Vote for The Greatest Falcon QB of All Time

IF ANYONE VOTES FOR VICK

Ill come over from the UK and beat your sorry *ss, then show you old school vids and teach you the ways of Bartkowski!

go hard or go home

by TO falcon on Jun 17, 2009 8:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 17, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I concur

let me know if you need help.

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 17, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is no "ctrl" button on Bartkowski's computer ...

He is always in control.

Reporter: How will you address all of the dropped passes?

Mike Smith: I don’t think that we were as sharp as we have been catching the football. It’s something that is very fixable. It’s VERY fixable.

by FrankyWren on Jun 17, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like

You’re going to be busy. 42 and counting…

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The lack of anybody named "Billy Joe" makes this a waste of time.

TOLLIVER 4EVA!

Martians Attacking Indianapolis

by joshmassey on Jun 17, 2009 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't really matter

Because Bartkowski’s going to win going away, but you really should put up the stats only for their time in ATL. It makes a difference, because Chandler was pretty great the years he was here, but not so hot the rest of his career. Actually, it’s because for these other guys, we drafted them and got the first few years when they were stinking up the place figuring out the pro game. We only had Chandler when he was already at his peak.

The numbers for kciV (6 years) are obviously the same.

Bartkowski’s (11 years) are essentially the same – he played 6 games with the LA Rams his final year.

Miller (ATL only – 7 years): 87 TD – 72 INT – 14,066 Yards – 74.7 QB Rating

Chander (ATL only – 5 years): 87 TD – 56 INT – 13,268 Yards – 87.4 QB Rating – one trip to the Super Bowl.

Of course, after all this I still voted Bartkowski…

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 10:20 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Chandler

I was about to post his Falcons numbers but I was you beat me to the punch! My vote went to Chandler as it was based on performance & success as opposed to sentimentality.

In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face.

by runningback on Jun 17, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a sad list

can I just vote for Bobby Hebert….the most exciting back up QB since Matt Schaub

by Cmart34 on Jun 17, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can do this for myself

But could you limit their numbers to only what they did with the Falcons and add in the number of years they played for the Falcons. Like I said, I could easily do this for myself, but it might help having it listed up top for a lot of the casual readers/fans to get a better perspective of what each player did while wearing a Falcon jersey.

Amazing all the people complaining about Vick’s passer rating huh?

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 17, 2009 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Posted oran3b's ATL Only QB stats

You have opinions. Share them.

by tlozwarlock on Jun 17, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll tell you why

People compain about kciV’s Passer Rating. Sure, they look ok next to Bartkowski and Chandler’s career numbers, but they don’t look good next to the league leaders in his era.

For a comparison, I took each guy’s best season: Chandler’s 1998, Bartkowski’s 1980 (you could also do 1983), and kciV’s 2002 (you could argue 2004).

First Chandler’s 1998:
3,154 Yds – 25 TD – 12 INT – 100.9 Passer Rating
He was not in the top 10 in Yards (Brett Favre 4,212; six with 3,600+).
He was #6 in TD’s (Steve Young 36; six with 25+)
He was #4 in QB Rating (Randall Cunningham 106.0; eight with 88+)

Now Bartkowski’s 1980:
3,829 Yds – 30 TD – 23 INT – 88.2 Passer Rating
He was #5 in Yards (Dan Fouts 4,715; three with 3,600+)
He was #1 in TD’s (six with 25+)
He was #4 in QB Rating (Brian Sipe 91.4; four with 88+)
By the way, in 1983 he was #10 in Yards, #9 in TD’s and #1 in QB Rating.

Now kciV’s 2002:
2,936 Yds – 16 TD – 8 INT – 81.6 Passer Rating
(Rich Gannon 4,689 Yds; eight with 3,600+)
(Tom Brady 28 TD’s; six with 25+)
(Chad Pennington 104.2 QB Rating; five with 88+)
kciV was not in the top 10 in any category. And if you prefer his 2004 season… still not in the top 10 in any category.

It is a passing league, now more than ever, and he is not a good passing QB.

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Ok

But that’s completely ignoring everything else he provided as offense for this team. If you look at Vick and expect an awesome passing QB then you* are the one in the wrong, not the other way around. Vick never was nor ever will be a passing QB. That’s like looking at Peyton’s rushing number’s and complaining that the guy isn’t mobile. You’re asking him to be something he is not.

I look at the whole picture and I can’t complain about his QB rating considering all that he provided in other areas. It’s always been my stance that he was used wrong to begin with, that he was constantly the square peg being forced into a round hole of an offensive system by Mora. He could have easily been utilized much more efficiently by limiting not only the amount of passing he had to do, but also the types of passes he had to make.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 18, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Asking him to be something he's not?

Like a starting quality professional quarterback…

Limit the amount of passing he had to do? That’s what a QB is supposed to do… by the way, he only threw more than 400 passes in one season! If he was used wrong, it was because he should’ve been moved to running back (I’m only half joking), not that they should’ve brought back a stone-age offense like the single-wing…

I’m linking to some of the best rushing QB’s for comparison (pay special attention to the Completion%, QB Rating, and Yards per Pass Attempt):
Here’s kciV
Donovan McNabb – He doesn’t run as much or as well as he used to (since he tore his ACL), but he’s also greatly improved as a passer. Still, he has a career Y/A below 7.0, like kciV.
Steve McNair – He really tailed off badly at the end of his career because of all the injuries.
Steve Young – This isn’t really fair, becuase he was also one of the best passers in history.
Fran Tarkenton – Just for fun. It’s pretty hard to compare players from such different eras, but he also had a very poor Completion%.
Randall Cunningham – He is probably the closest comparison in my mind. He had pretty bad passing numbers in Philadelphia (I’d count only 3 of his 11 years there as having good passing numbers), and high sack numbers, too – but we all remember those crazy highlights. The good news, though (if you’re a kciV fan) is that he was great as a passer in 1998 in Minnesota (with 2 HOF worthy WR’s in Carter and Moss). So maybe after a year in the UFL, Warner will retire, Leinart will wash out, and he can sign with Arizona…

One thing I will say in kciV’s defense (sort of) is that I noticed Cunningham, McNair, and McNabb never really had a breakthrough passing season until their 6th year. kciV had decent-to-good passing years in 2002 and 2004 (his 2nd and 4th years), but never could sustain that level of success (or improve on it). Maybe another improvement was coming in his 7th year. Maybe everybody just expected too much from him too early. Of course, that’s what happens when you’re the #1 Draft Pick, people are calling you the greatest rushing QB ever after just a few years in the league, and you sign a 10 year $130 Million contract extension…

by orang3b on Jun 18, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at those passer ratings...

This speaks to how woeful our history of QBs have been.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave the Falconer on Jun 17, 2009 12:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ahhhhh

the heartache of being a falcons fan and the more reason to love matt

by gritzblitz on Jun 17, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Life is a garden. Dig it!

by Hardcore Falcon on Jun 17, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My vote and why

I went with Chandler on this one and I’m actually surprised to see him so far behind already. One of the reasons I asked to have the number of years each played as a Falcon listed was because I was afraid people would simply look at Bartkowski’s large numbers and assume that it means he must be the best of all time for the Birds. Without being able to have actually watched him play, I won’t say that that might not still be true, but I would argue that Chandler has a very very strong case.

I voted for Chandler. Heck, I might have voted for him regardless of my research just because the 98 season took place in a very huge life changing year for me. I did some dummy projections (I just took their numbers, divided by the umber of years played, and multiplied by eleven) for the three QB’s not named Bartkowski and found that Chandler surpassed him in every major statistical category. So, Chandler did much more in much less time and he took us to our only Superbowl appearance.

So, that’s my pick and why. I almost picked Vick just because, but that 98 season means more to me than picking Vick just because I can.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 17, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But

Like I said above – we drafted all those other QB’s, so we got their first few crappy years – we only got Chandler’s best years. Bartkowski was pretty awful his first 4-5 years (he never even completed 50% of his passes until his 4th year), but look at his peak:

Bartkowski (1980-1984, 5 yrs): 102 TD – 65 INT – 14,603 Yards – I’m not going to try to fugure out the total QB Rating, but each year was 88.2, 79.2, 77.9, 97.6, and 89.7 – not too shabby! Now put those #‘s up against Chandler’s ATL only #’s and see who you like…

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

um

Fug you’re?
Figure

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I stated in an earlier, separate post

In my opinion, you really could go either way on this and not really be wrong nor right in your choice. Part of condsidering things like this is taking into account every season played by them. You can’t throw out bad years just because they were bad. Those bad years are an equal part to what the player accomplished while playing for the Falcons just as much as the good years.

And obviously, like ESPN loves to do, you can take isolated groupings of stats and sort them in a way that best suits your point. Here, let me try. Let’s look at Bartkowski’s first five years as a Falcon compared to Chandler’s first five years as a Falcon. By that, Chandler is clearly the better of the two, no? See what I did there?

Plus, I think the goal is to fill a 53-man roster, so you get both of them in there anyways.

"If Woody were Captain of the Titanic, he'd argue the boat sinking speaks to how effectively they put rich people in life boats and lock the poor folks below."
-jrauch commenting at Hoopinion on Woody's (non)logic in his post-game comments

by Jesse28 on Jun 18, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

My point is just that if we’re only looking at Chandler’s best 5 years (which happened to be on the Falcons), we should at least take a look at Bartkowski’s best years. Or if we’re taking into consideration Barkowski’s entire career, maybe we should compare that to Chandler’s entire career. I, for one, think Bartkowski was better at compiling stats (if we’re just talking Falcon years – obviously); but he also had a higher peak in his best 5 years…

Sorry for the “campaining”, I just think it would be a mistake to have anyone other than Bart… I’ll stop now. Promise.

by orang3b on Jun 18, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love Bart....

But it sure is hard to argue with the numbers Chandler put up…

"If I disagree with you, it's because you are wrong..."

by Tybeaux on Jun 17, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's difficult

But I’m going to once again incriminate the history of Falcon QBs by noting that Bart also had a very good peak and played a very long time in Atlanta compared to most other QBs in the franchise’s history, which alone makes him my choice.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave the Falconer on Jun 17, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

This seems like such a no-brainer to me… Bartkowski holds the franchise records in just about anything related to passing – he played here 11 years – AND his peak years surpassed what Chandler did in his 5 years here… the only thing Chandler’s got on him is the Super Bowl appearance.

by orang3b on Jun 17, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about win-lose records?

might help decide

by gritzblitz on Jun 17, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it might be helpful info for many

Personally, I can’t bring myself to bring those numbers into the equation as anything more than the last piece of a puzzle. There have been some truly great quarterbacks on truly lousy teams.

Sign up for a free account today to join the discussion about all things Atlanta Falcons!

by Dave the Falconer on Jun 17, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs