Would Starting Nick Foles over Michael Vick Really Solve Eagles' Problems?
As the losses pile up, the grumbling is getting louder in the City of Brotherly Love, and it appears that time is running out for a player that the Philadelphia Eagles gave a $100 million contract to less than a year-and-a-half ago.
Early on Monday Howard Eskin of WIP Radio in Philadelphia tweeted that head coach Andy Reid was meeting with his coaching staff, and that it appeared that the Eagles were preparing to make a switch at quarterback.
#eagles Andy Reid met with coaches after game on sunday to discuss QB situation. Meet again Mon Morn. I'm told likely QB change to Foles.
— Howard Eskin (@howardeskin) October 29, 2012
However, that report was refuted somewhat a bit later in the day by Ian Rappoport of NFL.com, who reported via colleague Marc Sessler that Reid is reluctant to make a switch at quarterback because "he doesn't view Vick as the team's lone problem," according to sources within the Philadelphia organization.
Those same sources, however, said that they would not be surprised to see Vick benched, and the 32-year-old southpaw himself seems to realize that he's on a very short leash right now, according to Jeff Darlington of the NFL Network.
Obviously, he's thinking about making a change at the quarterback position, Vick said. The thing I do know is that I'm giving us every opportunity to win. I'm trying my hardest. Some things don't go right when I want them to. Some things do. So if that's the decision that (Reid) wants to make, then I support it.
Listen, I'm not about to sit here and say that the Eagles shouldn't bench Vick and see what they have in Foles. At the rate things are going, this team isn't going anywhere. Vick's play dating back to last season has been mostly atrocious, and when your quarterback comes out and says that he himself would support the coach's decision to sit him, then you know his confidence is shot.
With that said though switching the quarterback isn't going to magically solve the Eagles' problems and get them back into the hunt for a playoff spot.
Should the Philadelphia Eagles Bench Michael Vick?
Sure, Vick's ever-increasing penchant for turning the ball over has been a problem the past two years, but Vick didn't turn the ball over in Sunday's loss to the Atlanta Falcons, and it wasn't his fault that the defense allowed 30 points after having an extra week to prepare.
That's on the defense, new coordinator Todd Bowles and players such as defensive end Jason Babin, who has seen his playing time slashed after he followed up an 18-sack 2011 season with all of 2.5 through seven games this year.
Nor is it Michael Vick's fault that for reasons I stagger to comprehend the team refuses to give the ball to running back LeSean McCoy, even though the Eagles are 3-0 this year in games where McCoy has over 20 carries.
That's on Reid, who appears to be rapidly approaching the end of his tenure in Philadelphia.
Like I said earlier, I'm not saying don't start Foles. You might as well, as the team needs some sort of shakeup or spark.
However, all that's going to change is one player out of 53, and the way that the Philadelphia Eagles are playing right now, it's the NFL equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?