Skip to content

Quarterback controversy? Nick Foles leads Eagles to victory in New York

Oct 6, 2013, 5:36 PM EDT


When Michael Vick left the game with a hamstring injury and less than two minutes remaining in the first half, the Eagles were ahead 16-7, and Nick Foles quickly led the offense on a scoring drive to tack on three. But midway through the third quarter, the New York Giants had retaken the lead, and the Birds’ offense looked stagnant without the threat of Vick running with the football.

Foles never lost his composure though, nor did Chip Kelly deviate from the game plan. The backup quarterback led Philly down the field to retake the lead, then proceeded to pile on with two touchdown passes in the fourth quarter—picture-perfect strikes to Brent Celek and DeSean Jackson in the end zone. Between those tosses and Eli Manning’s unraveling, the Eagles managed to climb out of New York on top with a 36-21 victory.

Now they wait for the result in Dallas to see whether or not they’ll finish the week in first place.

But for now, the story in the City of Brotherly Love is all about the quarterbacks. Vick has struggled to find a rhythm since throwing for a career-high 428 yards on San Diego in Week 2, and that continued to some extent on Sunday. When he exited the game, the four-time Pro Bowler had hit on just 6-of-14 passes for 105 yards.

Foles wound up finishing 16-of-25 for 197 yards and the two scores. So, Chip Kelly, do we have a quarterback controversy here?

As of right now, it would appear we do not. Foles did some nice things, but what doesn’t show up in the passing line are Vick’s seven running plays for 79 yards, which had a lot to do with the first 16 points the Eagles put on the board. That also opens things up for LeSean McCoy, who wound up with only 46 yards on 20 carries.

Otherwise though, it’s hard to argue Foles wasn’t throwing a better ball than Vick has the last few weeks. The second-year QB’s 64-percent completion percentage was higher than any single-game total Vick has posted this season. Foles also managed to find Celek and Djacc in the red zone, an area where the four-time Pro Bowler ahead of him has struggled especially.

The important thing here is the Eagles pulled out a victory against a division rival, even if the Giants are winless. Yet the play of Foles under center is an impossible story line to ignore, especially given the fact that Vick only beat him out narrowly for the job during training camp in the first place. It will be interesting to follow this week’s practice reports to see if Vick is limited at all, not to mention monitor how Vick performs in his next outing.

Philadelphia moves to 2-3, and has winless Tampa Bay next week for a chance to get back to .500

>> Instant Replay: Eagles 36, Broncos 21 [CSN]
>> Box Score [ESPN]

  1. John - Oct 6, 2013 at 5:39 PM

    This team is a waste of time with Vick at the helm. See if Foles is any good. If he is, it’s one less hole we have to draft for next spring.

    • dku5 - Oct 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      wasn’t that called preseason?

      • nyphilsphan - Oct 6, 2013 at 8:31 PM

        People act like Vick hasn’t gotten more chances to prove himself than most players ever do. We don’t need big flashy plays as a trade off for unnecessary sacks, interceptions and poor decision making. That’s not how you win in the NFL and it never will be.

        Foles may not be the next Tom Brady, but why does he have to prove himself to be a star QB to supplant Vick? All he has to do is be a better passer who makes better decisions. He already is. Mike Vick was a great player to choose in Madden ’04, and many of us grew up with him as the paradigm of the QB of the future. He inspires a level of fandom and support few players ever have or ever will.

        But isn’t it time to accept that there isn’t a Superbowl winning QB somewhere inside Vick’s head waiting for the perfect moment to reveal himself? What we see (and have seen) is what we’ll get. It’s time to move on and put our 2nd year (and Rookie) QB through a trial by fire. Anyone who believes there was an actual competition this spring is deluding themselves: Kelly wanted to debut his offense to the NFL with Vick at the helm. It required the least number of adjustments for Chip and had the greatest potential to prove his offense works in the NFL. But watching an accurate QB spread the ball around and march down the field (and GET THE JOB DONE IN THE RED ZONE), it’s clear throwing accuracy is more important than anything else in a QB, regardless of what offense you’re running. Anyone want to argue otherwise? (I’m sure someone does!)

      • dku5 - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:18 PM

        So Kelly chose Vick to preserve his pride over a strategy that was not in question considering no one had seen it or really knew which direction he was going. Kelly played the weaker QB because he is stubborn. Kelly would rather lose games and have such a horrible NFL start than put in a “better” QB. Kelly is more concerned about how people will react to his choice of QB over his 1-3 start.

        Or, Kelly chose the QB he believed Vick offered more than Foles.

  2. SLICE - Oct 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM

    Look… Obviously Vick is the more talented veteran with tons more athletic ability… That being said – Foles runs the offense at optimum efficiency! The ball comes right out, on target, on time. He usually looks pretty damned good. Let HIM continue!

    • bugaboo - Oct 6, 2013 at 9:42 PM

      using “that being said” doesn’t make your point any more valid

    • DB - Oct 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

  3. hitnrun - Oct 6, 2013 at 8:24 PM

    Vick didn’t play himself out of the job, and Foles didn’t play leagues better.

    However, the fact is that Michael Vick is never going to be the quarterback of a serious contender for the same half dozen reasons that come up every time this is discussed. If that’s the goal – winning the Superbowl some day soon – then it’s time to play Foles, and if he doesn’t make enough strides in however many weeks, move on to Barkley. If they can’t get it done, then we know we need a franchise QB at any cost – a very important thing to know for sure before a draft.

    The Eagles are not winning the Superbowl this year. It’s rare that a coach in this town has the leeway to acknowledge that and try to play some guys. Kelly should take full advantage of it because the criticism the team is getting now is the honeymoon compared to next year.

    • nyphilsphan - Oct 6, 2013 at 8:36 PM

      It’s just common sense at this point. Not sure there is any reason other than keeping Vick around as the center of attention and scapegoat to buy Chip more time….

  4. Steve - Oct 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM

    Vick is not an accurate passer and if he can not run because of a bad hamstring,points are going to be hard to come by with him behind center.I think Foles will get the start in game 6 and if he produces will be in there for game 7. He made some really nice passes.The fade pass he threw for a touchdown is something you will not see Vick do.I will take an accurate quarterback over a running quarterback any day of the week.

  5. wcbuckner - Oct 6, 2013 at 9:34 PM

    Wow, no love for Mikey in here. I’ve been surprised at how well Vick’s been throwing te ball this year. He’s thrown a lot of stellar passes that have been dropped in the first four games as well. For a guy who’s arguably 6’0, he’s got to have one of thE best arms in the league.

    • Emil - Oct 7, 2013 at 7:09 AM

      Don’t be surprised, the Philadelphia media hates Michael Vick, even though as you said he is having a great year and they speak for the minority of Vick bashers here in Philadelphia, even though the majority of the city loves Vick.

      • nyphilsphan - Oct 7, 2013 at 9:36 AM

        Having a reasoned discussion about the QB position equates to “bashing” in this guy’s book. Suggesting we should ride the youth movement and see what we have in our two young QBs isn’t just football talk- it’s racial bias!

        It is impossible to just get down to business and talk football as long as there are people who are Mike Vick fans first and Eagles fans second. For that reason alone, I can’t wait until he’s gone.

      • Emil - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        What is this, a trick? Who said anything about racial bias? Why did you even bring that up? Hhhmmmm?

    • 2sentz - Oct 7, 2013 at 8:37 AM


  6. willh888 - Oct 6, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    smackin’ the giants is like beating Radio in chess

    wait on the Foles mania

    • MM432 - Oct 6, 2013 at 9:57 PM

      But by all means keep protecting Vick because we know for sure he’s the future Eagles QB!

      • willh888 - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:05 PM

        Yep I was protecting Vick. Read it again weird guy

  7. Joe Manning - Oct 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM

    DeSeaon salsa dance GIF please.

  8. Emil - Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM

    “A QB controversy” HUH? I thought that was settled in the pre-season? Or when the Eagles offense put up more combined rushing and receiving yards that anybody in the NFL in over 50 years? But that doesn’t matter cause Nick Foles had A, one, good game, and once again the Foles mania creeps out because he had a good game against the Giants, which the backup QB is suppose to do btw. Maintain the lead and sustain drives, even though Foles didn’t do either initially and we almost lost the game, but of course nobody remembers that.

    When truth be told he almost lost the game for us by going 3 and about 4 straight times. It was the defense that actually won the game, by causing turnovers and giving the offense a short field to work with, but whatever, the Foles lovers will keep telling us Foles is a good QB, just like they did with Kevin Kolb. If you didn’t know all the Foles supporters are former Kevin Kolb supporters. I wonder whose bandwagon they will jump on next, my guess is Matt Barkley’s.

    • sharp as a bowling ball - Oct 7, 2013 at 7:37 AM

      Vick is dumb as a sack of rocks…that’s why the eagles will never go far with him … If a brain was attached to that god given athletic ability he would have about 3 superbowls under his belt

    • nyphilsphan - Oct 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM

      Honestly man, come back to reality. There is no hidden motives here. Stop coming in here with this attitude that there is some special agenda to get rid of Vick. The team is rebuilding. There is no reason for Vick to be the starter when we have two young high draft picks. Preseason and the second half of last year when the entire team quit on the coach is not enough of an assessment of any QB. Vick is 33. You’re going to have to let go soon- it’s ok. Dry your eye. There are other fish in the sea, champ.

      • dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM

        you just posted above hidden agendas. you reference Kelly’s hidden agenda of using Vick to debut his offense. if there are no hidden agendas, and foles is better than Vick, why does Kelly stay with Vick?

      • nyphilsphan - Oct 7, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        Not the kind of agenda I was referring to in this post….

      • Emil - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        I said OUTRIGHT, where is this hidden agenda I ma talking about? The Philly media hates Michael Vick, for whatever reason, and they speak for fans who do as well even though they are the minority in Philly they make the most noise and appear as the majority. Like my teacher used to say, empty barrels make the most noise.

        Also, the Eagles said OUTRIGHT they are NOT rebuilding, but what do you say… The Eagles are rebuilding. Huh? Tony Romo is 35, Peyton is 38 Brees is 35… SO WHAT if Vick is 33!

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

        Ah, the old lumping Vick in with high end quarterbacks to make him seem better than he really is. Drew Brees may be 35, Peyton Manning 38, the difference is they are great quarterbacks. Vick shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath as those guys, and truthfully Tony Romo is probably the better QB too.

        Honest question: what good quarterbacks is Vick better than, Emil? Would you say he’s better than Brady? Aaron Rodgers? Joe Flacco? Ben Roethlisberger? Eli Manning?

        How about Donovan McNabb? Would you say Michael Vick is better, worse, or as good as Donovan McNabb was? Forget all those other guys who have won at the highest level. I’m genuinely interested to hear where Vick supporters believe he stands compared to Donovan.

      • Emil - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

        What does Vick’s age have to do with production. Are you going to comment based on what the content of the post was about or are you going to try, or actually you did try and switch the entire topic of the debate.

        What is my point Kulp?… Here it is, are you listening… That Vick being 33 years old means absolutely NOTHING. This building for the future crap, is just that, crap, cause Vick being “too old” at 33 is baloney. When you have QB’s older than Vick that just signed big time long term deals. Manning, Brees and Romo… And you would say Romo is better than Vick… No surprise there, but knowledgeable football fans know better.

        Now, tell me why Kulp, why do YOU think there is a QB controversy with Vick and Foles when Vick beat Foles out, decidedly in the pre-season. WHAT has Foles accomplished in the NFL that he should start or even be considered as a starter over a seasoned vet like Vick?

        BTW thanks dku5 and nahroots for true professionalism and an unbiased approach to this so called QB controversy.

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:44 PM

        I didn’t say anything about Vick’s age in the first place, nor have I weighed in one way or the other on who I think should be the starter.

        I simply objected to even mentioning Vick in the same sentence as Manning or Brees. Who cares if they got contracts and Vick is younger–they happen to be Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Is Vick a Hall of Famer? Is he even an elite quarterback? No? Then why are we talking about how Hall of Famers are treated in relation to Vick’s situation?

        That was my only point. You’re just not fair about what Vick is. Even on Romo, you acting like it’s not even close when Romo is better by almost any meaningful measure that we have is crazy.

        That’s why I listed those other quarterbacks. I am interested to know where you think Vick ranks on the pantheon of today’s quarterbacks, or even how he compares to a guy like Donovan McNabb, a borderline Hall of Famer, because you seem to have No. 7 on a level he simply never reached.

      • Emil - Oct 8, 2013 at 7:49 AM

        OK lets get a few things straight…

        ONE… I know you didn’t say anything about Vick’s age because my original post about that wasn’t addressed to you. Please stay in context of my post.

        TWO… Vicks age and Brees age and Manning’s age and Romo’s age, who btw is NOT better than Vick regardless of what the peanut gallery implies, have nothing to do with production. The bottom line is VIck is younger than all three, and all three signed multi-year deals at an age older than Vick is now. So could the media please kill that noise that Vick is too old.

        THREE… You did weigh in on who should be the starter by implying it in the article YOU WROTE ,which starts with the words… “QB CONTRVERSY”… Or do you remember your own writings?

        FOUR… What do you see in Nick Foles, who btw lost the starting job to Vick when he had a chance to take it in 5 games, but lost by a landslide, and is 1 and 7 as a starter. Yet you imply it is a QB controversy when Nick played maybe had ONE good quarter of football. So in your mind almost ONE good quarter of football, with a short field btw, letting the Giants come back and take the lead which Vick had left the Eagles with, makes up for 5 pre-season games, and a 1 and 7 record as a starter, but you still “think” Foles could possibly supplant Vick? That makes sense to you, and all these other Kevin Kolb, I mean Nick Foles supporters?

  9. Lol - Oct 7, 2013 at 9:03 AM

    I can understand disliking Vick, but I’ll never for the life of me understand how a contingency of Eagles fans can get legitimately excited for Kevin Kolb or Nick Foles.

    • nahroots - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

      We’ll be white black after these messages.

  10. dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Can any of you explain why Kelly intentionally chose to sit the “better” QB?

  11. Ron - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

    What I’m trying to understand is are the Foles/Kolb fans (cause yes they are the same) watching the games with any kind of objection?

    Look, he played solid. He threw the nice pass on the fade in which the WR got good position. And put the ball where only celek could make a GREAT catch on.

    But let’s be real, the offense looks like it’s called a lot safer when foles is out there. Which is ok, until the drives stall and your 3 and outs mount up. You don’t see that much with Vick in there.

    I’m not saying Vick is the savior. I’m saying he runs this offense well. And he will be our QB until we get this type of QB in the draft next year to groom.

    Truth be told, I hope Foles tears it up next week. Increase his trade value.

    • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM

      It’s the same offense, it just looks safer because Foles doesn’t hold the ball as long and actually uses his checkdowns.

      • nahroots - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:42 PM

        goodness, you’re blind. There were multiple plays where Foles was “holding the ball too long”.

        and you must be referring to the drive right before the half. You know, the one where the Gints were giving up anything except a touchdown.

        How was Foles in the 3rd quarter? The one where he wasn’t gifted three turnovers and started within the opp’s terrorittory?

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM

        Regardless of where the drives started, those two touchdown passes were better than any ball I’ve see Vick throw since Week 2.

        Come on with some of this stuff. I’m not saying there weren’t any plays Foles held on to the ball, but if you really don’t believe there is a difference between Vick and practically anybody else in that department, I don’t know how we can have a reasonable discussion on the topic. Statistically, Vick holds the ball longer than any QB in the NFL.

      • nahroots - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        I’m not arguing the stats, poppy. I’m arguing the weight you put on that stat.

        Foles holds onto the ball less the Vick. Wow! Congratulations. Too bad it doesn’t automatically translate to more production. How have you not already come to the conclusion that it is a useless metric when evaluating Vick?

        I guess you missed Vicks TD pass to Avant in week 3. The one where he released the ball with a defender running full steam ahead to pulverize Vick. How about the 50+ yarder he completed to djax just yesterday? Forgot about that one already, huh?

        You got a wicked case of selective vision.

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        How is the length of time it takes Vick to release the football a useless metric? You can’t just throw that out there and not back it up.

        Am I to assume you think it’s useless because he can occasionally get out of troubles make big plays? The problem with that is it’s unsustainable. It’s inefficient. Completing passes is a useful metric though. Completing passes is what makes an offense go, and right now Vick has a Tebow-esque 53.8 completion percentage for the season, 46.5 percent over the past three games. So if I have selective vision, maybe it’s because the quality passes have been so few and far between.

        Holding on to the ball, constantly trying to make the big play instead of the safe one is one of the guy’s fatal flaws under center.

      • nahroots - Oct 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM

        LOL. In your very first sentence you ask “how is time-to-throw a useless stat?” You than immediately shift gears and start talking about completion percentage. What stat are we talking about here, Kulp?

        Oh, and I did a quick look-up of last years time-to-throw stats. And you know what? You were right. Vick is ranked up there right with Russel Wilson, RG3, and Luck. It also shows Hasselback, Palmer, and Tannehill on the other side of the spectrum. Stats without context are fun!

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 3:14 PM

        Dude, it’s all related. Vick holds the ball too long because he’s trying to make plays down field instead of making simple high percentage plays that keep the offense going. That’s how completion percentage became a factor. They are related.

        I mean, you’re talking about context, but you completely leap over the fact that the leaders in average time to throw last season among QBs who played at least 50% of their team’s snaps (per Pro Football Focus) were Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Joe Flacco in that order–two of the top three QBs in the NFL and the guy who won the Super Bowl. The guys you mentioned are all rookies–do you honestly believe that’s not a point of emphasis from their respective coaches as they continue to develop?

        The point is it’s not sustainable, not that no good player has ever held on to the ball entirely too long. If you really don’t understand why it’s an issue, I don’t know what else to tell you.

      • nahroots - Oct 7, 2013 at 3:44 PM

        Just not seeing it that way, man. Forget the extremes, look at the big picture. Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Rivers, and Ryan are all right there and don’t even crack the top 10. Nobody is telling them to get rid of the ball any quicker. Just make plays. Vick has kept plenty of drives alive with his feet. Just b/c it wasn’t via a check-down doesn’t make it any less valuable. Big Ben and Romo are masters at keeping plays alive looking for a play. They’re both elusive and hard to bring down. That’s how they make a living. Flacco and Peyton MUST get rid of the ball quickly. They’re dead in the water otherwise. This is why I’m harping on context.

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM

        For starters, nobody is saying Vick has to be in the top 10 necessarily. The difference from Vick on average in 2012 (3.07) to the fastest (Brady–2.47) was 0.6 seconds. The difference from Vick to Rodgers? 0.19 s. The difference from Vick to Roethlisberger? 0.22 s. Vick to Rivers? 0.28 s. Vick to Ryan? 0.4 s. Those are not insignificant. Those four guys were all within 0.1 seconds or were better than league average in release time.

        And nobody is telling those guys to get rid of the ball faster? Interesting all four are in the top 12 so far this season in release times. Vick has an NFL worst 3.4 seconds in 2013.

        Nobody is telling Ben Roethlisberger to get rid of the ball quicker? Hell, that’s why the Steelers hired Todd Haley as offensive coordinator in the first place–his offense is all about dink and dunk.

        Here’s where it gets interesting though. According to Pro Football Focus, Vick had a 66.8 passer rating in 2012 when holding on to the ball 2.6 seconds or longer–fifth-worst in the NFL. This year it’s up to 80.3, and in 2011 it was 82.1, both of which are still only around average. So not only is he holding on to the ball longer than everybody else, which leads to lower completion percentages, increased likelihood of holding penalties against the offensive line, and drive-killing sacks, he’s not even coming up with enough big plays to compensate. By comparison, Tony Romo has had the best passer rating in the league three of the last four seasons including this year (128.1, 135.0, 86.1, 135.0) when he holds on to the ball.

        And Romo is actually the perfect example of why this is not a sustainable approach to offense in the NFL. Eventually it will come back to bite you, as evidence by his playoff record.

        Roethlisberger makes it work because of his size. Even if the pass rush gets to him, there is no guarantee they are going to get him down. Those other guys though, and even Ben included, ALL are more efficient when they get the ball out in 2.5 seconds or less.

        It’s a fact that quick release is better. It’s unusual for a QB to post more efficient numbers when he’s hanging on to the ball longer. This is a pretty fundamental philosophy of the position, if not its very foundation, so again I really cannot understand why you are challenging it.

      • Ron - Oct 7, 2013 at 10:37 PM

        The reason behind having Vick at QB is because AT THIS JUNCTURE he is the better QB. Am I saying he is great, no. I’m saying if I’m a coach, a new one at that, I want my best chance to win in there. They move the ball down the field with him in there, consistently. Do they need to score more TDs? Yes. Does he need to make better decisions? Yes. In MY opinion, Foles is not the answer. So why put him in over someone who is moving the ball for you? I believe you try and fix you’re problem and turn them consistent drives into TDs, make what you can out of the season, go into the offseason with some momentum. I DO believe this team can rip off some games. I do believe that you can fix the TD problem and keep yourself in a game against a decent opponent. And I do believe that with Vick in there teams are going to have to score 30+ points to beat us. Offensively, is that a bad situation to be in?

        With that said, If foles gets a chance, I’m not going to root against the guy. I just would like people to understand that with Vick in there, even this week ripping off the better part of 200something yards in the time he played, our offense moves. For a 4-12 team, I’m not unhappy about that

    • dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

      Foles had 7 drives in the second half (excluding the final drive to end the game).
      He drove 13 yrds and punted after 6 plays.
      He drove for 8 years and punted after 3 and out.
      He drove 30 yds and set up a FG.
      He went 3 and out with no net yds gained.
      He threw a 25 yd TD after and interception.
      He drove 38 yds for a TD after an interception.
      He drove 10 yds to punt. After 3 plays.

      This is not solid at all. He is better than vick in the red zone, but he is not able to drive the field to get to the red zone.

      • Ron - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM

        I’m pretty sure that’s the point I made, While we might have different definitions of solid. He came in, threw a good completion percentage, didn’t turn the ball over, and while their initial ineptness did allow the giants to take the lead, he helped the eagles capitalize on the short field at the end. It was exactly how I feel a backup quarterback should be able to handle the situations.

        As far as the holding onto the ball goes, the plays they are running are a lot more quick release plays. Look last week when he came in as well. I’m not saying Vick doesn’t hold the ball longer, but they also aren’t adjusting when the receivers aren’t getting open. Where as when foles comes in, minus the one bootleg TD pass, it’s rinky dink safe football

      • dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

        I got ya now, Ron. I was a little confused on what you were saying, but it was pretty much what I think, too.

        I also agree 100% with Ron on the holding the ball/release questions. Kulp, did you consider that maybe Vick holds on to the ball longer to find the open WR, while Foles just gets rid of it quick without looking for the big play? Were the WRs open and vick just didn’t see them or was he holding on to the ball, staying alive, waiting for Cooper or Celek or Avant or Jax to shake a CB? If the QB is holding onto the ball for more than 5 seconds, the WR and TE did not createe space on their route, and that is not the QB fault.

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

        dku5, the quarterback has to have a clock in his head. He can’t just hang on to the football until somebody gets open down field. He needs to go through his progressions quickly, and if it’s not there, dump the ball off to a checkdown receiver, generally the back. This is quarterbacking 101.

        Just because a WR or TE wasn’t open doesn’t mean there wasn’t a play to be made. Sure, it might be a play for a three-yard gain, but that’s still better than an incomplete pass or a sack.

        Also, quarterbacks have the ability to throw their receivers open in certain situations, something Vick almost never does. Yeah, his targets aren’t getting much separation these days, but if he was able to anticipate receivers making their breaks and the ball was already out when they were turning around to look for it, then again he wouldn’t have to hang on to it as long.

        I don’t understand why people defend him over this. He is slow to make his reads. He stares receivers down. He doesn’t check the ball down. How is that anybody’s fault but the quarterback? Yes, it occasionally leads to big plays, but it’s not sustainable. It hasn’t been sustainable for 10 seasons prior to this, and it hasn’t been sustainable in 2013 either.

      • dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        I imagne Vick does not have a checkdown because of his legs, but I don’t know that for a fact. I do know that Vick has the abilty to scramble better than Foles, and thus he probably does not release quickly if he can make a better needed play. Now we are getting to down specifics, though, as it bdepends on the score, the down, the yds needed, etc. .

        In your other post you mentioned the release times of Brady, Romo, Big Ben. The egg before the chicken argument applies. Is Brady’s release quicker becuase he has a better offense or does he have a better offense that allows him to release the ball quicker? Will the end result be the same if we swap Vick with Brady? I would swap many QBs for Vick or Foles, but that is not the option. Swap Vick for Foles and the QB rating last year was almost identicle.

      • Andrew Kulp - Oct 7, 2013 at 5:43 PM

        Doesn’t have a checkdown? Stop it. What do you think the running back is doing while Vick running around like a chicken with its head cut off, standing around with his hands in his pockets? But in case it’s not enough for me to simply point out how silly that sounds, I’ve actually broken this down this season already:

        Between all their injuries, the Patriots have one of the worst offenses in the league so far this season. New England is ranked 21st in the NFL in passing, but Brady still has one of the fastest releases: 2.53 seconds (nearly a full second faster than Vick BTW). It’s just an entirely different mentality. Some quarterbacks have that clock in their head and are going to get rid of the ball for short gains rather than eat sacks or force it down the field for incompletions. It has nothing to do with coaching or talent. Tom Brady is simply more efficient and a better decision maker than Mike Vick, and it’s ridiculous in my mind that sentence even needs to be written in 2013.

        Also, pointing out that Vick had a similar passer rating to Foles last year when he was a third-round rookie does not speak positively on Vick.

      • dku5 - Oct 7, 2013 at 6:32 PM

        That was supposed to be use a checkdown because of his legs. Again, the part that says idk is because I don’t read his mind. if you can, enlighten us.

        You brought up the plethora of non eagle QB in a QB debate for the eagles. I am not sure why you did, but you missed the forest for the trees. I will reiterate…..THEY DO NOT PLAY FOR THE EAGLES COACH, BEHIND THE EAGLES I LINE, WITH EAGLES RECEIVERS. all of what you said about Brady is fascinating, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Vic foless or the Eagles.

      • nyphilsphan - Oct 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        I’ve never seen a player that fans of ANY team for ANY reason make THIS MANY EXCUSES for. It’s absurd.

        The argument is pointless. Stats don’t matter. When Vick is playing, the team around him sucks, the O-line, the receivers, the coaching, the running game, Celek drops balls. But if anyone else is playing and looks better protecting the football and throws more RZ TDs than Vick had in the previous two games in one half, well he had protection! The conspiracy runs DEEP! The O-line is sabotaging him! The media has it out for him!

        Here’s the real point: Why does this matter? Really? Are we winning a superbowl this season? You can bet your life we aren’t. Net year? The year after?

        Please someone explain to me the point of Mike Vick being the QB of this team. PLEASE!

    • Emil - Oct 8, 2013 at 7:52 AM

      Big Ben won a Super Bowl holding onto the ball and making plays…


(email will not be published)