major pain;4010886 said:
This is a flawed argument. The Cowboys didnt lose this year because of their QB play. Just like the Eagles didnt lose solely because of Vick. The Cowboys got torched all year by any decent QB. The secondary on that defense was beyond bad. Also the Cowboys were playing for the division yesterday.. statistically they are behind the Eagles, but obviously they werent truly behind.
Vick has 14 INT and 10 fumbles. Some of the INT are from bobbled/dropped passes, but is that ever an excuse for other QBs? The fumbles are on him. He doesnt carry the ball well when he scrambles. This has always been a problem of his. So, I disagree he makes more poor decisions than Romo for sure.
McCoy having arguably being the best rusher this year helps his QB tremendously. Defenses step up in the box more for 1, anybody that knows football knows that it is MUCH easier to throw the ball when you have a solid run game. McCoy had 10 TDs and almost 800 yards by their 9th game. Vick went out that game.
major pain;4010886 said:
This is a flawed argument. The Cowboys didnt lose this year because of their QB play. Just like the Eagles didnt lose solely because of Vick. The Cowboys got torched all year by any decent QB. The secondary on that defense was beyond bad. Also the Cowboys were playing for the division yesterday.. statistically they are behind the Eagles, but obviously they werent truly behind.
Vick has 14 INT and 10 fumbles. Some of the INT are from bobbled/dropped passes, but is that ever an excuse for other QBs? The fumbles are on him. He doesnt carry the ball well when he scrambles. This has always been a problem of his. So, I disagree he makes more poor decisions than Romo for sure.
McCoy having arguably being the best rusher this year helps his QB tremendously. Defenses step up in the box more for 1, anybody that knows football knows that it is MUCH easier to throw the ball when you have a solid run game. McCoy had 10 TDs and almost 800 yards by their 9th game. Vick went out that game.
It's not a flawed argument. You just didn't understand it. My point was that the Cowboys and Eagles are roughly equal from a talent standpoint, and they both have issues that don't include the QB. Now if all other things are considered equal (that is the assumption I was making), if Romo is a better QB, the Cowboys should have done better than the Eagles. They didn't though. So Romo's numbers don't really mean anything. They didn't lead to any better production for the team than Vick's, and you can't blame the bad season on Romo's team anymore than you can Vick's. Actually, if you're honest, you'd have to say that Vick was actually a more important positive benefactor to the team. Romo's team feinished at .500 with him at the helm for almost all of the games. Vick's team finished .500 with him not starting/completing 5 games. The teams record with him was much better than without him. That's undeniable proof that Vick as a player elevated his team more than Romo did.
As for the turnovers, bobbles and drops aren't really an excuse for any QB when they are isolated events. However, when you have receivers bobbling passes into INTs in practically every game, you have to look at the receivers not the QB. There was like a 4 or 5 game stretch where Vick had at least 1 INT due to a receiver bobbling the ball into the defense's hands. You can't blame him for that. And your statement about the fumbles isn't true either. Hell, last game he had a fumble that either has to be considered a good defensive play or a lapse in protection, but you can't put it all on Vick. Now don't get me wrong. Vick has thrown some bad INTs and had some bad fumbles. I'm not saying he hasn't. I'm just saying that if he had 14 INTs and 10 fumbles this year, about 6 of those INTs and 3 of those fumbles can arguably be pinned 100% on other parts of the team. This goes back to what I've been saying all along. The Eagles as a team were out of sync this year and that made everybody, not just Vick, look worse than they actually are.
I'm not saying that having a good RB didn't help Vick, but you're exaggerating how much. Let's look at the numbers
Week 1: McCoy - 122 yds 1 TD Vick - 187 yds 2 TD
Week 2: McCoy - 95 yds 2 TD Vick - 242 yds 2 TD
Week 3: McCoy - 128 yds 1 TD Vick - 176 yds 0 TD
Week 4: McCoy - 18 yds 0 TD Vick - 416 yds 2 TD
Week 5: McCoy- 80 yds 1 TD Vick - 315 yds 2 TD
Week 6: McCoy - 126 yds 1 TD Vick - 237 yds 1 TD
Week 7: McCoy - 185 yds 2 TD Vick - 279 yds 2 TD
Week 8: McCoy - 71 yds 1 TD Vick - 213 yds 0 TD
Week 9: McCoy - 81 yds 1 TD Vick - 128 yds 0 TD
Week 10: McCoy - 113 0 TD Vick - DNP
Week 11: McCoy - 31 yds 1 TD Vick - DNP
Week 12: McCoy - 84 yds 1 TD Vick - DNP
Week 13: McCoy- 38 yds 2 TD Vick 0 208 yds 1 TD
Week 14: McCoy - 102 yds 3 TD 274 yds 1 TD
Week 15: McCoy - 35 yds 0 TD Vick - 293 yds 2 TD
Week 16: McCoy - DNP Vick - 335 yds 3 TD
There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between Vick's success and McCoy's. Vick had two of his best games when McCoy didn't even play major minutes. He also had two of his worst games when McCoy played great. This flies in the face of your belief that McCoy playing well helped Vick tremendously. If anything, the fact that Vick rushed for almost 600 yds himself is more of a help to McCoy than McCoy's rushing is to Vick. It's like Philly had a good backup RB on the field for every play of every game, don't you think that is part of the reason that McCoy did so well?
