I know I am playing devil's advocate here, but, if Michael Vick can go high, why can't Vince Young?
I would not have said that last year. The 2004 Vince Young had the serious athletic skills....of course. He had improved his passing, but he was still a liability. He was fun to watch but a fringe quarterback prospect.
The 2005 Vince Young is a much improved passer. It appears that he worked extremely hard during the offseason to take the next step.
He shows adequate arm strength, good poise, and much improved accuracy.
Now, Vince has some detractors. I am not sure about his arm strength and he may need alot of work reading defenses and fine tuning his accuracy. So, if that is the case, why would anyone draft him so high?
Because the same could have been said about Michael Vick, minus the touch passes and plus the arm strength.
So I pose this question to you. If you are a team in need of a quarterback and you are smart enough to know that you should not play any rookie qb his first year or so anyways, do you draft Vince Young at No. 2 in the draft?
I would not have said that last year. The 2004 Vince Young had the serious athletic skills....of course. He had improved his passing, but he was still a liability. He was fun to watch but a fringe quarterback prospect.
The 2005 Vince Young is a much improved passer. It appears that he worked extremely hard during the offseason to take the next step.
He shows adequate arm strength, good poise, and much improved accuracy.
Now, Vince has some detractors. I am not sure about his arm strength and he may need alot of work reading defenses and fine tuning his accuracy. So, if that is the case, why would anyone draft him so high?
Because the same could have been said about Michael Vick, minus the touch passes and plus the arm strength.
So I pose this question to you. If you are a team in need of a quarterback and you are smart enough to know that you should not play any rookie qb his first year or so anyways, do you draft Vince Young at No. 2 in the draft?