On Tuesday Michael Vick was named Philadelphia's starting quarterback for 2013. That leaves the Eagles with a nice problem to have in Nick Foles, who will now kick it on the bench until Vick falters, gets injured or the season ends, whichever comes first.
The logical question then is whether the Eagles will consider trading Foles. The shouldn't. And it's a moot point because they won't -- Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the team has "no plans" to trade Foles after naming Vick the starting quarterback.
As Jeff pointed out Twitter, this might seem obvious but it's really not. Ryan Wilson and I discussed it on the podcast this evening because, hey, if Jon Gruden can talk about giving up a first-round pick for Kirk Cousins, why can't someone consider trading for Foles?
In fact, Andy Reid made it pretty clear at the 2013 NFL Combine that he at least inquired about Foles when he was hired by the Chiefs, but the Eagles had no interest in trading him.
But as we noted in the podcast, it just doesn't make any sense for someone to give up a high draft pick for someone else's backup quarterback this close to the start of the season.
And it definitely doesn't make any sense for the Eagles to move Foles regardless of how confident they are in their starter. Vick's made 16 starts exactly one time in his 10-year career. It would be a miracle if he made it through the season unscathed.
Philly could lean on Matt Barkley or even Dennis Dixon if they moved Foles, but Kelly's noted numerous times how important it is to have two quarterbacks in the NFL. At some point this season Foles is going to see the field for injury or for performance and that's why the Eagles aren't going to deal him, even if they could.
The Eye on Football podcast brings you the best NFL analysis money doesn't have to buy. Subscribe on iTunes here!