Michael Vick: Did the Philadelphia Eagles Make a $100 Million Mistake?

On November 15, 2010 Michael Vick had one of the greatest games in NFL history. He completed 20-of-28 passes for 333 yards and four touchdowns through the air. He also carried the ball eight times for 80 yards and another two touchdowns on the ground. 

The feat came on Monday Night Football, adding luster to his performance. It marked a peak to his return to popularity after his internment. The accolades came fast and furiously and Vick became one of the two primary candidates in the MVP race. Certainly it was a worthwhile candidacy. 

To date, Vick had compiled some downright gaudy numbers. In the six games he'd played in Vick had amassed 1,350 passing yards, 341 rushing yards and 15 total touchdowns. On top of that, perhaps the most remarkable figure was zero, his total number of turnovers committed. His overall passer rating was a spectacular 110.72.

Sportswriters and commentators tripped over one another trying to validate Vick's new humility, and how he was no longer the Vick who had tortured animals. He became the feel-good story of the year. 

It was while all this was going on I recall driving down the traffic-filled Kennedy one day here in Chicago when someone whose name I can't recall came on the radio and spoke with Waddle and Silvie about a book he'd written which talked about some new stats versus some old stats. 

In the course of the interview he brought up a stat that I seem to remember he called "Bad Decisions." It was his argument that interceptions can be misleading. Sometimes a player throws a good pass to a receiver that bounces off the receivers hands and then gets intercepted on the deflection.

His argument was the QB shouldn't be faulted in such a scenario; after all, he made the right decision and a good throw—the receiver just didn't make the catch. 

On the other hand, sometimes a QB will make a bad decision throwing into double coverage or throwing right as he's being hit instead of taking the sack. Such decision can lead to turnovers but sometimes the player just gets away with it. 

His argument was that bad decisions, more than interceptions, was a better future indicator of turnovers. The breaks have a way of evening out he argued. All of that sounded pretty reasonable and then they asked him, "Who leads the league in bad decisions?" 

He replied, "Michael Vick." At that point he was mocked and ridiculed point-blank. How can you say a guy who has no turnovers all year is the worst in decision-making, they argued. He proceeded to name a number plays where Vick had made bad decisions and just gotten away with it. 

Since that game against Washington, Vick has turned the ball over 20 times, 14 interceptions and six lost fumbles. That's more than any player in the NFL in that same span of time.

That passer rating since then is only 87.15, whatever that's worth. He has also had at least one turnover, either a fumble or an interception, in every game since then. That's 12 consecutive games with at least one turnover, and an average of 1.67 turnovers per game. 

Yes, Vick gives you a lot of yards, both through the air and on the ground. His average yards of total offense over those games is 332. The mistakes pile up though. The Eagles' record over those 12 games is 5-7. 

There are those who want to lay the blame for the Eagles' 1-4 start at the feet of the defense. Certainly some belongs there. However, you can easily overstate how much responsibility is on the defense. In terms of yards, the Eagles defense has held their opponents to 334 yards or fewer in all but one game this season. 

What's killing them is a shortened field, or even worse, defensive touchdowns the other way. Atlanta scored two TDs when they got the ball off of Eagle turnovers deep in Eagle territory. The Giants' go-ahead touchdown came off an interception (Mike Kafka's, not Vick's). Against Buffalo there were two touchdowns attributed to Vick turnovers; one was a pick-six and the other was a shortened field.

At minimum there are two losses which can be attributed directly to mistakes by Vick this season. Yes, the numbers he puts up are outrageous, and it sure does help a fantasy team win, but it's not helping his NFL team win so much. 

There were those five magnificent, glorious games that Vick had between September and the middle of November last year. That window of time is out of sync with the rest of his season, the beginning of this season and everything he'd done in his career to that point. 

As much as the Eagles management and fans might want to think that those five games were the "real" Vick, it's looking less and less with each passing week (pun intended) that those were the anomaly and not the rash of turnovers since then is the real deal. 

The Dream Team has become a nightmare scenario with the Eagles sporting a $100 million contract that might play well, but will never play well consistently enough to win the Super Bowl. The decision-making just isn't there, and overlooking Vick's bad decisions have resulted in a bad decision by the Eagles management. 

When you ink a player to that kind of money you're looking for a player who can overcome the mistakes of the team, not whose mistakes you need to overcome. You're looking for a player who masks deficiencies, not with deficiencies that need masking. Vick is a good player, not a great player and at 31, he's outgrown the learning stage. 

The Eagles made a $100 million mistake because they couldn't stop looking at that five-game window. He's not that good and he never was. He's not going to "bounce back" because he was never that good in the first place. Don't make the same mistake expecting him too.