Quote:So am I supposed to rate them SOLELY based on your view, or are we allowed to use personal takes?


I don't consider, see my choice of words, Idon't consider, I don't consider them poor. I consider them above average athletic game managers, like Garrard.


Michael Vick was not poor to mediocre in his prime.


Superlatives and unnecessary uncouthness generally kill American writing.

 

You took my words way too personally. Michael Vick was never above mediocre as a passer, and unless you really think running is what allows a QB to win championships then their abilities as a passer are their abilities as a QB. Reading defenses and making the right decisions along with throwing good passes is what makes a good or great QB. Vick is a great example, never had a passer rating as a starter over 90 except for one as a system QB for part of a season with the eagles, and he was fading fast at the end of that one.

---