Should Vick Be Wearing Purple?

Mack BonnerCorrespondent ISeptember 11, 2009

EAST RUTHERFORD, NJ - SEPTEMBER 03:  Michael Vick #7 of the Philadelphia Eagles looks to throw a pass against the New York Jets on September 3, 2009 at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Jets defeated the Eagles 38-27.  (Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

You have to wonder if Vick was ever considered to be a Viking along with Favre. You also have to wonder if that would have made more sense. Considering how the Eagles plan on using Vick, it just seems like a waste of talent. He will most likely only see five-to-seven snaps a game (10 if he's lucky).

Now, lets jump over to the Vikings for a minute. Favre is an upgrade at the quarterback position for the Vikes, or so they say. That is still pending.

Brett is getting on up there in the age column to say the least. There are even rumors that the locker room is not entirely happy with his arrival. Now consider how they plan to use Favre. Hand off, hand off, hand off, and maybe throw when needed. I'll just say 3rd-and-13 sounds about right.

Now consider how dangerous the Vikings would have been had they gone with Vick.

Vick also would have been an upgrade at quarterback for the Vikes, but would have given them many more options on offense. We've already seen Favre spread out wide for the Vikes in preseason. Really? Is anyone afraid that Favre is going to catch the ball and take it 75 yards to the house? I think not.

But, put Vick behind center with "AP" in the backfield, Tarvaris Jackson and Bernard Berrian out wide, and Shiancoe at tight end. Now you have four people on the field that can take it the distance from anywhere on the field, and a very good tight end.

You could also put Vick out wide and let Tarvaris go behind center and be just as dangerous. Just imagine if you will, some fakes to "AP" with Tarvaris coming on an end around. It would freeze the defense giving Vick the option of throwing the ball, handing it to Tarvaris, or running it himself. Talk about some confused defenses. Add Bernard Berrian to the mix and you've got a showstopping offense.

But as it stands, you have an aging quarterback that was brought in to manage the game, and take limited chances.

The problem with that is, it's never been like Favre to manage a game. He's always been the gunslinger that throws it into double and triple coverage. I'm not saying the Vikings won't be dangerous this year with Favre, but all depends on two things. Was the surgery a complete success, (will it plague him later in the year?) and will Childress be able to pull back the reigns on the old stallion when needed?

Given the same choice of choosing between Favre and Vick, I'm not sure which way I would have went, but if Favre struggles down the stretch you know the fans are going to be wondering what could have been.