In other words, if the Falcons are such a bad team, why is their record 21-11-1 when Vick starts over the last four years? Is Vick's record an accident? If his record is a result of other teams not adapting, is this due to their lack of exposure to Vick? No; he's in his fourth year. Is it a result of other teams being unable, by-and-large, to adapt to his style, due to his superior athletic ability and lack of orthodoxy? If so, isn't this the way superior athletes of many stripes attain greatness?
If Vick's primary strength is speed and quickness, does this make him a less effective quarterback than in-the-pocket quarterbacks if his strengths lead to more victories? As a point guard, was Magic Johnson inferior to Doc Rivers because he was taller and scored more points (we all know a point guard's job is to distribute the ball)? Are pole vaulters utilizing the Fosbury Flop inferior to those vaulters competing prior to the Flop's advent because the maneuver led to an obvious advantage to vaulters utilizing it? As a leadoff hitter, was Bobby Bonds inferior to Jerry Royster because he had more power?
It's a given that Philadelphia is probably a superior team to Atlanta; but every year, every team excepting one is consigned to also-ran status. If the Falcons don't win it all, it won't be due to a lack of excellence on the part of Vick...it will be due to the superiority of the talent and effort of another team.
Running QBs in the NFL have a limited life span and limited ability.
Vick had QB ratings of:
2004 78.1
2003 69
2002 81.6 (his best year, still one of the worst in the league)
2001 62.7
His overall rating is 76.9.
These ratings are, in a word, terrible. This is also proof he is a running back that passes the ball. Kordell Stewart all over again, Old Kordell was in the league as a QB for 5 years or so and they kept trying to stick with him, before realizing the NFL isn't the place for Wishbone-T QBs.