Nick Foles vs Michael Vick: Where Eagles QB Controversy Stands After Week 10
We all knew it was bound to happen, but when Michael Vick went down with a concussion in Week 10 against the Dallas Cowboys, the already-hot quarterback controversy in Philadelphia turned into a supernova of doubt for the rest of the season.
Vick suffered the concussion in the second quarter when Jay Ratliff drove him into the ground head first from behind—a perfectly legal play. Vick stayed in but was pulled when Ernie Sims knocked him down on an incomplete pass on the next play.
Bleacher Report captured a couple of images that clearly demonstrate how the hits affected Vick:
Michael Vick in rough shape post-concussion twitter.com/BleacherReport…— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) November 11, 2012
Vick's status for next week is obviously unknown, but it doesn't seem like Vick should be allowed to return one week after the hit he took to the head.
Still, don't expect Foles to remain the starter for long.
According to ESPN news services:
Vick did not talk to reporters but appeared groggy in the locker room. Eagles coach Andy Reid said Vick would remain Philadelphia's starting quarterback if healthy but acknowledged that the four-time Pro Bowler still must undergo tests.
Reid has stuck by Vick the entire season, and who can blame him?
Rich Schultz/Getty Images
After all, Foles wasn't able to perform any better than we've seen from Vick lately. He finished the day having completed 22 of 32 passes for 219 yards with one touchdown, one interception and one lost fumble—a Vick-esque stat line if ever I saw one.
Furthermore, as I've argued recently, things are so bad on the team's offensive line that throwing a rookie into the fray mid-season like this on a losing team could irreparably damage the young man's ability to have long-term success in the NFL.
No matter how bad many may want it to happen, Vick isn't going to be benched any time soon if he's healthy enough to play.
And that's the bottom line.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?