Michael Vick will stay in Philly

[huskers1217]

They have agreed to a restructured contract. philadephiaeagles.com will have a presser begining at 1.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[Frizzle]

Vick will be gone... Foles will most likely start the season and I wouldn't be surprised of Barkley finishes it.

BTW why is this forum dead?

 

[mcnabb7542]

Vick will be gone... Foles will most likely start the season and I wouldn't be surprised of Barkley finishes it.

BTW why is this forum dead?

For a couple reasons:

1. Chip Kelly is the head coach of this team now.

2. Mike Vick is still in town.

3.Out of the forums where Eagle fans bitcheed about Reid, they have nothing to complain about now that Lurie has hired a man that will send us back to the Kotite days.....

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

Vick will be gone, in my opinion. I just don't see any logical reason to keep him around. The ONLY reason Kelly should keep him around if he thinks that they have a legitimate shot at the SB this year and that Vick can legitimately take them there, otherwise there is no point in keeping him here. And if Kelly thinks that is possible, then I don't have much faith in him as our coach. I would rather start Kinne than Vick. At least Kinne is young and maybe can improve.

 

[PhillyBoston781]

Vick will get just as much an opportunity to compete as anyone.

I think Foles will go the way of Kolb before the end. (Very over-hyped until he gets a full year to prove himself, then shows he was nothing special after all.) I was unimpressed with Foles' play last year. It seemed like he decided what to do before the ball was even snapped half the time.

If Barkley turns out to be a solid back up, I'll be happy with that.

I don't see any reason why any of the other QBs on the roster starts over Vick. He's got the most talent of any of the QBs on the team, and has the most experience. Barring a horrendous season where there's no shot at the post-season, I'd expect them to stick with him. He's not the long-term plan, but he's the best they got right now.

 

[mall3013]

Foles did more with less talent around him than Vick had. If I remember correctly, Foles was missing most of the starting OL, Shady, Maclin, and Desean? I'm not saying Foles is our savior, but I don't think Vick is any better at this point. In the end I believe Vick will be out and Foles will be the starter and Barkley as backup. Dixon to PS. Just my opinion.

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

How can anyone be impressed with Vick and say Foles didn't impress them? Vick is a 10 year vet who is a mediocre QB and yet you think someone who is a rookie and outplayed him stats wise didn't impress you and shouldn't start? Foles can still improve. Vick reached his peak (which was never really that high to begin with) and is digressing.

 

[mcnabb7542]

How can anyone be impressed with Vick and say Foles didn't impress them?

Someone still drinking the kool aid that Vick is a starter in this league....

Seiously Foles was basiclly run for his life last season behind this Oline, how can anyone say, "its over hyped?"

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

Someone still drinking the kool aid that Vick is a starter in this league....

Seiously Foles was basiclly run for his life last season behind this Oline, how can anyone say, "its over hyped?"

I can understand if people think Foles isn't good. I mean, compared to RG3, or Wilson..... He didn't look good. But these same people turn around and think Vick is good.

I think Foles will be a good QB, but that is because I was a fan of Foles before he was even drafted by the Eagles. I liked him in Arizona. I was ecstatic when the Eagles drafted him. It is funny because on this other board that I used to post on, there was a thread asking who do we want our teams to draft and the only person I listed was Foles. I see qualities in him that you usually see in Franchise QBs.

That doesn't mean he will be good or even that he is better than Vick right now, but I see no reason for Vick to be here anymore when it is clear this team is trying to rebuild and Vick is not young and improving. He hit his peak and it just isn't that good. Foles might be a notch below Vick right now (I don't think so, but that is my opinion), but Foles is young, a rookie, and hasn't reached his ceiling yet, that we know of.

 

[mcnabb7542]

I can understand if people think Foles isn't good. I mean, compared to RG3, or Wilson..... He didn't look good. But these same people turn around and think Vick is good.

I think Foles will be a good QB, but that is because I was a fan of Foles before he was even drafted by the Eagles. I liked him in Arizona. I was ecstatic when the Eagles drafted him.

RG3 and Wilson had better defenses, better olines.. So all honestly the jury should still be out on Foles...

Being a Pac12 homer I watched Foles in college, when Reid took him in the draft I was glad. I thnk Kelly is planning on playing Foles, he knows he has a good arm, and hes a smart QB....

 

[Badger8843]

What is going on there?

Vick or Foles? Who is the lead RB McCoy or Brown, how much will Brown play

 

[PhillyBoston781]

I will never understand why Philly fans think every back-up QB is better than the starter.... How many times do I have to hear that <insert random five-game starter> is so much better than the guy teams have mountains of film on and devote defensive schemes to stopping? You think anyone game planned their defense around stopping that amazing QB, Nick Foles, last year?

Vick put up an insane 10-16 games before teams figured him out and he fell back down to Earth. Foles put up mediocre numbers for the first five games teams ever saw him. (His one great game against Tampa, the worst pass defense in the entire league.

I've just got my fingers crossed the Eagles can hype him up the way they did Kolb and get a sucker to trade a bunch for him before he actually starts consistently and he gets exposed.

Vick is not a top QB in the league by any stretch, but he's absolutely, positively better than Foles. I don't care what OLine Foles played with or whether guys were hurt. Those are convenient excuses for people to blame everyone but Foles for the reality that he's shown absolutely nothing to merit thinking he's a legit QB.

I'm fine with saying the jury is out on Foles because he's only played five games. Actually believing he's better than a ten year veteran who's been nothing but a starter in this league is crazy.

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

Foles is a rookie. Obviously you never heard of a rookie getting better...... Makes sense since you are a Vick fan. Also, you can say that teams gameplanned for Vick all you want...... They have his whole career and guess what..... It is working because Vick has never been good. Teams gameplan for every QB that is starting...... Good QBs overcome. Vick never has. Foles hasn't had a chance yet, but I rather take an unknown in Foles, Barkley, Dixon, or even Kinne than a QB who we KNOW will suck. Sorry, Vick is trash. He has been in the league for 12 years. He is 33 years old. It is time to move on and get over him. He ain't never gonna be the amazing QB you all thought he was gonna be. He ain't a young pup anymore that can still learn from experience..... He has enough of it and it ain't doing him any good.

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

It's funny that you think all rookie QBs or 1st time starting QBs come in right away and perform amazing in their first few games because teams haven't gameplanned for them, because you know..... It happens all the time, right? LMAO @ that rationale. Got to be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said.

 

[Attractive and Rich]

Vick or Foles? Who is the lead RB McCoy or Brown, how much will Brown play

Obviously McCoy. Do you live under a rock? Brown will get plenty of touches since Kelly will likely run the ball a great deal more than Reid.

 

[PhillyBoston781]

It's funny that you think all rookie QBs or 1st time starting QBs come in right away and perform amazing in their first few games because teams haven't gameplanned for them, because you know..... It happens all the time, right? LMAO @ that rationale. Got to be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said.

Right... Because there's no such thing as a sophmore slump, right? It's the dumbest thing every said that more film on a QB allows defenses to game plan better. There's plenty of evidence to back you up, right? Kolb just kept getting better after his two 300 yard games the year before he started. He's just thriving in Arizona right now. And Andy Reid never got 3-4 solid games a year out of his backups only to watch them fail as starters elsewhere. You're right. Game film means nothing, every rookie always gets better, and I'm an idiot.

The way people on here talk about Foles, you'd think he DID perform amazing his first few games. He played mediocre, if not worse than Vick. As much as people claim Vick is trash, he's been a starter every year except the year he came out of prison. You can say it's only because he is athletic and he's not a good traditional QB, but however he's gotten it done, he has consistently been a starter. What has Foles been? Nothing. A rookie who came in when a starter got injured and failed to distinguish himself in any way.

So someone really has to explain to me why Foles is suddenly more qualified than Vick, why Vick should be cut and Foles handed the offense on a silver platter. I guess I'm too much of an idiot to understand why bold proclamations like "Vick is trash" and Foles being a rookie last year make it so obvious.

 

[soulxflare]

Vick is no longer good enough to be an NFL starter. He will lose this competition to Foles (whose TC numbers thus far are already better), and will likely be cut before the season.

I have no idea why people are so enamored with a player who is more likely to complete a pass to a DB than a WR....

 

[SickFelonIsGOAT]

Right... Because there's no such thing as a sophmore slump, right? It's the dumbest thing every said that more film on a QB allows defenses to game plan better. There's plenty of evidence to back you up, right? Kolb just kept getting better after his two 300 yard games the year before he started. He's just thriving in Arizona right now. And Andy Reid never got 3-4 solid games a year out of his backups only to watch them fail as starters elsewhere. You're right. Game film means nothing, every rookie always gets better, and I'm an idiot.

The way people on here talk about Foles, you'd think he DID perform amazing his first few games. He played mediocre, if not worse than Vick. As much as people claim Vick is trash, he's been a starter every year except the year he came out of prison. You can say it's only because he is athletic and he's not a good traditional QB, but however he's gotten it done, he has consistently been a starter. What has Foles been? Nothing. A rookie who came in when a starter got injured and failed to distinguish himself in any way.

So someone really has to explain to me why Foles is suddenly more qualified than Vick, why Vick should be cut and Foles handed the offense on a silver platter. I guess I'm too much of an idiot to understand why bold proclamations like "Vick is trash" and Foles being a rookie last year make it so obvious.

I can give you reasons why Vick shouldn't be the starter. I don't care if Foles is the starter, or Barkley, or Dixon or even Kinne, just as long as it isn't Vick...... Vick has been in the league for 10 years, and it is true he has always been a starter, but that is because people like you are enamored by his athleticism and think that he can be good, which I will prove he isn't...... He has been in the league for 10 years, and his career completion percentage is lower than 60, his career QB rating is 80.6 (thanks to 2010, otherwise would be in the 70's), he averages close to 2 turnovers per game and he has exactly 3 winning seasons in 10 years, so him being a starter means jack, because he has done absolutely nothing. And you want to talk about rookie seasons, and how supposedly rookies do better because they have no film on them...... In Vick's rookie season, he had completed less than 45% of his passes, thrown 2 TDs, 3 INTs and 5 fumbles in 8 games (1 more than Foles) which gave Vick a QB rating of 62.7, so there goes your theory.

Foles' as a rookie is light years better than Vick as a rookie. Foles as a rookie is on par or even better than Vick as a 10 year vet. That is what you are forgetting.... We are comparing a rookie to a 10 year Vet. If Vick was so good, there would be absolutely no comparing stats. The evidence would show that Vick is CLEARLY better than Foles, but it just doesn't. Is that enough for you or are you really that dumb?

 

[PhillyBoston781]

I can give you reasons why Vick shouldn't be the starter. I don't care if Foles is the starter, or Barkley, or Dixon or even Kinne, just as long as it isn't Vick...... Vick has been in the league for 10 years, and it is true he has always been a starter, but that is because people like you are enamored by his athleticism and think that he can be good, which I will prove he isn't...... He has been in the league for 10 years, and his career completion percentage is lower than 60, his career QB rating is 80.6 (thanks to 2010, otherwise would be in the 70's), he averages close to 2 turnovers per game and he has exactly 3 winning seasons in 10 years, so him being a starter means jack, because he has done absolutely nothing. And you want to talk about rookie seasons, and how supposedly rookies do better because they have no film on them...... In Vick's rookie season, he had completed less than 45% of his passes, thrown 2 TDs, 3 INTs and 5 fumbles in 8 games (1 more than Foles) which gave Vick a QB rating of 62.7, so there goes your theory.

Foles' as a rookie is light years better than Vick as a rookie. Foles as a rookie is on par or even better than Vick as a 10 year vet. That is what you are forgetting.... We are comparing a rookie to a 10 year Vet. If Vick was so good, there would be absolutely no comparing stats. The evidence would show that Vick is CLEARLY better than Foles, but it just doesn't. Is that enough for you or are you really that dumb?

It's unfair to compare Vick's rookie season with Foles'. It's completely apples and oranges, if you remember how Vick was used that year (a weird time split with Chandler). In any event, we've seen Reid make guys like Ty Detmer, AJ Feeley, Jeff Garcia and Kevin Kolb look like the next coming of Joe Montana when they only had to play spot duty for a few games. And every time we see it, people start trumpeting for a new era at QB because a guy can play well for a few games. Sadly, Foles couldn't even pull those few excellent games... That's the only point I'm going to make about comparing Foles' and Vick's rookie years.

Back to Vick, though, I think you're missing my point completely. You keep acting like I'm arguing Vick is some great QB. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying he's an established veteran who managed to be the unquestioned starter of every team he's played for. You can say his athletic ability that doesn't make him a great or even good QB and I'll agree with you, but you have to admit that it contributed to his success as a football player. His QB rating and completion percentage didn't win him the starting job anywhere so its very short sighted to say "look at his QB rating and completion percentage, so he's not good enough to be a starter." If you want to call that "mediocre QB and supreme athlete," that's fine, but dismissing the second part of that is ignorant. I'll be "enamored," and you can pretend like a QB's athletic ability doesn't make a difference in a football game. I'm fine with that.

The stats you mention are also a bit misleading. He had his best years passing in Philly, and his six worst years in Atlanta. Let's not forget who Vick's top receiving target in Atlanta was those years (Crumpler), or that his defense was mediocre, or that their offense was not focused on passing really at all. But forget the guys and team around him for the sake of argument because that's a completely separate discussion... Holding aside his rookie year (where he played weird spot duty), he only had one losing season, his last, when the Falcons went 7-9. You counted the 5-11 season (2003) against him as a losing season, but he only played five games that year and went 3-2. Pretty impressive, considering he took over a 2-9 team and managed to lead it to a winning record. Coincidentally, 2003 also happened to be the only year the Falcons had a great defense, ranked first overall, yet they couldn't win without Vick.

So, to answer your question, yes, I guess I really am that dumb to think Vick was a successful QB in the NFL. Of course, he signed some pretty impressive contracts and, for whatever reason, NFL head coaches just kept putting him out there to start games, so I guess I'm not the only moron out there.

He's not as good as he used to be. He's lost the extra touch of speed that really made him amazing to watch, defensive linemen can run him down, and defenses in general aren't nearly as afraid of him anymore. He'll never win a SuperBowl, and is not the solution at QB for the Eagles.

That's all holding aside what I think of Foles, which is not much. As I said originally, what I saw of him was a guy who knew what he was going to do before he snapped the ball. I saw a guy I expect to be exploited more, not less, as he plays more in the league. I do not see one single attribute he brings to the table that is better than Vick's, and I'm not willing to say that he's definitely going to get better just because he's a rookie. We've all seen plenty of QBs who showed up, played mediocre or even great (i.e. Rex Grossman) then simply got worse and worse. In the games I watched of Foles, I saw no flashes of "he's got what it takes, he just needs a few years to put it together." I saw a guy with an unimpressive arm, looking lost.

So, picking between two not-so-great options at QB, I'd rather go with the established veteran presence whom I stupidly believe had a successful 10 year career in the NFL to this point, and try to trade the young player while he still has some value, rather than throw him to the wolves and lose any chance to get anything for him.