Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69
The Eagles are not stupid. They knew. Why did they hang on to Michael Vick and insist on not trading him? I personally think they saw how talented the guy is and decided to really coach him up and see if he would buy in. Once they saw that, they had to reason to keep McNabb. Who would think after this trade we still have the worst QB in the division.
|
*Raises hand* Well, there's always Kitna.
Look, back in April, I thought it would be dumb to suggest that the Eagles would willingly trade McNabb and somehow not have a plan to perform better at quarterback than the guy they traded. It wouldn't have made any sense.
I don't think they were in any way expecting Vick to be that guy, but they of course knew what they were trading us. I think it was the combination of the lack of weapons on the roster that made them feel safe in dealing him here, as well as a declining skill set. I also think the Eagles deserve some credit for not being overconcerned with their record against us this year. McNabb went 1-1 against Vick this year, which considering the talent discrepancy between the teams, has to be a win for the Redskins. But because we're not at this point competitive with the Eagles at the top of the division, I think they deserve credit for not blowing up a home loss to their former QB into something worse than it was.
We beat them fair and square on their home turf. But after beating up on the Colts and us in consecutive weeks, and sporting the best offense in professional football, can anyone still criticize them for trading McNabb when they did? Even though one of their three losses came against him? No, I think they are safe from criticism at this point.