Re: Did Mike Vick play his last snap yesterday?
Not to hijack the thread back to it's original premise or anything...
Reid benefits zero from Foles being on the field. He's a dead man walking, and I don't know if it's loyalty or revenge, but all indications are that Vick, if healthy, is their QB.
Foles didn't exactly set the world on fire. In fact, had it not been for a holding call and the generally inept nature of the opponents DB's, he'd have had at least one more Pick 6 against him. The long TD was a blown coverage that my Mom could have turned into a TD. Maclin and Jackson made catches that were as fgood as anything they've ever done in Philly just to keep drives going. The opponent was so inept they gave Philly something like 6 first downs via penalty.
I'm not convinced Foles is their future. But if they are, I'm not convinced you don't risk doing the kid more harm than good by playing him if Vick is healthy. Some individuals on the team already have shown a propensity toward quitting, and I'm not sure that isn't amplified if the kid goes through what should be expected growing pains.
Being crushed behind awful O-lines killed Carr, Couch and others. I think we need a much bigger sample size to determine if it's to their advantage to finish it out with Foles or Vick, who is gone Feb 2 anyway. If someody's going to get mauled, why let it be the guy you're hoping is going to be your future?