The Atlanta Falcons won last night on Monday Night Football. Their much-hyped quarterback had very little to do with it. Michael Vick threw 26 passes for 11 completions that resulted in 116 yards. He threw three interceptions and no touchdowns. In six games this season, Vick has thrown for just 723 yards. In other words, his anemic passing totals on Monday Night Football are standard for 2005's Vick. Of the 16 quarterbacks in the NFC who have taken a majority of their team's snaps in 2005, Vick ranks last in passing yardage. This is Vick's fifth year in the NFL. He's never thrown for 3,000 yards. He's never connected on more than 16 touchdown passes. Yet his name his freely discussed with John Elway, Steve Young, Roger Staubach, and other fleet-of-foot Hall of Fame QBs.

Michael Vick claimed before this season that he is the best quarterback in the NFL. He's not. Vick's is one of the top-selling jerseys in the league. Sports-media figures have seriously entertained his pre-season boast. Obviously Vick isn't the only one who places Michael Vick above Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, and Donovan McNabb. Fantasies of what Michael Vick may do in the future don't beat what a dozen or so NFL quarterbacks are doing in the present.

Sure, Michael Vick can run better than any quarterback in league history. But quarterbacks pass. That's what they do. Running complements their game, but running doesn't make their game. How can it? Vick has rushed for 303 yards this season. Add that total to his passing yards and he still ranks near the bottom in yardage among NFL quarterbacks. He's electric. He's exciting. He's a gamebreaker. But the best? Not even close.

Two other contenders for most overrated: Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez (aka Double Play-Rod)

Dan, I totally agree with you on Vick. A great running quarterback with a strong, inaccurate arm. Unfortunately, his scrambling ability will probably be the downfall of his career, as he is not durable enough to take the pounding week after week. As for A-Fraud and Kobe, although I am not a fan, they both put up stats to warrant an argument, unlike Vick.

Vick has a strong arm and a good looking ball, but he hasn't turned out to be a good passer. I guess you'd have to chalk that up to an inability to read defenses, see open receivers, etc., i.e., the mental aspect of being a quarterback.

As for his running ability, he's simply amazing. Problem is, that style of play together with his fragile frame will make it hard for him to stay on the field at this level. Successful "running" quarterbacks are stout guys who can take a shot and get up again, e.g., McNabb.

What's really interesting is that college football is full of impressive, dual-threat QB's: Vick (Va. Tech), Young (Texas), Smith (Missouri), Smith (Ohio State), Russell (LSU), Shockley (Georgia), McNeal (Texas A&M), etc. It's the dominant trend in the NCAA; pure passers like Leinart (USC) and Quinn (Notre Dame) are becoming rare. It will be interesting to see what kind of NFL careers the former group has.

Problem is, unless you're a running QB built like Dante Culpepper, you don't last in the NFL. Defenses too fast, too strong and too mean.

That 'scatback' stuff goes in college. But, when they graduate, it does not work for long in the NFL.

As everyone can see in the absence of Moss, Culpepper is simply aweful.

And some of those college dual-threats do have bigger frames, e.g., Vince Young, Brad Smith and DeMarcus Russell. I've seen Vince favorably compared to Cunningham, a dual-threat NFL quaterback who, if he could have read a defense at all, would have been truly great. As it was, he had a decent career anyway.

Culpepper isn't awful without Moss. His TD/Int ratio is bad (6/12), but after six games his numbers (yardage, completion percentage) otherwise resemble Peyton Manning's. He's thrown for about 280 yards a game and there's only seven QBs in the league who have a better completion percentage. Of course there would be some post-Moss growing pains. But they haven't been as painful as you insinuate.

Moss, on the other hand, is putting up solid numbers too--but not enough to make him the best Moss in the league. Right now, that distinction goes to Santana Moss.

In Culpepper's favor, he thinks making plays with the pass before making plays with his feet.

He's smart, strong and durable and sees the field exceptionally well, with his preference being to pass the ball. But, when he needs to run, he can and is very difficult to take down. He's a legitimate NFL'er.

Vick thinks run, run and then pass. He'll be injured his whole career and will wear down quickly thinking like a college QB.

He's a great player and a huge draw but I see Mora just waiting until he goes out when he can put a read NFL QB in.

Say what you will about Vick's performance on the field. His real value to society comes as a role model to young men. His comment during the cute little personality vignette the NFL is so adept at producing was of inestimable value to those young athletes seeking to be upstanding members of society: "The secret to dating two girls at the same time - Two cell phones!"

His yards resemble Manning's, but as Texas Tech learned against the Longhorns last Saturday, yards don't win football games. 12 picks and 6 TD's in 6 games is more than bad, it's very bad. And his completion percentage is 4 percentage points worse - a significant margin considering only 19 percentage points separate the worst from the best.

Add it all up (or whatever they do) and Manning's QB rating is 98.3 (3rd in the NFL) while Culpepper's is 71.6 (25th in the NFL).

I think the comparison that's being made is the difference in running type QB's and which know when to run and when to pass. Culpepper seemed like a good example to use against a guy like Vick.

But, if you want to rate Culpepper specifically and use Manning as a benchmark (sort of), Culpepper is on a lousy team and Manning is not.

Have these two switch teams and although Culpepper would never be the pure passer Manning is, their leaque ratings would probably be dramatically reversed.

Ralph: Manning ranks second in completion percentage and Culpepper ranks eighth. It's debatable whether the gap is "significant" or the percentages are "comparable." Both are in the top tier in completion percentage. Neither is in the "simply awful" category. What's not debatable is your assertion that Culpepper is simply awful. He's not. You know this, which is why, rather than defending your assertion, you moved on to a sidebar argument that doesn't have a great deal of relevance.

Since I already conceded the point that Culpepper has thrown a lot of interceptions, what is the point of invoking the QB rating, a made up, "formula" statistic that is largely based on interceptions? I characterized Culpepper's TD/INT ratio as "bad." You take issue with me on this and say it's not "bad" but "very bad." Do you really think the differences between "bad" and "very bad" are worth debating?

Culpepper is currently on track to throw for more than 4,000 yards. If he does this, he becomes the 10th QB in NFL history to do this in multiple seasons. Simply awful?

Just for the sake of argument (isn't everything??), in 2004, Culpepper passed for the most yards (4,717) with 39 touchdown passes second only to, as we all know, Manning who had 49 tds (4,557 yards passing).

Manning's QB rating was 121.1, Culpepper was rated 110.9.

btw, Randy Moss only accounted for 13 or those 39.

If you're paying attention, there is no way that Culpepper can be considered an 'aweful' quaterback.