| Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=104255 |
Page 2 of 3 |
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Nas wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: leashyourkids wrote: Shot in the dark, but what about Steve McNair? He was a blast to watch. Steve Young was better than all these guys. I don't disagree but he got to learn from arguably the greatest QB ever (at that time) and he had weapons every QB dreams about. But he didn't get to play until he was 30. Vick was striving to be Steve Young. He never got there. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Consider Vick playing in a time where you could still kill a man on the field, then consider Cunningham playing with the relatively molly-coddled rules of today. Other pointless anecdotal 'evidence' ... in college we played Madden for $ for a 'season' with playoffs and a championship (I lost the SB) ... the 'better' players were disallowed from using Cunningham |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
RFDC wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Vick was never a consistent passer. Cunningham wasn't great but you had to respect it. And he was better than Vick. Running, at their peak, was pretty even. Vick was flashier with a better arm. C'mon. Vick was clearly the superior runner. Did Cunningham ever line up as a RB more than once a game? Vick did, when he was 30 years old. Disagree. Cunningham was dangerous running the ball. He just didn't look like Barry Sanders when he was doing it. He killed teams with his legs. All that is true and Vick was still clearly superior. Cam Newton kills guys running the ball. Vick was clearly better than him too. Clearly superior at what exactly? I'd say they were equally effective running the ball. How can you say they were equally effective? Vick had over 6000 yds rushing in his career which is like 1200 more than Cunningham had in a longer career You're not comparing the same game. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
RFDC wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Vick was never a consistent passer. Cunningham wasn't great but you had to respect it. And he was better than Vick. Running, at their peak, was pretty even. Vick was flashier with a better arm. C'mon. Vick was clearly the superior runner. Did Cunningham ever line up as a RB more than once a game? Vick did, when he was 30 years old. Disagree. Cunningham was dangerous running the ball. He just didn't look like Barry Sanders when he was doing it. He killed teams with his legs. All that is true and Vick was still clearly superior. Cam Newton kills guys running the ball. Vick was clearly better than him too. Clearly superior at what exactly? I'd say they were equally effective running the ball. How can you say they were equally effective? Vick had over 6000 yds rushing in his career which is like 1200 more than Cunningham had in a longer career Exactly. I'm willing to agree Cunningham was the better QB. This isn't even a debate if we are asking who the better runner was. Vick has no equal yet in history in that regard. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
RFDC wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Vick was never a consistent passer. Cunningham wasn't great but you had to respect it. And he was better than Vick. Running, at their peak, was pretty even. Vick was flashier with a better arm. C'mon. Vick was clearly the superior runner. Did Cunningham ever line up as a RB more than once a game? Vick did, when he was 30 years old. Disagree. Cunningham was dangerous running the ball. He just didn't look like Barry Sanders when he was doing it. He killed teams with his legs. All that is true and Vick was still clearly superior. Cam Newton kills guys running the ball. Vick was clearly better than him too. Clearly superior at what exactly? I'd say they were equally effective running the ball. How can you say they were equally effective? Vick had over 6000 yds rushing in his career which is like 1200 more than Cunningham had in a longer career FF said at their apex. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: RFDC wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: C'mon. Vick was clearly the superior runner. Did Cunningham ever line up as a RB more than once a game? Vick did, when he was 30 years old. Disagree. Cunningham was dangerous running the ball. He just didn't look like Barry Sanders when he was doing it. He killed teams with his legs. All that is true and Vick was still clearly superior. Cam Newton kills guys running the ball. Vick was clearly better than him too. Clearly superior at what exactly? I'd say they were equally effective running the ball. How can you say they were equally effective? Vick had over 6000 yds rushing in his career which is like 1200 more than Cunningham had in a longer career FF said at their apex. Vick wins that either way. Cunningham never ran for 1000 yards in a season. No QB ever has, except Vick. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
FavreFan wrote: Exactly. I'm willing to agree Cunningham was the better QB. This isn't even a debate if we are asking who the better runner was. Vick has no equal yet in history in that regard. That's just not true. Vick was more fun to watch but if we are just talking about their prime, he has an equal and it's Cunningham. Vick had a better career running it. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: RFDC wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: C'mon. Vick was clearly the superior runner. Did Cunningham ever line up as a RB more than once a game? Vick did, when he was 30 years old. Disagree. Cunningham was dangerous running the ball. He just didn't look like Barry Sanders when he was doing it. He killed teams with his legs. All that is true and Vick was still clearly superior. Cam Newton kills guys running the ball. Vick was clearly better than him too. Clearly superior at what exactly? I'd say they were equally effective running the ball. How can you say they were equally effective? Vick had over 6000 yds rushing in his career which is like 1200 more than Cunningham had in a longer career FF said at their apex. FavreFan wrote: Vick wins that either way. Cunningham never ran for 1000 yards in a season. No QB ever has, except Vick. Different game. Vick's yards were easier. Less fear and less punishment. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
1000 yards is arbitrary but Cunningham had 942. Pretty equal. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: 1000 yards is arbitrary but Cunningham had 942. Pretty equal. Some QBs are more equal than others. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Cunningham also threw for 3500 yards and 30 TDs that year compared to Vick's 2500/20 in his year. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Fran Tarkenton was the greatest QB in history. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Cunningham also threw for 3500 yards and 30 TDs that year compared to Vick's 2500/20 in his year. Cunningham's rushing totals and passing yards were more impressive than Vick's. Vick would have died in that NFL. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: 1000 yards is arbitrary but Cunningham had 942. Pretty equal. Some QBs are more equal than others. I guess I'm losing track of your point. I thought you wanted opinions on who was a better QB at their peak. It's Cunningham. Vick was probably a better runner at their peak but it's pretty close. Vick was a better runner over his career because he was never the passer that Cunningham was. |
|
| Author: | Hatchetman [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Tebow |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Vick was never a great QB. He had flashes of brilliance but never sustained it. Cunningham was legit. He was the better QB. That said, Vick was the second best pure runner I've ever watched. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
QB-Eagles was better than all these fools. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. This. I was beginning to wonder if our criteria was just black QB's. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. I know. I was talking about who was a better QB at their peak. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
leashyourkids wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. This. I was beginning to wonder if our criteria was just black QB's. I was. We debated these things as a kid. I was a Moon guy. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Nas wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. I know. I was talking about who was a better QB at their peak. Well, Moon. He was great. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: 1000 yards is arbitrary but Cunningham had 942. Pretty equal. Some QBs are more equal than others. I guess I'm losing track of your point. I thought you wanted opinions on who was a better QB at their peak. It's Cunningham. Vick was probably a better runner at their peak but it's pretty close. Vick was a better runner over his career because he was never the passer that Cunningham was. My original point was that I thought Vick was better but it was an interesting question. The thread sort of evolved but I can't agree that Cunningham and Vick were very close in terms of running. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Prior to Cunningham's injury, he was exceptional. What criteria are you using? I agree Vick was better. But he was also flashier with his quickness. Cunningham was pretty amazing as well pre-injury. Just not as highlight-y. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
To be clear, I'm just talking about running above. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Thanks for this thread. I just fired up some YouTube videos on Cunningham. I had forgotten just how amazing he was. And how strong his arm was. |
|
| Author: | Chus [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: QB-Eagles was better than all these fools. This guy gets it. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Nas wrote: Vick is nowhere near as good as Cunningham. Cunningham v Moon is a better argument. Moon wasn't mobile like Cunningham. He was a traditional drop back passer. I know. I was talking about who was a better QB at their peak. Well, Moon. He was great. 
|
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
I don't think black QB's should be illegal, but I don't have to like it. |
|
| Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|