Flimsy Logic Says Vick’s Coming to D.C.

According to Mike Florio, the Redskins should be atop the list of possible Mike Vick destinations because A) they tried to acquire Jay Cutler and Mark Sanchez during the offseason; B) DeAngelo Hall said during a radio interview over the weekend that Vick deserves a second chance.

(I understand that this is the sort of loose speculation on which PFT was built, so giving it credence is kind of silly. But this Vick-to-D.C. talk is working its way around the internets, so we should address it anyway.)

To point A: Just because the Skins went after two QBs does not mean they would go after any QB. Mike Vick is not a good fit for the west coast offense. We know this because he already tried it out in Atlanta. It didn’t go well.

To point B: D-Hall is Vick’s friend. They played together in college and in Atlanta. He has always shown very public support of Vick. Continuing this support does not mean that he is somehow trying to influence the team to sign his friend. In fact, in the same interview in which he said Vick deserves a second chance, he also said the the 49ers would be the best suitors. Lemme find the exact quote … ah yes, here it is: “I think a perfect situation would be a place like San Francisco.”

Although, to be fair, Florio concedes that Hall isn’t lobbying publicly for Vick-to-D.C, but could be doing so behind the scenes. Which leads to this point: I highly doubt Dan Snyder comes to DeAngelo Hall for advice in making personnel decisions. I have no insider information about this – just a hunch.

Other issues ignored by Florio but addressed by JLC at RI: At best, Vick won’t be available to join a team until the end of the summer … Vick will bring with him a media/PETA shit storm (which may actually be the only attractive piece of this for Snyder) … Vick and Campbell share the same agent, which is perhaps the biggest roadblock to this entire thing.

So there: Vick is not coming to the Redskins.

/Jinx

7 thoughts on “Flimsy Logic Says Vick’s Coming to D.C.”

  1. “I highly doubt Dan Snyder comes to DeAngelo Hall for advice in making personnel decisions. I have no insider information about this – just a hunch.”

    Seriously, that’s Clinton’s job.

  2. “Mike Vick is not a good fit for the west coast offense. We know this because he already tried it out in Atlanta. It didn’t go well.”

    There was that time in ’03 when he became the first QB to win in Lambeau in the playoffs with Crumpler and Finneran as his primary targets. In ’05 Vick took them to the NFC championship game (losing to Philly). I think the consensus with Vick was that he needed better receivers, not that he couldn’t run the offense.

  3. I don’t think they ran the west coast in ’02 (which is the season during which they actually beat GB in the playoffs). Not coincidentally, that was also Vick’s best season. And it was ’04 when they went to the NFC Championship thanks to the best rushing offense in the league.

    “I think the consensus with Vick was that he needed better receivers, not that he couldn’t run the offense.”

    Right. Because not being able to hit your receivers is their fault.

  4. I didn’t check this, but a reader tells me Vick and Hall never played together at Tech.

    Also, not to be picky, but the interview was last Thursday, according to the transcript posted Friday on the D.C. Sports Bog.

  5. Vick’s guys were almost never open, but he completed 56% of his passes in 2004. McCord, Finneran, a washed-up Price, Crumpler, and Jenkins do not make a receiver corps.

    Yes, they were the best rushing team in’04. And Vick ran for 902 of those yards. He also set the single-game rushing record for a QB in the playoffs against the Rams that season (119).

  6. You’re right on both counts, Dan.

    Correction 1: “DeAngelo Hall said during a radio interview on Thursday.”

    Correction 2: “They played football at the same college.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>