Vick seems like he's lost a step since his days in Atlanta. That's just discussing his running abilities. Overall, his quality of play I don't know if he's even top 50. I'd lean toward no.
i think raw athleticism is a lot more important that you say, KB. I kind of skimmed through the posts, but i don't think that just because AR is a better QB than Vick, it makes him a better athlete. It just means that athleticism is not the most important part of being a QB.
There were guys just as fast as Moss while being bigger and stronger. Vick is the better athlete, Rodgers is the better player.
I roll my eyes when I hear this imbecilic tripe. Do you realize how dumb this sounds? When I post non-sequiturs, I at least have the common courtesy to make them clever or funny. (1) Explain to me how a cornerback who lines up against the wideout can be a "terrible liability" against the run. If this is ever actually true for a defense, then that defense has waaaay bigger problems than their CBs tackling ability. (1a) I'm in favor of federal regulations mandating compulsory vasectomy for use of this mindless and cliched sound byte. These people should not be reproducing. (2) Bo didn't play defense. (3) Deion did play offense. (4) And special teams. Really well. (5) You never wanna go full retard.
Nickel corners in the slot are sometimes asked to contain. A true cover 2 D will ask a corner to at least force the run back towards the middle of the field if it's a wide run.
But both of them are QBs. This is what they use their athleticism for. If Rodgers is a better QB, but not a better athlete, then the term "better athlete" becomes pretty meaningless. You just replaced "better athlete" with "more agile". Look back to my post where I explicitly differentiate between the questions "more athleticism" and "better athlete".
I wouldn't have called Moss the best athlete in the NFL just because of his speed. It takes more than just speed to do stuff like this. [video=youtube;FHGgJtHVWzA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHGgJtHVWzA[/video]
Deion Sanders is the best cover corner in the history of the game. They stuck him on Jerry Rice or Michael Irvin and he had one job to do. Would he occassionally have to tackle the running back? Sure. But that was his ancillary ancillary assignment and it isn't why Jerry Jones made him the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. Besides, he could tackle just fine. Did he tackle like a [ussy pay]? Yes. Did he just basically dive at the ballcarrier's legs? Yup. But it got the job done.
I read it and i don't really understand what you are trying to say. In my mind, when i hear the question "Who is the best athlete in the world?" I think of raw athleticism as the most important, if not the only factor. I think of people who can do certain things that no one else can do. I don't think of who is the "best" in their specific sport or at their specific position. If that is the question you are asking in this thread, then I took it the wrong way.
Best athlete? LBJ. Most dominant at his/her sport (which seems to be what KB is really asking)? Bolt. He can blow away his closest competitors and barely break a sweat. Can't think of anyone else like that. Michael Phelps also deserves a mention for what he accomplished in Beijing, but my understanding is that Lochte and others have made it much tougher on him recently.
How good of an athlete was Dave Winfield? Dude had three legitimate professional offers in hoops, baseball and football.
No worries, killa. There isn't a right or wrong answer here. I myself think "best athlete' has to mean something different than 'athlete with most raw athleticism'. If it doesn't, then there was never even a colorable argument that, say, Tiger Woods was the best athlete on the planet. But I think there was a very compelling argument that Tiger Woods was the best athlete on the planet.
Who has been nominated? Messi Novak Djokovic Lebron James Usain Bolt Michael Phelps Skylar McBee Who am I missing?
