I just finished reading "Faceoff" on the CBS Sports homepage. And one part stood out to me today. The comments made by Pete Prisco about coaches and their "knee-jerk reactions" to changing quarterbacks. He is questioning the Eagles (Andy Reid) decision to go with Michael Vick the rest of the season. Now I admit I didn't watch either of the Eagles' first two games in their entirety, but from what I did see, Vick is playing some good football. And Vick playing good football can be pretty amazing. I know Kevin Kolb didn't have much time to make his mark this season, but he didn't look that impressive when he was playing. And this brings me to my point. Why not switch quarterbacks? I know the Eagles have alot of time and money committed to Kolb already but how long should you stick with a guy before you make the switch? 4 games? 6 games? Wait till your season is pretty much in jeopardy? I hear the argument, "Well no one is running away from the division so you have time to get going." What a load of BS. So just because there is nobody else making a run with the division, does that mean that you shouldn't do your best to be the one team that does? A coach has an obligation to his city, his owner, and his players to field the best possible players to give your team a shot to win. In a season where one game can make the difference between playing in the post season and going home after 16, you need to win every game you possibly can. Perhaps sometimes that means admitting that you made a mistake in your original quarterback decision.
Posted on: September 23, 2010 10:38 am