Michael Vick Reportedly Says Concussion Is Excuse for Eagles to Start Nick Foles
Michael Vick may not be cleared to play, but the Philadelphia Eagles are using his concussion as a convenient excuse to start Nick Foles—at least that's what the embattled quarterback thinks, according to SportsCenter's Twitter feed:
Sources: Michael Vick has not been cleared to play, but believes Eagles are using his concussion as reason to keep starting Nick Foles.— SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) November 30, 2012
UPDATE: Friday, Nov. 30 at 5:10 p.m. ET by Tyler Conway
It seems like Vick won't be taking that report lying down. The Eagles quarterback responded to SportsCenter's initial tweet and denied the allegations, though he quickly removed it from his page. Luckily, the response was captured here by Onward State's Ryan Beckler:
Mike Vick isn't happy with ESPN and SportsCenter. twitter.com/RBecklerPSU/st…— Ryan Beckler (@RBecklerPSU) November 30, 2012
---End of Update---
The Eagles quarterback has been out of the lineup since suffering a concussion against the Dallas Cowboys on Nov. 11 and Foles has started each of the two games since.
While Foles' play certainly hasn't sparked a renaissance, Vick's logic seems relatively sound. The Eagles' season is already over at 3-8 and everyone in the organization is playing or coaching for their jobs—especially head coach Andy Reid.
Considering Vick's performance in 2012, the team making a move to Foles seems like a solid step. Vick had thrown for 2,165 yards and 11 touchdowns before suffering the concussion, but had also been picked off nine times and fumbled 10 times, losing six.
So even if Foles isn't the long-term answer under center, it's become rather apparent that Vick isn't worth his $16 million salary for next season. Interestingly enough, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter, if the Eagles cut Vick by Feb. 6, 2013, they will no longer be obligated to pay anyof his salary for the 2013 campaign.
In the NFL, that's essentially a contract's death sentence.
With stories like this also leaking, there certainly won't be a relationship repair anytime soon. It's truly an unfortunate turn in what looked to be one of the league's best redemption stories two years ago.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?