Stand by for a long winded post about a highly controversial figure. Note, this piece, unlike most things about this athlete, it will actually be about athletic performance! Novel idea, right?

A year ago, a serious question had arisen among fans of the NFL pertaining to the league’s most exciting player. Was Michael Vick overrated?

There was heavy statistical evidence to suggest that he was at best league average. Football Outsiders had him as the worst passing starting quarterback in the NFL. Even with his gifted running ability, the perceived value of Vick seemed to far exceed his on the field value.

(Note: The question of whether he was overpaid is another debate entirely; as for better or worse, Vick brought in more cash for the Falcons than he’ll ever see in his lifetime.)

Therefore, there was a legitimate belief the Falcons might be better off having lost Vick after his dog fighting escapades punched him a ticket to Federal Prison. Zach certainly believed the Falcons would miss Vick less, even with Joey Harrington at quarterback, than say, the Titans would miss Pac-Man Jones this season.

Six weeks in, the Falcons have one win, Harrington is on the bench, the team is moaning and the franchise looks lost. Actually lost might be an understatement; they’re hovering in the nether regions of the South Pacific in between Australia and South America. In other words, don’t look for them any time soon.

Prior to this debacle, I was among those who felt Michael Vick was one of the most overrated athletes in pro sports. His perceived value was actually his entertainment value; fans loved his highlight reel plays so much they overlooked his severe short comings.

But with the way this Falcons team has fallen apart with largely the same core of last year, when they were 7-9, I have been forced to wonder: did we all miss something with Vick? Was he more valuable than we give him credit for? David frequently brings up the idea “just because we don’t have a measure for it, does not mean it is not there” when we discuss pitchers like Barry Zito and Mark Buerhle. Sometimes the word anomaly comes up with Zito or Ichiro Suzuki, as in players who for whatever don’t have stats that match their overall production and value to their team.

So is it possible that Michael Vick was so different; and his skill set is about as different as anyone to ever play the quarterback position in the NFL, that maybe we did miss something?

Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to invent stats. Therefore, we have to go off what we have. It’s not perfect, but perhaps by looking at overall picture, we can find something that Vick would have influenced overall that we can’t see normally.

To begin we have to establish the basis, that the something wrong with the Falcons is their offense. So let’s take a look at FO’s DVOA stats, opponent adjusted:

2007 DVOA- Total: -17.1% (25th), Off: -7.6%(24th), Def: 6.3% (21st)

2006 DVOA- Total: -8.2% (17th), Off: -1.6% (18th), Def: 8.2% (24th)

This tells us what many of us suspected; the Falcons offense has taken a hit with Vick out. The defense is actually slightly better this year thus far but the difference is negligible. So it’s the offense we have to look in more detail with.

2007 Passing DVOA: -5.8% (24th), Rushing: -12.1% (19th)

2006 Passing DVOA: -17.8% (28th), Rushing 9.4% (5th)

The numbers start to get interesting here. The Falcons pass the ball better than they did last year, though they only get a small jump in the overall rankings of the NFL. This could be because passing definitely seems to be more effective this year than in year’s past. Last year Green Bay posted the same DVOA and it was 21st. So that passing number maybe a bit misleading, though it’s still clear the dirty birds pass better than they did last year.

They also run far less effectively, to no one’s surprise. Likewise rushing is down this year across the league- that -12.1% would have been good for 28th last season. So the drop off there isn’t as steep either, though we can certainly say the Falcons have gone from a dominating rushing team to a below average one at best.

So one might be content to stop here. The conclusion could be “Joey Harrington’s arm is not enough to make up for losing Michael Vick’s legs.” But we won’t stop. Let’s take a look at the QBs:

Harrington 2007- DVOA: 14.2%, DPAR: 18.5

Vick 2006- DVOA : -16.6%, DPAR: -6.3

When it comes to passing; there is no comparison- Harrington has been good according to DVOA and DPAR, 15th and 13th respectively, thus making him average, if not slightly above average. Vick last year was awful passing. There were quarterbacks worse, but none that actually kept their starting job the entire season.

The funny thing is, Harrington is actually league average, yet the Falcons passing unit is well below average. It was well below average last year too, but Vick’s throwing ability could be blamed. So what gives?

We’ll come back to that in a moment. Let’s look at the obligatory running factor:
Harrington 2007- No stats

Vick 2006: DPAR: 32.1, DVOA: 27.6%

Harrington doesn’t run, period. He’s a pocket passer through and through. Meanwhile, it should come as a shock to no one that no quarterback ran better than Vick did. Some had better DVOAs, but those that did had no more than 24 carries compared to Vick’s 119 rushes, for over 1038 yards.

This is one area that might suggest we did miss something on Vick. Vince Young, who made highlight films with his legs rather than his arm in 2006, had a DVOA of .1% on his 74 carries for 552 yards. In other words, Young couldn’t dream of being as effective a rusher as Vick is from the QB position and it’s generally accepted that Young’s play last year was huge for turning the Titans around. Young was a better passer than Vick last year with a 7.7 DPAR and a -8.8% DVOA, but he wasn’t exactly a great passer either. It’s probably safe to assume that one would rather have had Vick’s legs than Young’s arm.

The next QBs on the list with 40 rushes were David Carr and Charlie Frye, both of whom had negative DVOA’s rushing. David Garrard is the only interesting one on here as his 37 carries led him to an 18.8% DVOA. Still, even if he maintained through a full year, he’d still not be as effective on the ground as Vick was.

All of this goes to show that Vick excelled at a runner. To the degree that Peyton Manning was a better quarterback than everyone else in 2006 according to DVOA, Vick was that much better than any other quarterback running the ball. Are we assigning that enough value? Well, we can’t be sure, so let’s continue on.

Moving back to Vick vs. Harrington. If the latter really hasn’t been so bad passing, then is something else the problem? One thought could be the offensive line.

2007: Adjusted Line Yards: 3.66(27), 10+ Yards: 20%(9), Adjusted Sack rate: 10.4%(28)

2006: Adjusted Line Yards: 4.30 (13), 10+ Yards: 23%(4), Adjusted Sack rate: 9.3% (31)

FO explains that a team with a low adjusted line yards but high 10+ yards indicates that a team is heavily reliant on the back. If the situation is flipped, then the O-line is responsible for yardage.

So what do these numbers tell us? The Falcons seem to be similar in the latter two categories. They are slightly better pass blocking than last year but still are awful. (Though it is a bad sign when a pocket QB gets sacked more than a running one) The Falcons rely on their running backs to get big yards more than their line. But what happened to the run blocking?

One might say that indicates a problem with the line. But FO also admits that it is impossible to separate a line and a running back. Combine this stat with Vick’s ridiculous running abilities as a QB, and I have to think that Vick was perhaps the most important part of the Falcons running attack. We can speculate the reasoning all we want, but the line went from slightly above average to well below average in run blocking and the major change was the loss of a 1000 yard rusher. He wasn’t a running back, but it doesn’t matter.

So it’s clear losing Vick hurt the running game far more than it helped the passing game. How does that correlate?

Well the first instinct is to suggest time of possession. If the Falcons lost TOP, then their bad defense would be on the field longer. What do the stats say?

2007 TOP: 28.47 (21)

2006 TOP: 30.01 (12)

Survey says, the Falcons have definitely lost in time of possession. However is two minutes and dropping 9 spots the reason this team is awful? In some respects, it makes some sense. Any drop in TOP is going to put that below average defense on the fielder longer than anyone wants it to be. So even though the unit is playing slightly better than last season, the TOP negates that entirely.

Still, can that be the difference between last year’s 7-9 and this year which is heading to a 4-12 debacle? But what about points per game?

2007 PPG: 13.2 PPG (29)

2006 PPG: 18.2 PPG (25)

Now there is a nasty number for 2007. They just aren’t scoring. Of course, they didn’t score all that well last year either but five points per game can be brutal when your defense is on the field a bit more than they were last year and your team wasn’t all that good to begin with.

But the thing is, if the Falcons aren’t much worse in overall offensive DVOA, why are they scoring so much less? Interestingly enough, a quote from Alge Crumpler made me think. He criticized the coaching staff by saying the team was great between the 20 yard lines, but awful in the red zone. FO’s DVOA takes red zone into account, but sometimes it helps to actually see the raw numbers. So, is Crumpler right?

2007: 15 possessions, .733% Scoring Rate, .267% TD Rate (31)

2006: 47 possessions, .766% Scoring Rate, .426% TD Rate (27)

Thank you ProFootballWeekly, the only place I could find with red zone numbers.

Let’s put it simply. The 2006 Falcons were terrible at scoring TDs in the red zone. The 2007 Falcons are a disgrace, topped only by the Rams, who are missing their starting left tackle, quarterback and halfback. The Falcons have no such excuses.

Add to it one more thing; the Falcons have averaged 2.5 red zone possessions this season. Last year they averaged 2.9 possessions. They are getting into the red zone less and are scoring seven less often once they get in there. Obviously, the 5 points less per game makes a lot of sense looking at these numbers.

All of these little things add up. While the Falcons are a better passing team than they were last year, the difference is not enough to compensate for the complete collapse of the running game in general, the problems in the red zone and the loss of possession time.

This all started because Zach asked me if I could find some sort of statistic proving Vick’s value. I have no one statistic; I have a bunch of statistics that say the Falcons are not as good as they were last year, specifically on offense. The big difference is Vick is not there- whether or not the passing game has improved, the overall production has suffered greatly.

Thus, I think it’s clear the Falcons have suffered because of Vick’s absence. That shows he has value which is not accurately reflected by the statistics that we have used. It can’t be that Joey Harrington is well below replacement level; because the stats that damned Vick say he’s not so bad. Yet, if Harrington is not so bad and everything else is pretty much the same, why are the Falcons playing so much worse on offense? There has to be an element to Vick’s game that we are not properly measuring, and it has to be how good he is at running the ball.

This leads to believe that we were missing the boat with Vick. He was more valuable that we gave him credit for. Average at best was selling him short; the effect he seems to have had on the game made him above average.

Now does that mean that you can ultimately build a team around Vick? Even if he’s valuable to a degree, can you create a team around a quarterback that can’t throw the ball effectively?

Logic says if he has a form of value, that you can. Zach’s argument to me was that you could not win the NFL without a decent passing game. Therefore with Vick being awful, he could be that valuable a quarterback.

But looking at just how much better Vick was rushing last year than anyone else, maybe that isn’t the case. Conventionally you can’t win with a run only offense. But Vick was anything but conventional. The closest anyone in the last 20 years came to being him on the ground was Randall Cunningham. Cunningham didn’t go over 1000 yards and he only approached Vick’s rushing ability once, when he got to 900 yards. If there was ever a QB who could buck the idea you need to pass to win, it was Vick.

However, could the same thing that helps Vick in this evaluation could hurt him in real life? How do you draw up a successful system around a player who does not seem to have any comparisons? He’s a running back who can throw the ball 70 yards. Even in a system that was not built for him last year, Vick was an amazingly effective runner. He was good enough to make a terrible team mediocre. Imagine if he played in a system that properly used his talents?

In baseball, a player who doesn't fit in can be very valuable because it is still, at it's core an individual game. In football where you have to fit into a system, a player who is different is only useful if you can find someone who can create a system. Vick may have been one of the most valuable chips in the league, but if he never had a coach who knew how to use that value effectively, then it was neutralized to a large degree. His talent was enough that he made a bad system work okay. But it was a large band aid- the Falcons were set up so they could be mediocre with Vick and awful without him. They will have to move on now, but the right move should have been making an offense to fit their once in a generation athlete, not make their athlete fit the generic system.

Of course, that’s all moot now. With Vick heading to jail and his career in serious doubt, we’ll never know what could have been. Then again, the irony is that Falcons’ coach Bobby Petrino is a pass happy coach; Vick’s talents could have been wasted in that system too. In fact the only reason anyone would look at something like this to see what Vick’s value was is because he’s NOT there. If he was there, and playing at his old level, then we’d just be calling him overrated.

This is by no means a scientific study. You’d need more than a six game sample for that. So take this look for what it is, an amateur’s peek at stats in one night in an attempt to decipher a question that has been nagging him over the last couple of days.

So the question remains, was Michael Vick better than we all thought? Could it have been that we just we were trying to fit a square peg like Vick, into a circular hole? We accept that when we evaluate a baseball player like Ichiro; was it true with Vick as well?

It’s too bad that likely is a question that will forever go unanswered.