I never use stats to make a bad argument, because that is completely counterproductive to what I'm trying to accomplish to be ultra analytical. Thus you get the "blissfully ignorant" part of my comment. Ignorant is not a dirty word, nor an insult. I hope no one takes it as so. It's merely an observation I make that you clearly have no idea what it is that I do.

Firstly, you make the assumption that I never played sports simply because I like to analyze so I am not ignorant. Secondly, you assume I take the "stats never lie" position and thirdly you defended it by giving an argument that I clearly don't support, nor have ever claimed to or referenced. Since you are wrong on all three accounts, that's ignorance. Not stupidity or evilness or anything even remotely bad. I personally don't even care that you misunderstood me, but if it goes on a public fourm, then I have to defend myself.

Nothing you said is fundamentally wrong, per say, but I believe it reflects on a very narrow persepcion of the game. I have often defended a many of your posts in the past as very good nuggets of knowledge, so obviously you know what you are talking about often. I wish you were willing to possibly look at other viewpoints when they make sense, but to each their own I guess.

I am not bitter and I'm sorry if I offended you.

[TheBigD]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Nothing you said is fundamentally wrong, per say, but I believe it reflects on a very narrow persepcion of the game. I have often .....

LOL...man it took me some time to figure out what you were trying to say there. Please don't think I am insulting you or something.

Now, about stats and since you say you can't stand when people ignore stats and get "edgy". How come you and Jsarno tend to omit or minimize the importance of the most important stas of all, in my opinion at leas, which is WINS? You said Leinart had a better rookie year than Young, says who? You are saying that based on the fact that Leinart had better passing numbers because he had Boldin and Fitzgerald where Young had, at best, a banged up Drew Bennett. Young had more wins last year than Leinart. That is what I, and probably DefenseWins, think is what matters. Last time I checked, they don't award the SB to the the team whose players got the best stats but the team that has the most wins in the playoffs.