DazedandConfused Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The Vince Young story is a typical one in the NFL. He hit the league with a fairly unique collection of talents as a young player and actually did play well enough and did enough outstanding things that he made a Pro Bowl. However, he clearly drew a lot of attention from opposing coaches and in fact was such a good athlete that not team could simply assign one player to him and be sure to neutralize him. Thus opponents adopted schemes and approaches which made it hard for him to do the things he did well and forced him to do things he did less well if he wanted to beat them. Young did not prove capable of making adjustments to his game to allow him to perform like he had early on and his personality and mental make-up was such he did not deal well with failure. Will Young make a comeback. Probably not. However, the irony is that the basic elements of getting better which is to sit so he can watch and getting older so he deals more as an adult are what he has been forced to do. So the bottomline is we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Young will probably sit out at least one more year, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Good post. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with far too much. Given all that, what is your prognosis for Tim Tebow, when he gets to the NFL? I dont see Tebow getting much of a shot at playign QB. I think he is a more accurate passer than Young was in college. I think he could also read defenses because he seems like a smart guy. But if you really think about it, how many good to great pocket passers are there in the NFL right now? Brady, Manning, Rothleisberger, Warner, Rivers, Farve, Brees, Romo, Eli Manning, Pennington, Cutler... I named 11 guys, about one third of the league, and you could argue that some of them arent soo good, or more scramblers that actually passers (Romo, Rothlesburger). I also doubt that Eli, Rothlesberger, Pennington, and maybe some others would be nearly as good without the talent around them. I feel that NFL defenses have gotten so good, that their just aren't enough good QBs to go around. The Bills have been looking for what, 10-11 years to find a capable QB? I predict that teams will begin to develope offenses that are less reliant on QBs being pure passers, out of pure nessecity. Maybe thw wildcat is the beginning of that transition. In that case, Tebow and Young could be very very succesful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The Vince Young story is a typical one in the NFL. He hit the league with a fairly unique collection of talents as a young player and actually did play well enough and did enough outstanding things that he made a Pro Bowl. However, he clearly drew a lot of attention from opposing coaches and in fact was such a good athlete that not team could simply assign one player to him and be sure to neutralize him. Thus opponents adopted schemes and approaches which made it hard for him to do the things he did well and forced him to do things he did less well if he wanted to beat them. Young did not prove capable of making adjustments to his game to allow him to perform like he had early on and his personality and mental make-up was such he did not deal well with failure. Will Young make a comeback. Probably not. However, the irony is that the basic elements of getting better which is to sit so he can watch and getting older so he deals more as an adult are what he has been forced to do. So the bottomline is we will see. How can you possibly say this? He took his team to the playoff in 2007 and then played 2 games in 2008 before his injury. The other teams figured out to stop him in the off season and stopped him for 1 1/2 games and now he will be stopped forever? I'd take Vince because he changes the way defenses have to play. They have to put more empahasis on him because he's a decent passer, not great, but good. He's also a great runner who can hurt you bad running the ball. So they gotta watch that too. That opens up other things. And, he wins. Stats schmatz. He's played on good teams, but, he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 How can you possibly say this? He took his team to the playoff in 2007 and then played 2 games in 2008 before his injury. The other teams figured out to stop him in the off season and stopped him for 1 1/2 games and now he will be stopped forever? I'd take Vince because he changes the way defenses have to play. They have to put more empahasis on him because he's a decent passer, not great, but good. He's also a great runner who can hurt you bad running the ball. So they gotta watch that too. That opens up other things. And, he wins. Stats schmatz. He's played on good teams, but, he wins. Young tossed 9 TDs compared to 17 INTs. That isn't "leading" your team to the playoffs. That's called "my defense is good enough to overcome all of my gaffes and get us to the playoffs despite my horrific QB play." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 How can you possibly say this? He took his team to the playoff in 2007 and then played 2 games in 2008 before his injury. The other teams figured out to stop him in the off season and stopped him for 1 1/2 games and now he will be stopped forever? I'd take Vince because he changes the way defenses have to play. They have to put more empahasis on him because he's a decent passer, not great, but good. He's also a great runner who can hurt you bad running the ball. So they gotta watch that too. That opens up other things. And, he wins. Stats schmatz. He's played on good teams, but, he wins. Ok here's the analogy I like to use. Let's say their is a goaltender in hockey (I'm using a goalie, because they get creditied with wins and losses too). He puts up horrible stats...let's say 3.25 GAA and .890 save percentage. Despite this, his team scores a sh*t ton of goals and he finishes the season with 35-40 wins. Would you say "He didn't put up impressive numbers, but what can you say? He just wins games."? Of course not, you'd say that his team wins games despite him. Why is it different with a quarterback? Why does a quarterback always receive dap when his team wins, despite his shotty play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Ok here's the analogy I like to use. Let's say their is a goaltender in hockey (I'm using a goalie, because they get creditied with wins and losses too). He puts up horrible stats...let's say 3.25 GAA and .890 save percentage. Despite this, his team scores a sh*t ton of goals and he finishes the season with 35-40 wins. Would you say "He didn't put up impressive numbers, but what can you say? He just wins games."? Of course not, you'd say that his team wins games despite him. Why is it different with a quarterback? Why does a quarterback always receive dap when his team wins, despite his shotty play? Don't do hockey so I can't comment on that part. But, to make a statement such as "you'd say that his team wins games despite him" you'd have to do more research than looking up his stats. Someone else mentioned that he's won 7 or 8 games on comebacks in 4th Q. That's not a team winning despite him. I'm not saying this the case, but should be considered along with stats. I don't follow the Titans that close, but do remember one comeback in particular in a northeastern city that had a lot to do with him. In his last game with the Titans in week 17 he was 9 for 13 for 55 yards. 0 TDs 0 Picks. Bottom line: the jury is still way out on this guy. He's not a bust. At least not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts