Why the Philadelphia Eagles Should Not Start Nick Foles over Michael Vick

Since Monday’s game against the Patriots, there has been an outpouring of support for Eagles backup quarterback Nick Foles. The support I am speaking of, though, is not strictly of a congratulatory manner.

Rather, it is a call to not only consider, but to make Nick Foles the Philadelphia Eagles’ starting quarterback for the 2012 season. This is borderline the most illogical outcry from the Eagles fanbase ever.

Where is this coming from, though? Is it jealousy? Do Eagles fans wish they had someone like Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, or any of the other rookie quarterbacks who have already been named their respective teams’ 2012 starter?

To begin, let’s examine why Vick is the better QB option based on what we’ve seen from both quarterbacks.

So far this preseason, we’ve seen Michael Vick play fewer than 10 downs, and we’ve seen Nick Foles have a great game against the New England Patriots backups. That’s wonderful, really.

But, let’s not forget that the Patriots defense gave up the second most yards of any defense last year in the NFL. So, going into their preseason matchup with the Eagles, it’s not like the Pats’ defense was coming off a stellar 2011 defensive effort. And, let’s be reasonable: they didn’t have a bunch of studs waiting for a shot on the bench.

Based on this, right off the bat, we can’t say we’d rather have Foles because of how well he performed against worthy competition, or because of how poorly Vick performed.

Foles’ competition wasn’t nearly of the caliber he’d see during the regular season, and the sample size of what we’ve seen so far from Vick is too small, especially when you compare it to what he’s done for the Eagles in the past.

We’ve seen Michael Vick beat some of the best defensive teams in the NFL, only to have his own team’s defense lose the game time and time again (last season against the 49ers, for instance).

Maybe that’s not enough. Fine.

Let’s consider the prospects for the upcoming season.

A problem for Michael Vick has undoubtedly been his proneness to injury. A big part of that is his own fault. You can’t help but wonder sometimes why he leaves himself so exposed and vulnerable to punishment.

As far as this playing into the story that will be the Eagles 2012 season goes: in all likelihood, Vick will miss a few starts.

However, this is not even in the ballpark of substantial reasons as to why Foles should be the starter. Michael Vick is one of the NFL’s premier playmakers. Moreover, he’s one of the most prolific playmakers of his generation.

You can’t use his tendency to get hurt as a testament to Foles’ potential ability to lead the Eagles to a Super Bowl. After all, isn’t that what Eagles fans want?

You also can’t say that you want Foles to start because he should develop with the experience of playing in the Eagles’ offense, because nothing is guaranteed in the NFL.

Even if Foles does become a good enough quarterback to start, it’s not certain he’ll be surrounded tomorrow by the weapons he would be surrounded with today, such as Jackson, Maclin, and McCoy. So, if these guys are there today, why waste their potential on the development of Nick Foles?  

Thus, the logical thing to do is to try to win the Super Bowl this year with the offensive talent you have.

With an offense as explosive as the Eagles’, a QB like Vick is the ideal candidate to be the guy taking the snaps. He’s athletic, quick, and he’s got a great arm. If there’s no one open, he can make a play with his legs—which he will likely try to do, even if it is at expense of his health. There’s no disputing any of that.

What did we see out of Foles that could possibly be sufficient enough to discredit Vick’s ability and justify giving Foles the job? What does Nick Foles do better than Michael Vick?

There’s a reason Foles was a third-round pick: he didn’t demonstrate the abilities necessary to qualify him for being potentially able to meet the expectations of a first- or second-round pick.

Granted, he played on a lackluster college team. But, how does that speak to his ability? We still didn’t see him do anything great, like carry his team to a title, or even a respectable record.

Sure, Tom Brady went late in the draft. How many Tom Bradys are there? It’s safe to say that more quarterbacks, by a vast majority, drafted late or not at all do not end up being Tom Brady, or even starters for that matter.

Furthermore, if you’ve got your eggs in the basket that says Foles will be great because you trust that Andy Reid knows quarterbacks and is a quarterback guru, I’ve got news for you: Andy Reid is not a quarterback guru.

What elite quarterbacks has Andy Reid produced? Donovan McNabb?

Okay, let’s be fair and ask what kind of reputable quarterbacks has Andy Reid produced. AJ Feeley? Kevin Kolb?

If you think Foles is a diamond in the rough, you certainly can’t base it on Andy Reid’s reputation. Even if he is, though, wouldn’t you want him to see how everything works from the bench?

In conclusion, Nick Foles should not start for the Eagles in the upcoming season because we haven’t seen him deliver anything against a respectable opponent, he’s inexperienced, and we don’t have anything from his past to validate him supplanting Michael Vick.