Writer believes the Philadelphia Eagles should release Vick. Why'd they re-sign him then? Dur-dur-dur
I read an article today which likely resulted as being a potential finalist for the least-sexy-facial-expression of the year. It was written by one Eliot Shorr-Parks of NJ.com and entitled, "Should the Eagles release Michael Vick?"
My short answer to that is no. If someone had asked me before the Eagles re-signed the veteran quarterback, I probably wouldn't have provided a definite answer. However, after re-signing Vick to a 1-year, $7 million+ contract, how in the world would it make sense to release him?
Mr. Shorr-Parks, what's your take on this?
"It wasn't exactly a 'play me or else' proclamation, but listening to Michael Vick talk after Eagles practice on Thursday, it wasn't hard to see where this could be going."
Oh, so a guy who was signed for another year and up to $10 million if everything goes well should be released because of what Mr. Shorr-Parks sees happening in the future through his crystal ball? That's a good enough reason. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced. Even so, though, humor me, Mr. Shorr-Parks. What else do you have to say on the matter?
"If this is how he feels after a few offseason practices, you have to wonder how he will feel splitting reps during training camp. Or in the first preseason game. Or, if he does lose the job to Nick Foles, how he will handle sitting on the bench?"
I notice a lot of "ifs." In other words, that means none of these events have taken place and it's unknowable whether or not they ever will.
Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Shorr-Parks?
"Which raises the question Chip Kelly and the Eagles might want to start considering: Should they cut their ties now with Vick before it gets out of hand?"
Before what gets out of hand? The "if" situations which have yet to take place and might not ever take place? Interesting. I can tell this writer would make for a very popular boss.
Shorr-Parks: "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but I've decided to let you go."
His employee: "What? Why? What did I do?"
Shorr-Parks: "Look, I saw that look you gave Cassandra the other day."
Employee: "Cassandra? Who's that?"
Shorr-Parks: "Anyway, like I was saying - I saw how you looked at Cassandra the other day and it was the look of pure attraction and lust. What if that look becomes even more obvious? What if you start hitting on her while at work? What if you sexually harass her? What if you start stalking her? I just can't afford to see that happen, so I'm going to have to let you go. I'm sorry."
Employee: "Wait, what? Who's Cassandra again?"
Shorr-Parks: "You may go now."
Alright, Eliot, so what else is there to this story - according to you, that is?"
"To his credit, Vick handled his demotion late last season professionally. That was, however, a very different situation. At that point, the writing appeared to be on the wall for Vick. With Andy Reid on his way out, Vick knew hew was going to suffer the same fate. With free agency ahead of him, Vick likely was more than happy to rest rather than go under center behind the team's decimated offensive line one more time.
If he is benched now, however, you have to wonder if he will have the same professional attitude this time."
So, Vick has a history of taking demotions professionally, yet due to Mr. Shorr-Parks' fear that he won't do so in the off-chance he's not named the team's starting quarterback, he should be released. I see...
The writer closed his "piece" with this:
"While it may seemed rushed, the Eagles might want to at least consider stopping what is sure to be a circus at training camp. Does Kelly want to risk waiting to see what Vick says to reporters after practice everyday? Letting Vick go now would give everyone a defined role at camp. Foles would be the starter, Matt Barkley the backup and Dennis Dixon the emergency quarterback.
True, cutting Vick would go against everything Kelly has stood for since he arrived - making people compete for the job. It would, however, potentially stop his first season as a coach from being marred with an ugly quarterback controversy.
When talking about how he judges a quarterback, Kelly said that quarterbacks are like teabags - you don't know what you have until you put it in hot water.
The water isn't hot yet, and it appears to already be getting to Vick - something the Eagles might want to consider before they open camp in a month."
So the new Eagles coach should go against everything he stands for and demand that Vick be released due to events which have yet to take place, but most certainly will, so says Mr. Cleo?
Let's think about this for a moment. What the writer has essentially stated is the following:
- Veteran quarterback Michael Vick wants to be the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles.
- He's had a history of handling demotions professionally.
- New Eagles coach Chip Kelly has been adamant about how important competition is for each and every starting position.
- Vick should be released due to what could potentially transpire if he isn't named the starting quarterback or is demoted from that position at some point during the regular season, even after being re-signed by the team this off-season. All I can say is, with this writer's logic (or lack there of), thank goodness he's not a lawyer.
On that note, even though I'm certain she's never cheated on me, I'm going to break up with my girlfriend in the off-chance that she ever would in the future. ...and if she's reading this, I'm just kidding.
http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2013/06/should_the_eagles_release_mich.html
My short answer to that is no. If someone had asked me before the Eagles re-signed the veteran quarterback, I probably wouldn't have provided a definite answer. However, after re-signing Vick to a 1-year, $7 million+ contract, how in the world would it make sense to release him?
Mr. Shorr-Parks, what's your take on this?
"It wasn't exactly a 'play me or else' proclamation, but listening to Michael Vick talk after Eagles practice on Thursday, it wasn't hard to see where this could be going."
Oh, so a guy who was signed for another year and up to $10 million if everything goes well should be released because of what Mr. Shorr-Parks sees happening in the future through his crystal ball? That's a good enough reason. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm convinced. Even so, though, humor me, Mr. Shorr-Parks. What else do you have to say on the matter?
"If this is how he feels after a few offseason practices, you have to wonder how he will feel splitting reps during training camp. Or in the first preseason game. Or, if he does lose the job to Nick Foles, how he will handle sitting on the bench?"
I notice a lot of "ifs." In other words, that means none of these events have taken place and it's unknowable whether or not they ever will.
Anyway, you were saying, Mr. Shorr-Parks?
"Which raises the question Chip Kelly and the Eagles might want to start considering: Should they cut their ties now with Vick before it gets out of hand?"
Before what gets out of hand? The "if" situations which have yet to take place and might not ever take place? Interesting. I can tell this writer would make for a very popular boss.
Shorr-Parks: "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but I've decided to let you go."
His employee: "What? Why? What did I do?"
Shorr-Parks: "Look, I saw that look you gave Cassandra the other day."
Employee: "Cassandra? Who's that?"
Shorr-Parks: "Anyway, like I was saying - I saw how you looked at Cassandra the other day and it was the look of pure attraction and lust. What if that look becomes even more obvious? What if you start hitting on her while at work? What if you sexually harass her? What if you start stalking her? I just can't afford to see that happen, so I'm going to have to let you go. I'm sorry."
Employee: "Wait, what? Who's Cassandra again?"
Shorr-Parks: "You may go now."
Alright, Eliot, so what else is there to this story - according to you, that is?"
"To his credit, Vick handled his demotion late last season professionally. That was, however, a very different situation. At that point, the writing appeared to be on the wall for Vick. With Andy Reid on his way out, Vick knew hew was going to suffer the same fate. With free agency ahead of him, Vick likely was more than happy to rest rather than go under center behind the team's decimated offensive line one more time.
If he is benched now, however, you have to wonder if he will have the same professional attitude this time."
So, Vick has a history of taking demotions professionally, yet due to Mr. Shorr-Parks' fear that he won't do so in the off-chance he's not named the team's starting quarterback, he should be released. I see...
The writer closed his "piece" with this:
"While it may seemed rushed, the Eagles might want to at least consider stopping what is sure to be a circus at training camp. Does Kelly want to risk waiting to see what Vick says to reporters after practice everyday? Letting Vick go now would give everyone a defined role at camp. Foles would be the starter, Matt Barkley the backup and Dennis Dixon the emergency quarterback.
True, cutting Vick would go against everything Kelly has stood for since he arrived - making people compete for the job. It would, however, potentially stop his first season as a coach from being marred with an ugly quarterback controversy.
When talking about how he judges a quarterback, Kelly said that quarterbacks are like teabags - you don't know what you have until you put it in hot water.
The water isn't hot yet, and it appears to already be getting to Vick - something the Eagles might want to consider before they open camp in a month."
So the new Eagles coach should go against everything he stands for and demand that Vick be released due to events which have yet to take place, but most certainly will, so says Mr. Cleo?
Let's think about this for a moment. What the writer has essentially stated is the following:
- Veteran quarterback Michael Vick wants to be the starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles.
- He's had a history of handling demotions professionally.
- New Eagles coach Chip Kelly has been adamant about how important competition is for each and every starting position.
- Vick should be released due to what could potentially transpire if he isn't named the starting quarterback or is demoted from that position at some point during the regular season, even after being re-signed by the team this off-season. All I can say is, with this writer's logic (or lack there of), thank goodness he's not a lawyer.
On that note, even though I'm certain she's never cheated on me, I'm going to break up with my girlfriend in the off-chance that she ever would in the future. ...and if she's reading this, I'm just kidding.
http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2013/06/should_the_eagles_release_mich.html
Comments
Post a Comment