Give Vick a Lookover
by JAHson on Jul 29, 2009 8:22 PM CDT
106 comments
I'm saying this tongue in cheek being a little empathetic to our backups: it would do this team well to at least consider Michael Vick as a backup QB given the Saints history of misfortunes (i.e injuries). I understand salary cap issues and other fiscal considerations, but if I were Loomis, to galvanize my team's possibility of success this season, I would at least consider Vick. He is not a trouble asset like TO and Ocho Cinco. He brings a myriad of possibilities to an already stellar offense. What do you think?
This FanPost was written by a reader and member of Canal Street Chronicles. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CSC and its staff or editors.
0 recs |
106 comments
Email
Print
Comments
brunell is past his prime
but he still has some gas left in the tank and he’s a smart QB. w/ our WRs we should be ok. if he gets hurt then i’d like vick over harrington but not by much. i voted no, i like it the way it is.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 29, 2009 11:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What would be Vick's value
to a west coast-ish offense? He sucked in the pocket, he has almost no field vision, and our o-line is built to stop the rush. Also, he’s a goon. Brunell may be way past his sell-by date, and Harrington is, undeniably, Harrington, but Vick’s downside, purely as a distraction, would greatly outweigh any benefit he could bring to our style of offense.
by FuSoYa on Jul 29, 2009 11:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That states it pretty well
You forgot, though, that he’s also dumb as a bag of hammers. Didn’t we already employ his equally dumb cousin already? How’d that work out?
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 6:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a backup?
Pretty damn well, actually. He led us to our first-ever playoff victory. If there was some sort of guarantee that Vick would perform as well as a backup as Brooks did, I’d take him in a heartbeat.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm no Brooks hater, but
he also had no pocket sense, which is what eventually made him susceptible to hatin’. He, like his cousin, played best when operating solely on instinct. I guess,all things considered, that may be better than the second-best system qb, but tough to build a plan around. Also, Brooks’ breakout year we had the 8th ranked defense in the league to help out. Brooks was also a more accurate passer than Vick. If Vick took the field for us, I imagine the outcome would be similar to when Brooks did, except without any help from the defense, and all those receivers we got would become coverage bait and open field blockers.
by FuSoYa on Jul 30, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Brooks hater
does anyone know where to look up how many redzone INT’s he threw?
by asaint on Jul 30, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a bag of hammers with a higher IQ...
….not to mention he’s a freakin’ PSYCHOPATH!!!
Look folks, there is no “upside” to Vick, not for the Saints, and IMO not for ANY NFL team. He SUCKED as a QB, I’d take AB back as a backup before I’d ever want this POS in Black & Gold. And that’s not taking into account the fact that he’s a lying, conniving, mentally defective moron – just a fact, he isn’t a good QB.
Add to that the media circus that would surround anywhere he goes – clarification the NEGATIVE media circus.
Notice the line of teams vying to get him signed??? (…crickets chirping…) Yeah, he’ll probably get signed, by someone with no other hope, not by a contending team, which the Saints ARE this season, and they don’t need some jack@$$ individual that can’t do the job he is hired for and will only bring negative press with no on the field upside.
…I can’t believe anyone would seriously think the Saints would have any logical, sensible reason to sign this dirtbag.
by GSO Saints Fan on Jul 30, 2009 6:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think he’d be a good fit, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t at least work him out and just see what happens. Who knows, maybe just being forced to settle down and THINK for a change will have made him better as a pocket passer (he could hardly get worse, anyway)…
I’d still rather he go elsewhere of course, but at least check him out and see if the assumptions that he “sucks” are really right or not.
by FriarBob on Jul 30, 2009 8:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Time and resources are limited
and the players and staff have to focus on playing the best they can with the team they have. Taking the time and trouble to evaluate Vick would be a distraction of the worst sort. Unless you think missing two seasons and sitting in a prison cell for a year is a good way to hone your NFL skills, I think it’s safe to say we already know what Michael Vick is. No further evaluation needed.
Besides which…maybe Feldmarschall von Goodell thinks he has good reason to let Vick back into the league, but each team has its own chance to enact an individual lifetime ban. I would fully support Tom Benson saying “There is no way Michael Vick will EVER play for the New Orleans Saints—not no way, not nohow.”
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vick will redefine the QB formation as the Wildcat becomes more popular
it just won’t be on our team
by asaint on Jul 30, 2009 10:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Mike Vick, Vince Young, Pat White, Seneca Wallace, Josh Freeman … those are the guys to watch over the next few seasons. The evolution of the position has begun. What’s considered a gimmick play now will soon become the centerpiece of many NFL offenses.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Smackdown
I hereby call you out: the Wildcat is a gimmick that will never take a team to a championship. Vick is a failure; Vince Young is well on the way to being a failure; Seneca Wallace is a mediocre backup. Pat White and Josh Freeman will have mediocre careers.
The future is quarterbacks like Brees, Manning, and Brady…just like the present.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's what they said about the shotgun formation
The game will inevitably evolve, just like it has for the last 80 some odd years.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's also what they said about the run-and-shoot
The question isn’t whether the game will evolve; the question is: in what direction will it evolve? The run-and-shoot failed; the dominance of NFL defensive personnel made it fail.
The Wildcat will fail for the same reason, but also because the super hybrid the NFL is looking for doesn’t exist. They thought that player was Randall Cunningham; it wasn’t. They thought it was Michael Vick; it wasn’t. They thought it was Vince Young; it wasn’t. Now, they think it’ll be Tim Tebow; it won’t be.
There’s a good reason why NFL teams don’t run the single wing anymore: it’s inferior to the T-formation and I-formation offenses that superseded it. Its recent effectiveness as a change of pace was due precisely to the fact that nobody expected it. Once they do expect it, it will again demonstrate its scoring inferiority. NFL defenses are much too good for a mere gimmick to thrive for very long.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Randall Cunningham
had a remarkable career. Vick has made it to the NFC Championship game, the same level of success Brees has reached. The run-and-shoot was an effective offense for several teams during the 1990s. Just because something is no longer around, doesn’t mean it “failed”. Did the Flex defense fail? Did man-to-man coverage fail? You’re seeing less and less of it now. The T and I aren’t necessarily “superior” to the single wing. That’s just the direction the game has taken. You’re right, some aspects of the game have enjoyed greater longetivity than others, but not all of that is due to success or failure. It’s a game of trends and the Wildcat is definitely one on the rise as of right now.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're being disingenuous
If you’re the student of football you seem to be, surely you remember the kind of press that first Cunningham, and later Vick and Young received: the prototypes of New NFL Man. They were supposed to revolutionize the game—not merely make it to the odd conference championshipship, but revolutionize the game itself. Cunningham was the best of all of them, but even he was never able to become the championship catalyst his teams hoped him to be. Vick and Young are several notches below Cunningham talent-wise.
As for the T formation not being superior to the single wing: are you crazy?
The key innovations of the T, however, still dominate offensive football. First, the T was the first offense where the quarterback took the snap from under center and then either handed off or dropped back to pass. Earlier offenses used the QB (usually called the “blocking back”) primarily as a blocker and the snap usually went to a halfback or tailback. The quarterback under center makes offenses very unpredictable since it is difficult to predict the play called based on formation alone. Second, the T allowed running backs to receive the hand-off from the quarterback and hit the “hole” at near full speed. This allowed more complex blocking schemes and gave offenses a temporary, but significant advantage. Other advantages offered by the T were: the ability of the QB to fake various handoffs (which led to “option” plays), plays developed much faster than with the single-wing, far fewer double-team blocks were required because the back hit the hole more quickly, the back could choose a different hole than originally planned (due to single-blocking across the line), the center was a more effective blocker because his head was up when he snapped the ball, and backs could be less versatile than required of single-wing backs. [Source: Wikipedia]
The T formation is a perfect example of a gimmick that truly represented the future of football. The Wildcat is a gimmick that represents the past. It will be effective as a gadget, nothing more…and that, only for a little while longer.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
“The T formation is a perfect example of a gimmick that truly represented the future of football. The Wildcat is a gimmick that represents the past. It will be effective as a gadget, nothing more…and that, only for a little while longer.”
I completely disagree.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Obviously
In the end, one of us will be wrong and other right. If in ten years both the Wildcat and I are still around, I’ll apologize.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not confident
it’ll still be referred to as the Wildcat, nor that it will ever become as prevalent as the T and all of its spinoffs, but I do think at least a variation of what we now call the Wildcat will still be being utilized regularly in 10 years. There’s just too many prominent college QBs who fit that bill for it not to. Jevan Snead is another in the pipes, as we speak.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Coldpizza and M-E should do a weekly debate
That would be an interesting idea for a CSC podcast. I like it when these two get into a smackdown. It’s usually very informative. I rec’d all of these. :-)
Go Saints!!!! Deuce may be gone, but he will never be forgotten.
by satchmo26 on Jul 30, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
agreed. we could discuss it. A little roundtable action.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Jul 30, 2009 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
at least they disagree in a civilized fashion
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Jul 30, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
better than calling each other idiots and making snide comments at each other.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly feel as though
Cunningham did revolutionize the game. His success is the reason run-first QBs like Steve McNair, Jeff Blake, Aaron Brooks, Mike Vick, Vince Young, etc., were considered top flight NFL talent to begin with. And while I agree that not many of those players have stacked up to what Cunningham did in the pros, I don’t think the Wildcat is nearly as demanding an offense as what Cunningham ran in Philadelphia and Minnesota, at least cerebrally. It relies more on athleticism and less on reading defensive coverages, which is right up the alley of the current QBs I mentioned previously.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We agree on something:
The Wildcat relies more on athleticism and less on reading defensive coverages…or to be more precise, less on the ability to read defensive coverages, because players like Vick and Young are generally clueless when it comes to checking down to tertiary options.
The problem is, athleticism isn’t enough. To be truly successful as a base formation, the Wildcat would need a player who was part Drew Brees, part Deuce McAllister. There is no such animal. The better a quarterback is at running, the worse he is at passing. The few successful exceptions to that rule—like Steve Young—are still known primarily as passers (in fact, Young was among the most deadly). Players like Vick are notoriously run-first. To work in the Wildcat, they must be a reasonable threat in the passing department as well. But Vick wasn’t much of a passing threat in a pro set…so why would putting him in the Wildcat change anything?
By the way: just to make sure it’s clear, every criticism I level against the Wildcat is as a base formation. As a gadget, it’s like any other gadget: it works best when everything else is working well.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um, ME, you are forgetting something. And that was that in 2002 Vick was actually pretty decent, and he was most definitely not “run first”. He had almost a 4-1 ratio in pass to run, and completed over half his passes with a not exactly exceptional receiving corp. Heck his second leading receiver was Warrick Dunn of all people, and nobody outside of Brian Finneran (who?) cracked 500 yards. Brian is such an awesomely talented receiver that in 9 years he has barely 200 catches for less than 3000 yards. Wow, great talent he was surrounded with. Granted, Vick wasn’t exactly lightning in a bottle. But considering he was practically a rookie at this point, that’s not exactly all that bad either.
Then in 2003 he broke his leg. Obviously a crap year for him then. And ever since he’s had more like a 3-1 ratio pass to run, and his completion percent dropped. Of course his receivers in 2006 looked like they couldn’t catch a ball that was handed to them, so that didn’t exactly help. Not that I was exactly complaining at the time (of course) but it is a mitigating circumstance. He had some really good passes in the game when the Saints visited that were precisely on target and his receivers muffed like half of them.
Was it that he really sucked all along and he just had a “lucky” year in 2002? I don’t really think so. Palmer had a really good year in 2005 too but in 2006 he had a really hard time coming back and settling down in the pocket without being scared of the oncoming D linemen. It wasn’t until the end of the year that he got back into his groove. How many people expected Drew’s 2006 season? Nobody, flat out nobody. I actually do expect Brady to come back, but there are plenty of doubters out there. For every Drew Brees who comes back from a devastating injury to absolutely kick butt the next year, there are five people who fail to come back at all, and another thirty people who come back but have a really hard time getting back in the groove.
Throw in a O-line that made the Steelers line from last year look professional and can you REALLY say that Vick was a horrible pocket passer? He didn’t have a pocket to throw from!
I don’t like Vick, I really don’t. And I have zero desire for him to join the Saints. No, make that I have negative desire. But you really do need to give him a fair shake. Give him a quality O-line, some decent receivers, and give him a chance. If he still fails, fine. But don’t pretend that it’s proven that he sucks and he’s the SOLE reason some of his past years sucked until you’ve put a quality team around him and given him a full chance.
by FriarBob on Jul 30, 2009 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all
I expected Drew to have a great season in 2006. I didn’t expect the team to be great, but I had confidence in Drew Brees. I was overjoyed when Miami signed Culpepper instead.
Now, the essence of the argument you make in favor of Vick—give him a good offensive line and quality receivers and let him prove he doesn’t suck—works equally for Joey Harrington, who is already on the team. One of the reasons I am usually against bringing in new people is that it destroys the sense of camaraderie among the members of the team, who must always be on the lookout for even more competition than they already face, and must feel as though coaches and management don’t really trust them and are always looking for an upgrade. We should support our guys over an outsider, unless that outsider is a lead-pipe cinch upgrade—like Brees or Vilma.
Besides…yeah, I’m convinced Vick was given a fair shake. Aaron Brooks played on a crappy team, too—but it was obvious he was a flake. Vick is dumb and undisciplined, and I don’t think he can change. Maybe he can…but let someone else take the chance to prove it. I wouldn’t cut a single member of the Saints to make room for Michael Vick.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
what you have against Brooks. He put up solid numbers the entire time he was here, with the exception of 2005, when the entire team tanked. 76.4 as a career low passer rating during that 2000-04 isn’t exactly horrendous. Archie Manning only exceeded that low two years out of his inexplicably ballyhooed career.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate Brooks too
sometimes it’s not just a numbers thing.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Jul 31, 2009 12:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saintsational is right
Sometimes stats are just stats. Brooks was a flake who couldn’t be depended on when things got tight. As for Manning, you won’t hear me doing any ballyhooing.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 31, 2009 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Things weren't tight
in 2000, when he was without his top RB and WR against the defending Super Bowl champs? I fully appreciate everything Brooks brought to the franchise. He wasn’t an elite QB, but he was easily the best we ever had up to that point. At least, in terms of a Saints career. I realize that’s not saying much. I just don’t see any reason to hate on the guy.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can agree on vick having the ability to be good and that he wasn’t a bad QB but not on Brooks being good.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because he looked a little doofy, smiled at the wrong times, and couldn’t figure out when and when not to throw to the sideline, doesn’t negate all the good he brought to the qb position at that time. Sure, we traded up, but he brought some excitement for a while. He’s like the Mcnabb or Jason Campbell of NO. He’s not as good as Mcnabb, but that’s why he’s not the Mcnabb of Philly. But he tried hard, did well, got no respect. And when he was playing through his shoulder injury, and the whole world(myself included) wanted Delhomme to finish the season, you got to give it to him, he put everything he had into finishing the year out. It’s on Haslett that Delhomme rode the bench.
by FuSoYa on Jul 31, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
it’s not all numbers. it’s consistency and moreso consistency in tight games/situations.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t cut a single member of the Saints to make room for Michael Vick.
I wouldn’t either! Dude, I don’t think you are understanding what I’m saying. Maybe I"m misunderstanding what you are saying too. I’m saying give him a chance to prove you wrong… but SOMEWHERE ELSE. But it sounds to me like you are saying NOBODY should give him a chance at all because it’s a complete waste of time. And there I can’t agree.
by FriarBob on Jul 31, 2009 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S. Oh and yeah I hoped he’d have a good season too… but there was NO way you were going to predict he’d have THAT good a season. Not unless you were on some sort of hallucinogen at the time. Or enough team-loyalty-coolaid to float away half a continent. If you read my words a bit more carefully you’ll note that I said nobody expected him to have the season that he actually had. You may have had high expectations but there is no way they were THAT high if you had single sane/realistic bone in your body.
Lets face it, in SD he was a good QB. But he was not a great QB. Not yet. He wasn’t a major star, he wasn’t in the debate for best QB in the league. Not even close. Whether you like Sean or not you have to give him credit for turning Drew into a superstar if nothing else.
And VERY few QBs come back from major injuries without a single hiccup. Some don’t have many, but very few have NONE the way Drew did. Which is why I can safely say that no matter how good a season you expected from him, you can’t have expected he would turn an offense that was so pathetic it probably ranked worse than some Pop Warner teams into the #1 offense in the league (by yards at least). And nobody else could have either.
by FriarBob on Jul 31, 2009 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vick at other Positions
Did anyone consider that maybe he could line up possibly as a receiver, return man, and backup. This would allow us to grab Vick, and free up room for another position we are lacking depth at. Either way, I do not see us getting Vick because we lack $$$$$
by Brazil meets LA on Jul 31, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn't think about that
he’d be a good return man maybe. i still don’t want him on our team though lol
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not adamant
about the idea either way. I just know I’d love to see him burn the crap out of Atlanta. If that was as a Saint, it would that much sweeter. Primarily because it’s the Falcons, but also because isn’t us for a change. If he was inactive for every game but those two, I’d be fine with that.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think he'd bring the right attention to us
plus we have a group of good guys except for Shockey and Shockey seemed like a bit of a distraction last year. I see Vick being sort of like that and not meshing well w/ us. i wouldn’t necessarily like to see him burn Atl except for that they’re our rivals. they couldn’t keep vick on the team when he’s going away for almost 2 years and they got a good QB from it to keep.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
and have never thought that Vick flat out sucks as a passer. As a player whose primary receiving threat through the majority of his career has been a TE who’s been a complete non-factor since, he’s done about the best that can be expected of him. Hell, if the Saints ever got to be a run-first team with the success Atlanta has had running the ball since Vick took over, I’d be fine with him as a backup. Whether it’s with his arm or legs, he’s been a nightmare for the Saints to defend over the years. If his lack of intelligence has played a role in that, someone smack him over the head with a bag of bricks and sign him to a contract. For the league minimum, he’s a ridiculous talent that would make any team better on the whole.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually tight end Algae Crumpler was his best/favorite target
Just putting that out there :P
by blueverinefan on Aug 3, 2009 6:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point
I believe that the wildcat formation will be incorporated as another formation. I think people will call for that formation like they would the shotgun, I formation, or a split back set. I don’t think every team ends up doing it, but I think it will be effective for certain teams for the next decade or so
by asaint on Jul 30, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
That’s why I called it a centerpiece. There’s bound to be spinoff variations of it. The wishbone is a prime example of this. While it hasn’t been used at the professional level in years, there’s no doubt in my mind that it could be a successful offense, given the proper personnel to run it. Probably not to the extent it is in college, due to the speed of DEs and OLBs in the pros, but do you really need to rip off 40 yard runs to be successful? As long as you’re averaging 4 yards per play, you’re going to move the ball consistently. A true “gimmick” play is something that has virtually no chance of every down success. The Statue of Liberty is a good example of this. Can it still be an effective play, if used in moderation? Of course. But to stick it in the same category as the run-and-shoot, the wishbone, the Wildcat, etc., is preposterous. There simply aren’t enough variations of the Statue of Liberty to elevated it beyond a “gimmick” play, no matter who you have running it.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially Freeman. Kansas State Wildcat notwithstanding, he’s no Lynn Dickey.
Nothing's worse than ignorance.
by stujo4 on Jul 30, 2009 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lynn Dickey had one monster year in the pros. Pretty run-of-the-mill otherwise. Reminds me of Rich Gannon in a lot of ways.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
rotoworld.com:
NFL insider Adam Schefter said on The Dan Patrick Show Thursday morning that the lack of interest so far in free agent Michael Vick “speaks volumes.”
Schefter says the economy is playing a role, as clubs worry about losing sponsors and season-ticket holders. He also doesn’t foresee Vick landing in Washington. Vick may have to wait for injuries to strike to garner interest.
Nothing's worse than ignorance.
by stujo4 on Jul 30, 2009 11:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Heard that
very show, agreed, Dan Snyder has no shame as well as Al Davis, still think he’ll end up on the West Coast ,Raiders or SF, bay era very forgiving , but also an activist city(cities) so you know Peta will be out in force…I also heard some local (Houston) sports talk on where he would actually fit would be SD and NO b/c of the drop -off at 2nd string QB Rivers to Voleck and Brees to Harrington/Brunell —see what they’re saying but No Thanks…
You think you know, and you don't know, and you never, ever will know..Jim Mora Sr.
by metryman on Jul 30, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, ex-Saints coach Jim Mora referred to Vick as “a coach killer.”
Nothing's worse than ignorance.
by stujo4 on Jul 30, 2009 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There tends to be a slight bias
when the “deceased” is your son.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't make the deceased any less dead
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If dead = coaching a major college program
I’ll try the Kool-Aid.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Mora is coaching the Seahawks. But that’s more along the lines of resurrection: in Atlanta, he died for sure.
R.I.P. Jim Johnson
by MtnExile on Jul 30, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also enjoyed
his greatest success as a head coach under Vick. If 11-5 + 8-8 + 7-9 is indicative of death by QB, then someone should investigate Brees, because Payton is damn near flatlining as we speak.
by coldpizza on Jul 30, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
look this is simple
the answer is YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why?
Not because I care if he plays or not… It is simple that he will cost nothing and we cannot afford to have him play against us. We have seen what he can do and, while he may be a little older or possible out of shape, one does not lose incredible natural ability like that. This is a move to keep him OFF other teams.
by Norml912 on Jul 30, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Really?
…didn’t Michelle Sick have a LOSING RECORD against the Saints? Yeah, we’ve seen what he can do, and the answer is NO NO NO NO!!!
He’s dumb, he doesn’t fit into the offense the Saints use in any way, he will draw an incredible amount of negative press to the team, he will be a divisive presense in the locker room, he is NOT A GOOD QB by any definition I’ve ever seen, WHY would we want him on our team?
Not to mention he is a psychopathic liar.
No, no, no.
I hope every team in the NFL ignores his presence and he just goes away…it won’t happen, but one can hope.
by GSO Saints Fan on Jul 30, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't care if he plays dude
i just don’t want him coming around to bite us later
by Norml912 on Jul 30, 2009 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re-read my post:
He had a LOSING RECORD against the Saints. LOSING record.
He won’t bite ANYONE, other than the “hand that feeds him” (i.e. any team STOOPID enough to actually sign him), because he will cost them more games than he wins them. Oh, and then the whole backlash in the media and with the fans because of who he is as a person.
The guy was exciting to watch, yes, but mainly because you were wondering when the next dumb@$$ decision was coming, and just how bad it would be – more like watching a comedy than football. Sort of like watching AB, but worse…and anyhow, like Dave said, he will never be a Saint, because the team does not need him nor do they want his negative presence in the locker room.
by GSO Saints Fan on Jul 31, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"He had a LOSING RECORD against the Saints. LOSING record."
How is 5-2 a losing record?
2002: 2-0 against the Saints
2004: 1-0 against the Saints
2005: 2-0 against the Saints
2006: 0-2 against the Saints
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing how some people seem to think the Saints were an expansion team in 2006… :)
by FriarBob on Jul 31, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't view Vick
as a negative presence in the locker room and I’ve never heard any of his ex-teammates or coaches badmouth him in such a manner as a person. He didn’t smoke weed in the locker room. He didn’t fight dogs in the locker room. He didn’t contract herpes in the locker room. Ok, maybe he did … I just can’t prove it. At the same time, I would think the media circus surrounding his return would prove a distraction. Whether that outweighs what he brings to the table as a backup QB remains to be seen. As an all-around athlete, there aren’t many players in the league that deserve a roster spot more than Vick. And that goes for the Saints, just as much as any other team. Obviously, athleticism isn’t the only factor to consider, but it should carry its fair share of weight, whenever you’re trying to improve a team.
Beyond that, I think Payton should stop dodging potential problem players as a general rule of thumb to begin with. Did “cancers” Randy Moss + Donte Stallworth deter from a 16-0 season in New England? Of course not. Because the Patriots have a head coach that recognizes team discipline as part of his job. I’m not saying you NEED malcontents to win in the NFL, but flatout disassociating yourself with every single one that rears his ugly head isn’t necessarily the most prudent course of action, either. Not when athletic talent plays such a major factor between winning and losing. At there’s a million different degrees of that. Who would rather have as your QB: arrogant Tom Brady, who impregnates women out of wedlock or Bible thumper Jon Kitna, who probably has straight A student children named Jonas and Abraham? Just saying, you can take character issues too far, just like any other concern about a player.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Payton is not Bellicheck
Bellicheck has always had a very disciplined team. he demands complete controll. He can control a Randy Moss whereas Payton has not developed into that kind of coach. Also, (i know you’re comparing brady to kitna here but it’s sorta like you’re comparing him to Vick as well) Brady impregnating a women before he marries her is a thing that happens very often and is not punishable by law whereas dogfighting is not something you hear alot about and carries a heavy punishment by the law. For me it’s more of the media he’ll bring to the team in a seemingly bad way than whether or not he’ll distract our lockerroom like Moss has done in the past.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't view
Brady as a bad person, either. I’m just saying, depending on where you draw the line on character issues, you could probably raise a red flag on 90% of the players in the league today. Yes, dogfighting is a more serious offense than most and Vick served his time for it. As a player though, Vick has never been a malcontent. The only incident I remember even in that ballpark was his flipping off a fan that was reportedly harrassing him. Jake Plummer’s done that. Mike Ditka’s done that. David Beckham got into it with a fan within the week. Classless yes, but I don’t view that as a distraction. You’re right though, the media circus would be intense. At least, at first.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a player
Vick has never had problems w/ other players but that that was also before he was convicted for dogfighting. now, he could cause a “rift” between players that like him vs those that don’t or something like that. I think it’d be more likely to happen here than somewhere else b/c we have more of a “do-good” (for lack of a word that i can’t think of right now) group of guys than other places in the league. i’d rather not take that chance where I could see Brunell or Harrington being capable backups. Vick would be fun to watch in the return game though and could probably get us a few TDs on kickoff returns. I still like Reggie on punts.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
I could see a potential confrontation with a teammate that owns pit bulls. Even that would depend on the player, though. If it’s someone like Anthony Hargrove, for example, I would think he’d bite his tongue, just hoping to make the team. If it’s someone entrenched on the roster, they still might be willing to give Vick the benefit of the doubt, considering he served his jail time. Basically, I think it would take a bigger a-hole than Vick to confront Vick, assuming everything was all shiny and new otherwise.
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn't call them an a-hole
for having a problem with Vick. maybe they won’t confront him about it but talk to other teammates about it or something. Some people, as we can see from just this site, are forgiving of him while others are going to hold it against him at least for now. everyone has their own opinions. i think the potential of a confrontation or someone letting it effect how they act and play as a team outways the benefits he could bring. At the same time there’s the potential of everyone welcoming him with open arms and him coming in to be a backup and maybe kick returner and a possible “special formation” for him. i’d rather not take the risk though. i think the possible downside for him outweighs what he can bring for us as a team. we’re already the #1 offense in the league.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Aug 1, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"we’re already the #1 offense in the league"
In terms of yardage, yes. In terms of time of possession, no. As a running play, the Wildcat might help in that respect. Which in turn, would help the defense.
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we could use help in TOP
but i think that’s just playcalling in a way. we do alot of passes
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Aug 1, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"i wouldn't call them an a-hole for having a problem with Vick"
I wouldn’t either. I’d call them an a-hole for confronting him, if he hadn’t done anything to provoke it in the interim. That would be like me catching wind of someone with a past drunk driving conviction, walking up to them at work and chastising them for their actions. Even moreso in Vick’s case, being that a drunk driver could conceivably kill a member of my family, raising at least a hint for cause of personal concern. “Listen here, mother effer, you don’t fight defenseless dogs you own” is not even in the same ballpark. If that gets you overly riled up two years after the fact, then the problem doesn’t lie with Vick, it lies with you.
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahhh i see what you're saying now.
sry, misunderstood the first time
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Aug 1, 2009 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just admit that you are a hater.
I understand you have an issue with him but you are letting your emotions over ride your logic. Similar to how people react to politics and/or religion… you are having a visceral reaction to the name alone. If you cannot see the LOGIC behind my decision then it goes to prove my earlier statement.
my decision was the bold statement in earlier post “This is a move to keep him OFF other teams.”
by Norml912 on Jul 31, 2009 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but mainly because you were wondering when the next dumb@$$ decision was coming, and just how bad it would be – more like watching a comedy than football.
he was a three-time pro-bowler it may be you that is “STOOPID”
by Norml912 on Jul 31, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think...
vick would be a good fit into a team with a great set of receivers such as the Patriots. Not saying that he should be starting but if Brady got hurt, who do they have? plus, Bellicheck could probably keep him in line along with Dungy. Vick was never a great passer but he was decent. Along with the ability to run and receivers like Moss, Welker, and Galloway he’d have a chance to actually be good. His problem with the Falcons is that they weren’t that great. They had a decent defense and the offense was all vick. he didn’t have very many options at the WR position. The RB situation was decent but not that great. So, that left Vick to run and either keep running or throw to the dropoff receiver such as the RB. I’d say he was better than Brooks. I don’t like what he has done but he has served his time, hopefully realized where he went wrong, and is doing the right things now to salvage his career. I don’t want him on the Saints though. I’ll give a few reasons why though.
#1. We have 2 servicable backup QBs that could thrive in our pass-first offense.
#2. He will probably bring alot of publicity, in a bad way, to the team.
#3. Our group of guys are good guys, doing alot of things in the community and not getting into trouble(except for shockey i think and i didn’t like that trade from the start). Vick has gone to jail for dogfighting and IDK if our guys would mesh well with that.
#4. We are a superbowl contender and we could use the money(even if it is just a minimum) to help get a defensive prospect or servicable journeyman in the middle of the d-line.
Those are just a few but I could think of more. I don’t think he fits in with the Saints but I do think he will find a team and it doesn’t bother me. BTW, I do love dogs very much and what he did is sick but he has paid for his actions and i think 2 years in prison can change someone alot.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 30, 2009 5:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
patriots would be a good fit for him. A good o-line, some great receivers, help from the running game. It would be the perfect chance for him to prove us all wrong. If he fails to do so then he truly does suck as a QB…
by FriarBob on Jul 30, 2009 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can’t see the above comment in full for some reason but I agree with it totally.
Don't worry I got your back cuz...
by TAYDIGGA on Jul 30, 2009 5:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
skinneykinney you got a good head on your shoulders...
couldn’t agree more.
Don't worry I got your back cuz...
by TAYDIGGA on Jul 30, 2009 5:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
thx tay
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we usually see eye to eye on things
especially with reggie :D
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see it all
and I’m with Tay I agree with it all.
by asaint on Jul 30, 2009 6:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah once i posted i was able to see the edges of the sentences and i still agree
Don't worry I got your back cuz...
by TAYDIGGA on Jul 30, 2009 6:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts
I’m coming late to the party but have a few comments about somethings already said:
- To address the main question, I don’t think Vick is a good fit for the Saints. Putting aside all thoughts about the evolution of the NFL QB position and his part in it (more on that later) it seems to me that Payton’s offense is built around accuracy, something Vick is known for – known for having none of it, that is.
- I’m with ME on the future of the wildcat offense as a base offense. I don’t see it happening for some of the same reasons that the option doens’t fly. Even if there were enough gifted atheletes, you’re not paying your QB 9 digits to get pounded 20 times a game as a matter of course.
- On Brooks, I stood behind him for a long time, but he lost me because he DID NOT develop. What do Vick, Brooks and even my beloved Vince Young (although I wouldn’t give up on him just yet – hook ‘em) have in common apart from their physical skills? They enjoyed success early on – and then DCs adjusted. Brooks could not adjust to those adjustments, neither could Vick and Young has not to this point. That’s why Vick and Brooks seemed to get worse every year.
- Talent around a QB obviously has a huge impact. Vick had us all thinking falcons WRs sucked, but last season showed us that they could play. Vick just couldn’t hit water if he fell out a boat.
by SaintBevo on Jul 30, 2009 10:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“Talent around a QB obviously has a huge impact. Vick had us all thinking falcons WRs sucked, but last season showed us that they could play. Vick just couldn’t hit water if he fell out a boat.”
53.8 is not a horrible career completion percentage. It’s certainly not elite, but it’s far from terrible. Especially for a QB that brings as much to the table in other areas as Vick does. Terry Bradshaw had a 51.9 career percentage and is in the HOF. Did defensive coordinators ever have to focus their entire game plan on containing Bradshaw? I find it funny how the same people who make “decoy” excuses for Reggie Bush … i.e., recognize all the peripheral advantages his versatility lends as a RB … completely write off Vick as a QB, when he’s proven to be just as much of a game-changing presence as Bush, if not moreso.
As far as the WRs Vick had to work with are concerned, who has stepped up in his absence? Roddy White’s come into his own the last couple of years, but he actually had a higher yards/reception average with Vick throwing to him. Very few QBs call their own plays, so I’m not about to pin his prior lack of utilization on Vick. Hell, even if you could, what’s happened to Atlanta’s tight end production the last two seasons? What has Alge Crumpler done in Tennessee? Different styles of play bring about different results and (at least so far), Vick’s was more successful in the grand scheme of things for the Dirty Birds. That’s not saying he was a better pure passer than Matt Ryan is. I’m just saying he was a lot better overall QB than most of you are making him out to be.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why did I know you would argue with me?
Honestly? You’re defending Vick’s accuracy? Bradshaw is not in the HOF because of his completion %, or his stats in general (which aren’t really that wonderful), he’s there because he won 4 rings and won a crap load of games.
Vick’s career comp % is 53.8. Yes it is higher than Bradshaw’s. Know whose it isn’t higher than?
Joey Harrington, David Carr, Damon Huard, Alex Smith, Todd Collins, Dan Orlovsky and Rex Grossman to name a few…
by SaintBevo on Jul 31, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of which
I would mind having on the roster as a backup QB. Even moreso, if they had Vick’s skill set and could be utilized in other facets of the game. And I’m not defending his accuracy, I’m just not labeling it as anything atrocious. “Couldn’t hit water if he fell out a boat”. How long did it take you to come up with that zinger? Or did you borrow it from John Facenda, when he was narrating Bradshaw’s career highlight video? See Norml912’s post above concerning visceral reactions based on Vick’s name alone. It evidently applies to you, as well.
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're also talking about a guy
who is constantly outside of the pocket. Fran Tarkenton’s career passing percentage wasn’t a whole lot better than Vick’s and he wasn’t anywhere near as the threat that Vick has been to take it the distance (on the ground) on any given play. On the move, it only stands to reason that your accuracy as a passer is going to suffer. You’re narrowing your field of vision the entire time, assuming you’re even looking to put the ball in the air at all. As a QB, Vick has always gravitated towards the RB (Dunn) and the TE (Crumpler). Not as much by choice, but by design of the play. If he was a QB in a different style of offense, he would play the game differently. He probably wouldn’t be as effective in it, being that Atlanta’s was always catered to his strengths of elusiveness and improvisation. Again, knocking Vick for that is like saying Reggie Bush is not a good RB, because he hasn’t been successful at running between the tackles. Not successful compared to WHO? How many RBs are there that do ALL the other things Reggie does so well? It’s the same thing with Vick. Who are you comparing him to? And more importantly, why?
by coldpizza on Jul 31, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Saints are a team
that cut two players the very day after they were arrested for public urination and released a perfectly good long snapper because he pissed off half of his teammates.
Bringing in Michael Vick and the circus that will inevitably ensue would fly in the face of everything Payton and the organization has done to fill the locker room will quality characters and little distractions.
Don’t see it happening.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Jul 31, 2009 12:51 AM CDT reply actions 5 recs
The Voice of Reason- it's why he's a sought-after radio guest
boom rec’d it
Nothing's worse than ignorance.
by stujo4 on Jul 31, 2009 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
It’s not that Vick won’t work somewhere, just not here. From the looks of things so far, he probably won’t fit anywhere until there’s an immediate need for him(injury combined with weak backups). I stand by the assertion that that’s not the situation in NO, or at least that’s not how Payton and Loomis see it. Weak backups, I mean, not injury. Obviously, Brees isn’t injured…Okay, I’m done.
by FuSoYa on Jul 31, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
rec'd it
i don’t see him here but he could fit in alot of other places.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 10:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
UFL willing to pay Vick $1.5M to $2M for 6 games
He’s a fool to turn that down. Let’s see just how dumb he is.
Nothing's worse than ignorance.
by stujo4 on Jul 31, 2009 11:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yup...
if he can get out and play with NFL after that, i’d take it.
Don't worry I got your back cuz...
by TAYDIGGA on Jul 31, 2009 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the comaparisions between Brooks and Vick are unfair as they are 2 different types of QBs. The 1st point I want to make is that Brooks(from what i saw from him) was an inconsistent player whereas Vick was more consistent. Yes, Vick was more of a “run first” type of QB but having an O-line that seemed to be crumbling around you doesn’t help. The Saints line was pretty decent and usually gave Brooks time. Brooks had his moments but inconsistency(sp?) is not what i would like. I would back Brooks up at any argument when he played for us but i can’t now that he’s gone. The last i heard, no team would take Brooks, even as a backup. A few teams are considering Vick as a starter. Joe Horn was a good WR whereas idk any of the receivers that Vick had. I know of Roddy White now but it’s just 1 year. Bush enjoyed success for 1 year and now everyone is saying he is a bust and not a good RB. Also, Atl was more of a run-first team whereas we were more balanced, imo. I don’t think making a comparision between Brooks and Vick has much to do with the argument of bringing Vick here or not. they just seem to different to me. maybe i’m biased b/c i didn’t think that Brooks was a good QB whereas I think Vick was pretty good.
An idea that could work for Vick would be like the wildcat but w/ 2 QBs. Take the Dolphins for example. Have Vick out with Pennington. Pennington takes the snaps and can handoff to Vick who can either run or stop and pass or keep running then pass. You could handoff to Vick have him go a bit and pass it back to Pennington who can make a pass from there while Vick breaks into a route from there. It’s something you can’t do with a RB b/c they don’t have the accuracy of an NFL-calliber QB. The RB would just as easily throw it over his head whereas Vick could make a good enough throw 99% of the time to catch the ball. I think it’d give someone alot more options in the Wildcat formation. also, you can switch it up with 2 RBs or 1 RB and 1 QB or have 2 QBs. that’s just an idea though.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Jul 31, 2009 11:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking
of a four WR set and I’ll use the Saints as an example. Colston and Meachem on the outside, Bush and Vick inside, no TE,. Thomas the lone back. Brees fakes the handoff to Thomas as Vick and Brees both circle back in opposite directions. Meanwhile, Thomas has slipped off into the flat, while Colston and Meachem are taking CBs out of the play. Suddenly, Brees has a ton of options. Hand off to Reggie or Vick and there’s no outside containment. If Vick, he could still pass, be it to Thomas, Colston or Meachem. Brees could also opt to keep it himself and throw downfield, including to either Bush or Vick swinging back around. You could also have Brees roll out with Thomas as the trailer, like a wishbone attack, before shuffle pitching it to one of the other two inside. Remove one … insert a TE … the possibilities are endless. If anyone has the imagination to expand on the Wildcat, Payton’s the guy. And as long as the regular passing game is still being utilized regularly, that would only make trickery that much more effective. I personally think Sean would have a field day with it. And with better success in time of posession than they currently have, because they’d inevitably be running the ball more often.
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i see what you're saying
i think it’d be more of a special formation play. sort of like just coming out with a trick play every now and then. sometimes have vick and reggie come back for a possible handoff, sometimes just have 1 come back, sometimes handoff to PT and sometimes just have everyone run a route. there’s alot you could do with it but I don’t think it could be an every play formation. it’s sort of like sending Bush to line up as the #3 receiver after you line up. it can be used maybe once to up to 3 times max in a game. There’re alot of things you can do with an athlete like Vick b/c he is a good overall athlete. he excells at running is good throwing and i think he was a WR in high school some. He can do more things than Reggie b/c he can throw it well. There’s alot he can do.
Superbowl bound!!!...I hope? Go Saints! :D
by skinnykinney on Aug 1, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
and I think you can’t have enough all-around great athletes on your team, off the field troubles nonwithstanding. If those troubles bleed over, that’s when it becomes a problem. That’s why you bring Vick in and evaluate the situation. Have candid discussions with players already on the roster. “Do you own dogs?” “What do you think about what happened with Vick?” “Could you co-exist peacefully with him?” I’m sure that’s the same type thing any team that is seriously considering bringing him in will do at some point. I mean, the decision will ultimately be made by a head coach or GM, but that doesn’t mean teammates won’t be solicited for their feedback in order to reach that verdict. Sucks to say it, but he’ll be re-tried for his actions, until he’s given the opportunity to prove that it isn’t (and shouldn’t be) an issue.
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"as Vick and Bush both circle back in opposite directions"
correction
by coldpizza on Aug 1, 2009 12:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Besides
flicking off his own fans in Atlanta and going through his progressions worse than Harrington, Vick is an outstanding QB. Don’t touch the guy. Lance Moore can’t even make him look good.
by ReggieVilma on Aug 2, 2009 9:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that
being that Moore is a WR.
by coldpizza on Aug 2, 2009 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
