Yep, you probably know by now Vick is an Eagle. It was a surprising move by the Eagles as they were not one of the teams that appeared interested in obtaining Vick. For Vick, it's a great move generally speaking. First, he gets a decent salary ($1.6 million) in his first year with an option in year two for about $5.2 million. Secondly, there is minimal pressure on Vick to challenge for a starting role since there is no competition as the Eagles have McNabb. Third, I expect less public outrage with the Eagle fans. Oh sure, early opinion by the Philly faithful has been negative but this is from the same fan base that booed Mcnabb when he was drafted, same with Santa Claus. So for them to hate Vick would be normal procedure. Plus, I can't wait for game days at the Linc. Drunken Eagle fans vs. PETA protesters, should be fun to watch.
But the question to ask really is whether this is a good move for the Eagles and I'll get to that in a second. First comes the issues with Vick, his past offences and how the rest of the world is handling it.
This has been interesting alone to see how people react to the news of Michael Vick and his return. There are people who support his for various reasons and those who are against him. It's also interesting to see how the NFL handled this compared to other players who have gotten in trouble like Donte Stallworth, Plaxico Buress and Pacman Jones. First, I do believe in second chances and once time has been served a person should have a chance to be productive in society. However, with that said the NFL wasn't required to re-sign him like some think. Nor, was it "collusion" by the 32 teams had they not signed him. 31 of the 32 teams are owned by one person or group (The Packers are publicly owned by stockholders) and they have to weigh the public outrage with how the player will help the team succeed (and/or if the player will make the team more profitable, c'mon football is a business let's not forget that).
For those who think Vick should have never played in the NFL again, it really comes down to talent. What Vick did was pretty terrible but the NFL has had a numerous amount of 'bad eggs' so to speak in the league including players who been convicted of drug possession, assault, battery, domestic violence, DUI/DWI, weapon possession and manslaughter. So why should you be surprised that he's back?
Now will he be a huge factor to improve the Eagles? I don't think so. Matter of fact the move made me scratch my head when I first heard about it (during the Ravens/Redskins game). As a quarterback it's a bad fit to me. Remember why I thought Vick would be a bad move for the Skins? Legal and moral issues aside, it's because the Redskins currently run a West Coast system. In this scheme, the passing plays are usually shorter, accurate passes. Vick ran a WCO system in Atlanta during Jim Mora's tenure and I think he struggled with it. First, Vick isn't very accurate (53.8% vs. Mcnabb's 58.9%). Second, I'm not fully convinced that Vick ever achieved the touch to get the ball out quickly to his receivers but to make the ball catch able. How many people thought Roddy White was a total bust until Vick left?
There will be some things that Vick will help with the Eagles. First, he has had success in the NFL and is a much better back up QB than Kevin Kolb who looked terrible in his appearance against the Ravens last year. Second, teams will have to game plan for Vick, whether he's a QB in a Wildcat formation (Have the Eagles ran Wildcat? I don't think they have but what do I know?) a possible WR or RB. Vick is a very dangerous threat when he has the ball because of his ability to outrun and outplay tacklers.
Can Vick still even do that after two years of exile? That's what we'll find out in two weeks and what the Eagles will be betting on.