Is Michael Vick overrated?

I keep telling folks this. He's one scramble away from being crippled.
Especially when you realize that DB's and LB's in the league probably really, really dislike being made fools of on the highlight reels.
Remember 2003 when Schab was running the offense? They stank.

I give them this: while he's playing, Mexlanta is pretty hard to beat.

 

When you add Vick's rushing yardage and touchdowns to his passing yardage and touchdowns, he's still a slightly below average quarterback. He is a dynamic playmaker and very fun to watch, but he's not only overrated as a passer but as a winner as well. Atlanta hasn't been winning all that many games because of him, but rather more as a result of good defense and a great overall running game. Heck, look at last year and it's easy to see that Warrick Dunn and not Michael Vick was the one who beat us twice.

 

Hmm. I don't. I'll give credit to Schaub, though, for playing QB for Atlanta AND Virginia, considering he wasn't drafted until 2004.

Doug Johnson was the QB for the most part while Vick was out in 2003.

 

We got our revenge on Chandler last year though

 

Ooops. Of course you're right.
I'm used to thinking of Shaub as "the other QB" in Mexlanta, and goofed.

Since your post, I've looked back on Matt's past games, and he's a fair sight better than Johnson.

 

Mexico is A GREAT athlete. A less than average QB. More along the lines of a running back who takes the snap.

 

Dominique Wilkins in a helmet. But it's funny how he always beats us, we beat Tampa and Tampa beats Atlanta. He's fun to watch because you never when he will do something that makes you say, "did you see that?". But I wouldn't want him QB'ng the Panthers

 

He's a playmaker.

He's a dangerous passer, but not an efficient one. He's dangerous as a runner not only for the improvisation, but how he helps the inside running game.

He isn't a real MVP candidate, or should be, no. He's not that productive. But he is a dangerous football player.