Nick Foles: Why Rookie QB Isn't the Answer for the Eagles
As losses mount, so does the pressure of finding ways to fix what is not going as planned—even if that means benching Vick for rookie passer Nick Foles.
But will playing a guy with zero experience—and at such an important position—help this team get back on the right track? The answer is no.
Foles may be the quarterback of the future in Philadelphia. But bringing him in to such a pressure-packed situation this early in his career could have an adverse effect that this team doesn't need right now.
While Vick isn't playing like the Eagles need him to currently, it is hard to believe that Foles would provide Philly with much more.
Reid recently fired defensive coordinator Juan Castillo, so he isn't hesitant to make moves that he thinks could help the team succeed in 2012. But benching Vick isn't the right move, not right now at least.
Is now the time that the Eagles should consider a switch at quarterback?
There are other changes that should be made before making a rash decision that would cause a negative ripple in the locker room.
Why not try to alter the offense a bit and lean on running back LeSean McCoy?
Establishing more of a running game will take the pressure off Vick and open up the passing game, instead of it being forced.
What about making a trade for a wide receiver with a different skill set than current targets DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin?
If a change at quarterback is inevitable, making it in the offseason will provide for a much easier transition for Foles, Vick and the rest of the roster. Making it now would only cause more unnecessary tension and could stunt Foles' development in this league.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?