| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=104255 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Cunningham obviously had the better total career. My question is who was better at their absolute apex. My answer is Vick. My friends disagree. Secondary question: was Cunningham a better player in 1998 or 1990? I say 1998. My friends also disagree with this. They are older than me so im tempted to defer but I still don't believe them. Lots of old farts on this board. Help a brother out. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Racist thread. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Your friends are completely right |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Cunningham. It's not really close. 1998 was Cunningham's best passing year but he was more dangerous in the late '80s. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
At their apex it was clearly Vick. Dude was absolutely amazing. As far as Cunningham goes, I would say it depends on what you are looking for. In 90 he was an athletic freak and could beat you with his legs. In 98 he was a better passer and knew how to play the game better. So I would say it is probably a toss up, but if I had to pick one to be my QB it would be 98 |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Nas wrote: Your friends are completely right I don't trust you. You're like two years older than me or something close. Ken is old enough to trust but I have to disagree with the "not close" assessment. 2002 Vick was unfuckingreal. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Cunningham. It's not really close. Correct. That said, I don't have a dog in this fight. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Shot in the dark, but what about Steve McNair? He was a blast to watch. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Don Tiny wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Cunningham. It's not really close. Correct. That said, I don't have a dog in this fight. Your bark is bigger than your bite. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. You have to admit McNair had a gun, though. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. Vick had one of the strongest arms you'll ever see. His problem was he never developed any accuracy. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
leashyourkids 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. You have to admit McNair had a gun, though. It could get him killed. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Nas 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. Vick had one of the strongest arms you'll ever see. His problem was he never developed any accuracy. I agree. He was probably more effective as a QB with the Eagles. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. So were dozens of guys. We are talking about two unique guys who can really only be compared against eachother. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
as far as accuracy goes they are both 56% completion % over their career |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
FavreFan 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. So were dozens of guys. We are talking about two unique guys who can really only be compared against eachother. Why? Steve Young was the same type of QB. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. At that point I'm not even sure Vick knew where he was at. His brain is chewed up. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
RFDC wrote: as far as accuracy goes they are both 56% completion % over their career 56% in the 80's and 90's is far more impressive than 56% today |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Cunningham. It's not really close. 1998 was Cunningham's best passing year but he was more dangerous in the late '80s. As usual Dr. Ken is right. Cunningham in the 80s killed teams. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: FavreFan 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. So were dozens of guys. We are talking about two unique guys who can really only be compared against eachother. Why? Steve Young was the same type of QB. No he wasn't. Steve Young could run the ball. He wasn't in the same class as Vick and Cunningham though. He was 10x closer to Rodgers than those guys. |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
leashyourkids wrote: Don Tiny wrote: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Cunningham. It's not really close. Correct. That said, I don't have a dog in this fight. Your bark is bigger than your bite. So, not stepping on established posters' comedy bits didn't make the cut on the ol' New Year's Resolution list then? |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
McNair was FAR SUPERIOR when operating out of the shotgun. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Randall Cunningham vs Michael Vick |
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 |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|