Should the Eagles Look at Grabbing Another Quarterback for 2013?
The Nick Foles experience is off to quite the inauspicious start for the Philadelphia Eagles, wouldn't you say?
The rookie got his first professional start against the Washington Redskins in Week 11 and finished 21-of-46 for 204 yards with two interceptions in a devastating 31-6 defeat.
He also fumbled three times, but fortunately didn't lose any and was sacked four times.
With the 32-year-old Michael Vick, a guy who's dealt with a rash of injuries and is due a whopping $15.5 million in base salary next season, it's time to begin looking toward the long-term future.
Is Foles the future? Thus far, he hasn't appeared to be.
So, with the offensive essentially imploding, do the Eagles need to look for another signal-caller in 2013? At this juncture, to give Foles a fair shot, I say no.
Philadelphia's offensive line is in absolute shambles, and the receiving corps isn't at full strength, either. Foles does have a strong arm, decent accuracy that should only improve and adequate awareness if reasonably protected.
However, Vick needs to be let go.
At his age, with consecutive years of disappointment at the top of his career resume and the hefty contract hit he'll represent in the following seasons, there's no reason why he should be on the Eagles next year.
The team could look for another backup to Foles, but if they liked him enough to draft him in the third round of this April's draft, they have to be ready to commit to him as the starter in 2013.
What I mean is, there's no need to sign a free-agent signal-caller or look for a young gunslinger early in the draft out of desperation. But, if a quarterback becomes available at good value, the Eagles should pounce for insurance reasons.
Nick Foles isn't being welcomed to the NFL in the nicest situation, but he has the natural skills to become a viable quarterback in this league.
So for now, the Eagles don't need to look to find a different guy to lead their team under center next season.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?