Eagles vs. Steelers: Blame for Loss Lies Squarely on Michael Vick's Shoulders
If you're keeping score, that's 11 turnovers in five games for Michael Vick.
Now I know what you're going to say.
"Well, he led us on that 17-play, 79-yard drive that took over eight minutes and ended with his touchdown pass to Brent Celek that gave us the lead! It's not his fault that the defense couldn't stop the Steelers!"
If you believe that, well, chances are you believe in the tooth fairy too.
When you give a two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback more than six minutes to move his team down the field into field goal range, what exactly do you think is going to happen?
No, the blame for this loss lies with Michael Vick and his inability to hold onto the ball.
Sure, he recovered one of the fumbles that he had on the day, but the one that got away is what cost the Eagles the game. And they both happened on the same drive in the first quarter.
On 1st-and-10 from their own 49-yard line, Vick scrambled up the middle for nine yards, only to lose the ball and watch the Steelers' Lawrence Timmons pick it up. But the Eagles challenged the call on the field, and the play was reversed.
OK, no big deal right?
Is Michael Vick to blame for this loss?
A pass interference call on 3rd-and-3 against the Steelers' Ike Taylor got the Eagles down to the Steelers' 13-yard line, and Vick then hit Jeremy Maclin for 10 yards to get the ball to the three-yard line.
Vick would once again keep the ball himself, and after a two-yard gain, the Steelers' Ryan Clark dislodged the ball, which was recovered by the Steelers' Larry Foote in the end zone. Replay upheld the call, and it was 1st-and-10 Steelers from their 20-yard line.
At what point do we stop making excuses for him?
In his last 18 games, Michael Vick has turned the ball over 29 times.
For all the positive things you can take from Michael Vick's game, those two numbers—29 turnovers and 18 games—tell the real story.
Michael Vick is no longer a weapon for the Eagles.
He's becoming a liability.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?