PDA

View Full Version : Better Prospect: RGIII or Michael Vick?


JBCX
12-05-2011, 07:29 PM
Compare RGIII coming out this year to Michael Vick when he declared for the NFL Draft in 2001. Who is a better prospect at time of declaration?

Both are highly athletic QBs with great arm strength and the ability to make plays with their legs.

Vick was probably a better runner at the time, but RGIII is a better passer. Or were they comparable in that regard?

ChiFan24
12-05-2011, 07:34 PM
Vick was much better at everything, besides some mechanical stuff and as a result, some very inconsistent accuracy. Griffin's not close as a prospect, IMO.

TACKLE
12-05-2011, 07:35 PM
This isn't even remotely close.

Complex
12-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Vick is one of the greatest athletes to ever play football probably top 5.

keylime_5
12-05-2011, 07:39 PM
Vick was a better runner and had a cannon for an arm. Played in Va Tech's pro style offense as well. He is a once in a lifetime type athlete.

Caulibflower
12-05-2011, 08:29 PM
Yeah, it's Vick and it's really not close. Vick was such a freakish athlete teams might've had him rated higher even just as a running back/athlete than they would of Griffin. I mean, even just on measurables... you're talking about a guy with incredible moves and quickness who is a well-built 6'0" 215 and runs a legit 4.2. Just from a physical standpoint he measures out like an elite running back prospect, and then you throw in the fact that he also has one of the strongest arms to come along in years... And he's looking better than Griffin in pretty much all categories.

DraftSavant
12-05-2011, 08:37 PM
Vick went first overall as an incredibly raw QB after his RS Soph season.

The only person that has stopped Mike Vick is Mike Vick. He was an unreal prospect.

ElectricEye
12-05-2011, 08:48 PM
As a prospect, it's Vick and it's not even close....and I love me some RGIII. As a pure passer, Griffin is WAY more advanced at this point though, he's well versed in the nuances of playing the position. Kind of weird to even compare the two if you ask me, just frames the entire thing in the wrong context.

Ozzy
12-05-2011, 10:24 PM
I see why one would compare them.

But Vick like others have said was the #1 pick by far in the draft when he came out. I do not think Griffin will be the number one pick this year or even next year if he goes back to school.

Far better thrower is Griffin, but in terms of hype and potential I think Vick has him beat. Oddly enough, would not be surprised to see Griffin have a better overall career than Vick has had considering the time he missed and all the years he lost when he did not have his head right early in his career.


So end result, Griffin might end up being more successful in the grand scheme of things in the NFL. But in terms of prospects and the draft, Vick I feel was more amazing coming out than Griffin is. Vick just had that it factor, sadly it has not turned out to equal consistent NFL success for him.



Throwing the ball though, Griffin is arguably farther along now coming out of college than Vick was, Griffin has a crazy accurate throwing arm and has an awesome deep ball. How much of it was scheme and awful Big 12 defense, will wait and see.

bored of education
12-05-2011, 10:26 PM
you make the worst thread ever. end yourself

Cardinal96
12-06-2011, 02:34 PM
This isn't a serious question. Vick had a skillset that I have never seen before in the ~ 30 years I have watched football. Elite speed, cannon arm, freakish athlete. Griffin is not in the same ballpark with Vick in terms of athleticism. Vick was also the consensus number 1 prospect when he came out while RG3 has no chance of being the number 1 prospect and will be fortunate to land in the top 10.

vidae
12-06-2011, 03:07 PM
This isn't a serious question. Vick had a skillset that I have never seen before in the ~ 30 years I have watched football. Elite speed, cannon arm, freakish athlete. Griffin is not in the same ballpark with Vick in terms of athleticism. Vick was also the consensus number 1 prospect when he came out while RG3 has no chance of being the number 1 prospect and will be fortunate to land in the top 10.

You had me until right there. If Griffin isn't set to be a top 10 pick right now he never will be.

FUNBUNCHER
12-06-2011, 03:09 PM
Wait a minute.

Vick was faster and had a big arm, but in every other category RGIII is a superior pro prospect to Vick.
Griffin is a better pure passer, not thrower, than Vick. Va Tech's passing offense was a bunch of go routes, some sideline stuff and isolating the TE one on one, but it was nowhere near the complexity or had the volume of passes that defined Baylor's offense.

RGIII is a 4 year starter who's demonstrated the ability to dominate games passing the football. Vick was good for two to three big plays a game for the Hokies and that was enough with their dominating D creating turnovers and their running game. But his passing ability was never really on display enough to project his pro upside IMO.

It Vick's athleticism is the reason why people are rating Vick a better pro prospect than RGIII, then by that standard MV is a better prospect than Matt Barkley and Andrew Luck too.

Vick averaged about 18 pass attempts a game for Va Tech, and in two years starting he threw for a total of 21 TDs and 11 INTs.

Vick was just a mystery pick to me. I know people thought he was going to be another McNabb and yes Vick has had great success as a pro.

But if he left Va Tech now with his production and measurables, he'd be lucky to be taken before the 5th round.

I hope people aren't calling Vick the better pro prospect because he's the slightly better athlete.

Caulibflower
12-06-2011, 03:15 PM
It Vick's athleticism is the reason why people are rating Vick a better pro prospect than RGIII, then by that standard MV is a better prospect than Matt Barkley and Andrew Luck too.

I would take a Vick-like prospect (...clone?) over either of those two.

But if he left Va Tech now with his production and measurables, he'd be lucky to be taken before the 5th round.

This is simply absurd. Just this year Locker was drafted tenth, mostly because of measurables/skillset and despite low production/regression. And fwiw, Vick isn't a slightly better athlete than RGIII... he's one of, if not the, best athletes ever to play in the NFL. It's plenty fair to say Vick's value is higher than RGIII's, even just from an athleticism standpoint. I really don't care that RGIII is a decorated hurdler.

TACKLE
12-06-2011, 03:36 PM
Imagine how good Vick would have been in college had he played in a Rich Rod-spread option offense.

DraftSavant
12-06-2011, 03:36 PM
Imagine how good Vick would have been in college if he played in a Rich Rod-spread option offense.

*dies* (10 char)

TACKLE
12-06-2011, 03:39 PM
*dies* (10 char)

I mean if Denard can go for 2500/1700 as a sophomore.....

FUNBUNCHER
12-06-2011, 03:51 PM
Being a better athlete still doesn't make someone a better pro prospect.
I just think in a normal draft year Vick doesn't even go first round.

DraftSavant
12-06-2011, 03:52 PM
What was not normal about the year he went? He went a full round before Brees, who was a much better natural passer.

FUNBUNCHER
12-06-2011, 04:14 PM
What was not normal about the year he went? He went a full round before Brees, who was a much better natural passer.

How is that 'normal'?? 2001 was a bad year to draft a QB. It's bizarre that all of Drew Brees' gamefilm was trumped by Vick's meager production and physical tools.

When did Vick demonstrate he was an accurate passer at Va Tech??? Vick never ran at the combine. His 4.2 timed at Va Tech is about as legitimate as Deangelo Hall's 4.1. IMO they're both 4.3 guys.

It's only 10 years ago, but college scouting IMO is more sophisticated than it was in 2001. I just don't think he would have been given the same draft grade now that he had in 2001.

How could you justify it??? Minus the pure athleticism, Mike Vick reminds me of BJ Daniels as a college player.
When Daniels comes out I doubt he's even drafted.

TimmG6376
12-06-2011, 04:48 PM
How is that 'normal'?? 2001 was a bad year to draft a QB. It's bizarre that all of Drew Brees' gamefilm was trumped by Vick's meager production and physical tools.

When did Vick demonstrate he was an accurate passer at Va Tech??? Vick never ran at the combine. His 4.2 timed at Va Tech is about as legitimate as Deangelo Hall's 4.1. IMO they're both 4.3 guys.

It's only 10 years ago, but college scouting IMO is more sophisticated than it was in 2001. I just don't think he would have been given the same draft grade now that he had in 2001.

How could you justify it??? Minus the pure athleticism, Mike Vick reminds me of BJ Daniels as a college player.
When Daniels comes out I doubt he's even drafted.

I saw a lot of Vick when he was at Tech. Even attended the Sugar Bowl. I was blown away that he was considered this incredible QB prospect as his passing was always erratic.

SickwithIt1010
12-06-2011, 04:55 PM
I saw a lot of Vick when he was at Tech. Even attended the Sugar Bowl. I was blown away that he was considered this incredible QB prospect as his passing was always erratic.

Potential is a powerful thing.

When you have arguably the best arm in football, and 4.2 speed you take the chance.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
12-06-2011, 05:08 PM
What kind of 40 time will RG3 put up? Lets not forget he was a world class hurdler.

SickwithIt1010
12-06-2011, 06:10 PM
What kind of 40 time will RG3 put up? Lets not forget he was a world class hurdler.

Lets not forget he has also torn his ACL. That may have set his speed back a little bit. Im gonna guess 4.46...random, I know...but thats my guess.

Miaoww
12-06-2011, 08:39 PM
How is that 'normal'?? 2001 was a bad year to draft a QB. It's bizarre that all of Drew Brees' gamefilm was trumped by Vick's meager production and physical tools.

When did Vick demonstrate he was an accurate passer at Va Tech??? Vick never ran at the combine. His 4.2 timed at Va Tech is about as legitimate as Deangelo Hall's 4.1. IMO they're both 4.3 guys.

It's only 10 years ago, but college scouting IMO is more sophisticated than it was in 2001. I just don't think he would have been given the same draft grade now that he had in 2001.

How could you justify it??? Minus the pure athleticism, Mike Vick reminds me of BJ Daniels as a college player.
When Daniels comes out I doubt he's even drafted.

I don't care what Vick ran on his pro day. You can see on film that the 4.2/3 film translates to the field - he makes pro NFL players look slow.

kalbears13
12-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Vince Young would be a better comparison.

gpngc
12-06-2011, 08:47 PM
I think Vince Young is a good comparison.

RG3 is a better prospect though because he appears:

+Smarter
+Actually emotionally stable
+Better pure passer
-Less bulky