Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

29 Aug 2011

Michael Vick Agrees to $100 Million Extension with Eagles

As first reported by Andrew Brandt, the Eagles and Michael Vick have come to terms on an extension that will keep him in Philadelphia for the next six years. Per Adam Schefter, Vick will make $100 million over the duration of the contract, with about $40 million of that coming in guaranteed money.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 29 Aug 2011

76 comments, Last at 10 Sep 2011, 3:10am by Jerry


by justanothersteve :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 7:58pm

Wow. I mean just WOW!

by annwsunnys (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:32am

10M a year and 40M spending moneys. Nice.I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Lindasunny2002 on--a'ge'l'es's'da'te.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

by xanderphilip :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:08pm

I recognize that from AVclub

by Bryan and Vinny Show (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:50pm

Me, too. I started laughing when I recognized the text. I guess since the AV Club has a new commenting system, this spam had to go somewhere else to shill.
It's the free market in action!

by Temo :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:01pm

Wow, I knew he'd get paid but I didn't think he'd get Albert Haynesworth money!

/Snyder'd *snicker*

*glances at Roy Williams trade/signing*

/Jerry'd *sadface*

by Sisyphus :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:04pm

Vick is 31 and while pocket quarterbacks can play into their late thirties Vick does not seem likely to survive long enough to see the end of this contract. The other immediate thought that occurs to me is given the money that the Eagles spent in free agency what are the cap implications keeping their core players together.

by TBW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:46pm

Fran Tarkenton made the Pro Bowl and led his team to the Super Bowl at age 36.
Roger Staubach made the Pro Bowl and led his team to the Super Bowl at age 36.
Randall Cunningham has his best year at age 35.
Montana led his team to 14 wins at age 34, and to an AFC Championship game at 37
Steve Young threw 36 TD passes at age 37.
Elway's teams went 35-8 in his age 36,37 and 38 seasons.
McNabb is 35 and still starting.

Who are these great scrambling QB's who don't survive ? I'll give you Steve McNair, but who else ?

by Sander :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:02pm

I don't think Vick specifically will survive, though. He takes so many hits and so much of his game is based on his freaky athleticism, will decline at some point. He's also had serious trouble finishing 16-game seasons in the past.

by Noah Arkadia :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:15pm

I agree, this is not about scrambling QBs in general.

by TBW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 10:51pm

#3 said that only pocket QB's play until their late 30's and was using pocket passers as a contrast to Vick therefore implying Vick is not a pocket passer. So, I do think this is about scrambling QB's and the perception that they aren't durable. There are quite a few scrambling QB's who were playing at a high level at age 36 or 37 when Vick's contract ends or at least will no longer likely be a burden to the Eagles.

Doesn't anybody remember the beatings that Staubach and Tarkenton used to take ? What about Young ? Look at Farve, he was/is hardly a proto-typical pocket passer.

Why is it that people think scrambling QB's can't last ? Where is the list of guys with promising careers cut short because of the hits they took while scrambling around ?

by Eddo :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 11:30pm

The guys you're citing are not really like Vick in regards to style. They were scramblers, at least relative to most quarterbacks, but were throw-first QBs. Vick is more in the middle of the spectrum that goes from Drew Bledsoe to Tommie Frazier, if not more towards the run-first end.

The median rush attempts for the guys you cite, in seasons with at least 10 starts:
Vick: 113
Staubach: 44.5 (pro-rated: 50.8)
Tarkenton: 39 (pro-rated: 44.6)
Young: 58
Favre: 28
Cunningham: 87
Montana: 38.5
Elway: 50
McNabb: 44.5

So Cunningham's the only one close... and he only had seven seasons in which he started ten or more games. He also is clearly the worst quarterback on your comparables list.

by t.d. :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:06am

well, no one has ever been 'like vick' as a running quarterback. he has a 1000 yard season, ffs.

by Shattenjager :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:34am

Bobby Douglass was "like Vick" in running as a QB. He had a 968-yard season during the 14-game era and averaged 6.5 ypc for his career. (Vick is at 6.7, and rushing averages are noticeably higher now.) His passing numbers are, however, considerably worse.

Cunningham also had 942 yards rushing in 1990, averaging 8.0 ypc. He did eventually (basically starting in 1995) drastically reduce the amount of running he did, but up until that point, his rushing numbers are quite similar to Vick's.

by Sisyphus :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 10:01pm

None of those quarterbacks ran substantially late in their careers, and actually none of them ran nearly as much as Vick even in their prime. By the time they did the things that you cite they were playing a substantially different type of game, most were essentially pocket passers in the last several years of their careers, Tark, the exception, was more of a roll out passer.

Vick has shown no such trend; and it is not clear he can. When he is forced up in the pocket he is not as effective. Perhaps he can develop into a rollout passer and not take off and run but he has to stop taking the hits. He will have to in order to survive. Vick already has 653 career rushes and he has taken 224 sacks in six years so far. What do think that doubling those numbers would do to Vick?

by TBW (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 11:25pm

Steve Young ran for 454 yards at age 37, I think that was the 2nd highest of his career.
Montana posted his 2nd and 3rd highest rushing yards at age 33 and 34.
Rich Gannon had a career high 529 yards at age 35.
Elway ran as much at 36 and 37 as he did in his late 20's

by RichC (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:54am

And all of those numbers would be career lows for a (healthy) Vick.

Vick isn't a "scrambling quarterback. He's something completely different.

by TBW (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:58pm


Which means either
a) since there is no precedent for a player like him it is impossible to know or predict how well he'll hold up as he moves into his mid-30's
b) based on the most comparable QB's (scrambling or rollout types) it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe he may be able to maintain his level of play for most if not all of the new contract

But where is the evidence for:
c) only pocket passers survive until their late 30's therefore this contract is destined to be an albatross for the Eagles

Quite frankly I think this is more likely than c):
d) Vick got lucky/had a hot streak at the right time and was able to land this contract, but in reality he's the same sub-par QB he always was with the Falcons

by Mr Shush :: Wed, 08/31/2011 - 9:36am

I agree that c) is not substantiated by the evidence. But we don't need to establish c) to make a convincing case that this contract is indeed an albatross. We don't even need c) to be true.

We can note that age 31-36 is a period over which nearly all professional sportspeople of every description lose significant running speed.

We can note that running speed is essential to Vick's game as currently constructed.

We can conclude that Vick is therefore likely to have to significantly adjust his game to excel over the course of this contract.

"Aha," says you, not unreasonably, "Randall Cunningham, by far the closest thing there is to a historical comparable for Vick, made just such an adjustment and was a stonking, all pro success at age 35." Yes indeedy. One might point out, in mitigation, that Cunningham was throwing to Chris Carter and Randy Moss, and that the latter in particular has about as clear a history of inflating the production of his quarterbacks as one could ever find, but that would be missing the point. Because what we should really be saying is "Yeah, but look at Cunningham's age 32, 33, 34 and 36 seasons. In which he started a grand total of 13 games." Like Cunningham, Vick has always been an injury risk. That's not going to get better as he gets older.

Vick may stay healthy (at least most of the time). He may succeed in making the adjustments to his game which he will need to make. But I don't have a huge amount of confidence in either of those propositions, and for this to be a good deal for the Eagles they both have to come off. And even then, Jeremy Maclin is a fine receiver, but he is most definitely not Randy Moss.

by R Johnston (not verified) :: Wed, 08/31/2011 - 9:38am

Of course there's always e) the precedent for NFL running backs failing to be particularly productive past age 30-31 is overwhelming, and once Michael Vick is no longer a top notch running back his remaining quarterback skills are decidedly not elite.

Michael Vick is not a scrambling quarterback. He is an All-Pro running back with additional QB skills. Looking at this contract in that eminently reasonable context makes it look quite ridiculous. Even if you give Vick some extra productive age due to his not taking any hits for a couple of seasons, every bit of precedent screams that Michael Vick, running back, will hit the wall within a season or two, at which point he'll struggle to reach replacement level.

by Joe T. :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:45pm

Re: Steve Young - you are correct, 454 yards was his 2nd highest rushing total of his career and his highest since age 31. However, after leading the NFL in completion % 5 of the previous 6 seasons, his completion % that year dropped by 5% (although he was still 3rd overall). I wonder if there is correlation between his increased rushing yardage and decreased completion %, i.e. tighter schematic coverage opened up running lanes more frequently.

Raw rushing yardage is hardly a perfect gauge of the effectiveness of a scrambling quarterback though.

As far as scrambling "styles," Young, Montana, Gannon, etc were more about finding holes in the defense to pick up cheap yards on foot. Opposing defenses genuinely feared their accuracy and decision-making. Vick has always been about making guys miss with his athletic ability. I think your comparison is apples-to-oranges. As far as when Vick's skills will degrade, I think a closer comp would be to the career-length of a possession wide-out.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:51pm

That would be just before Young was forced into retirement as a result of his injuries.

by TBW (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:02pm

Yes, right before his career was tragically cut short at the age of 38.

by Jimmy :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:51pm

There was a period in which he didn't play much. Although you could make a similar point about Vick but for very different reasons.

by TBW (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 3:23pm

That would be when he was Montana's back up.

The last 7 years of his career he started: 16,16,16,11,12,15 and 15 games.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:05am

Vick has shown no such trend; and it is not clear he can. When he is forced up in the pocket he is not as effective.

You could say the same for Drew Brees. There is a precedent for short QBs who roll without rushing. Aaron Rodgers also rolls out a ton. He had like 350 yards rushing last year.

Not everyone is the monolith that is Peyton Manning, but he survives as a statue by having a freakily-fast delivery and the good sense to dive to the ground before getting killed.

by RichC (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:49am

None of those guys were as dependant on their legs as Vick. Vick doesn't throw nearly as well as any of those guys.

by Revenge of the NURBS (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:21am

"Who are these great scrambling QB's who don't survive ? I'll give you Steve McNair, but who else ?"

Yeah... That was either a brilliant or unfortunate choice of words. Maybe both.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:01am

Vick tends not to get the Troy Aikman/Steve Young type injuries, and hasn't had McNabb's leg injuries. But even a slower Vick is still decent. Mechanically, an 80% speed Vick is still as fast as Drew Brees, but taller and with a better arm. (And without the history of shoulder injuries)

Tyrod Taylor (Ravens back-up) is a good example of what a slower modern Michael Vick looks like. His brother Marcus used to be a decent example, before he decided he liked pot more than football. (Marcus was a lesser athlete, but a better QB in college than Michael was in college.)

by dbostedo :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:32pm

Marcus was not better in college that Michael was. Marcus only really started one year, so I'll just compare his year to Michael's first year. Some passing stats :

Marcus : 177 of 289, 61.2%, 2393 yds, 17 TD, 10 INT, 8.3 YPA
Michael : 90 of 152, 59.2%, 1840 yds, 12 TD, 5 INT, 12.1 YPA

Basically, Marcus threw a lot more, but somewhat less effectively. And rushing stats (which in college include sacks) :

Marcus : 147 att, 380 yds, 2.58 YPA, 6 TD
Michael : 108 att, 585 yds, 5.41 YPA, 8 TD

This discounts entirely the difference between the overall teams, of course. Part of the reason that Michael had less attempts was that the team was winning big more often. But Michael was pretty clearly the better college QB.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:09pm

Unless you actually watched the games. Marcus threw a much better ball, had a much better feel for the pocket and for his receivers, and managed the game in much more calm manner. He also played for a much less talented team, with a lesser line, and less RB talent.

by dbostedo :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:22pm

Well I was at quite a few of the games live for Michael, watched the rest on TV, and watched just about every game Marcus played in.

I'd disagree that he threw a better ball - Michael's arm always seemed amazing to me in strength and release. And I'd say the feel in the pocket was more a matter of what Michael knew he could do by running. I do agree on the quality of the surrounding team, but by the same token Michael got benched a lot in second halves of blowouts where he could have put up better counting stats - often due to how well he played the first half. (And of course Michael and Marcus contributed to the quality of the teams they were on.)

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked opposing college coaches and players, they'd judge Michael to have been better (which wouldn't be perfect, but it's something.) But maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

by Nathan :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:11pm

This has to be funny money.

by Anonymous(not that one) (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:30pm

All NFL contracts are toilet paper. I'm glad they're going to be keeping him for the next 3 years.

by andrew :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:34pm

I suppose I should be happy for him, that he's got it all back and that he's learned his lesson and all that.

I'm not. I can't. I still can't forgive him. I still can't make myself think he's the same person, just one who now knows he can't afford to risk his paycheck on things, one who's willing to pay people to have him do and say all the right things from here on out.

Yes, I've read all the articles with people who visited him in prison, with all those who say he's a changed and humbled human being.

I still can't forgive. I vowed if he plays in a superbowl I will not watch, and I will hold to that.

I hope his handlers continue having him do the right stuff and donate some of that to causes that will help animals.

by John (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:53pm

Yeah, I think $20 million of that guaranteed money would be a big bump for spay/neuter clinics.

I tried to boycott the NFL over Vick, but it was too painful trying to ignore the last years of Peyton Manning's career. I don't know what I'd do if the Eagles faced the Colts in this year's Super Bowl; for better or worse, I suppose it's pretty darned unlikely.

by Dean :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 8:54am

He has a right to make a living. But that does not mean we have any sort of obligation to cheer for him or support him in any way.

by lowercasejim (not verified) :: Sat, 09/03/2011 - 10:01pm

The man went to jail for (almost) two years. What is even the point of having prisons if, when you get out, people won't give you the slightest benefit of a doubt? I understand your reticence-- what he did was disgusting-- but if only to justify the extent method of dealing with chronic terribleness, why not let him at least fuck up again first before you exclude him completely from society? For legitimacy's sake.

by lowercasejim (not verified) :: Sat, 09/03/2011 - 10:04pm

That being said, this contract is fucking nuts.

by tuluse :: Sat, 09/03/2011 - 10:07pm

What is even the point of having prisons if, when you get out, people won't give you the slightest benefit of a doubt?

To remove criminals from the public, extract vengeance, and hopefully deter others from breaking the law.

Using prisons to rehabilitate is a relatively new idea really.

by Dean :: Tue, 09/06/2011 - 10:08am

If nobody ever went to jail, got out, and returned to a life of crime, then maybe you would have a point.

Maybe dogkiller will be the exception. Maybe. But lets see him walk the straight and narrow for at least 5, preferably 10 years before we start holding him up as a success story. Lets see how his behavior changes now that he has money again. And lets see how his behavior changes once he's out of football and out of the public eye. If he clears those two hurdles, then he'll have earned the credit you are rushing to hand him unearned (sort of like his entire pre-dog-torture career).

by Jerry :: Sat, 09/10/2011 - 3:10am

Whatever else you say about Vick, he's not the typical convict. (Very few sign for nine figures after they're released.) Like you say, let's give it time.

by Theo :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 8:53pm

10M a year and 40M spending moneys. Nice.

by Michael LaRocca (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:17pm

Woof woof

by Never Surrender (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:27pm

Aaaaaaand cue his regression.

by Nathan :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:32pm

Who left the door open?

by Bryan and Vinny Show (not verified) :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 9:42pm

This seems a bit much. Shouldn't they at least see if he can repeat his success from last year?
It's all a bit mindboggling when you think that only 2 years ago, there was some question whether anybody would want Vick to play for them. Now a 40 million guarantee? I have no malice towards the Eagles or Vick, but this just screams mistake. I guess we'll see.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 10:31pm

Holy. Crap.

Michael Vick, over his career, has been a fairly poor quarterback, not terrible mind you, just solidly below average. He's coming off by far his best season. Which is most likely this season, a) remaining a top 10 quarterback, b) regressing to his old bottom-10 days, or c) somewhere in between? Which is most likely over the course of 5 years? Even ignoring the whole time off for bad behavior angle, that's a lot of scratch for a guy with Vick's track record at his age. I think the Eagles would have been better served seeing if someone else would bite on big trade and keeping Kolb.

by LT (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:24am

The only way Michael Vick could possibly be a bottom 10 quarterback is if you completely discount his running ability. Once you include the rushing totals, it is quite clear that Vick has been at the very least, average. Sure he does have glaring flaws in his game but he also possesses rare physical gifts which do balance out those weaknesses. Vick is the most difficult qb to prepare for with his left-handedness, great speed, elusiveness, and cannon arm. Also there is the proven effect that mobile qbs have on running backs, for example Lesean Mccoy nearly doubled his YPC with Vick in the lineup. In no way, shape, or form is Michael Vick a below average qb in the nfl.

That said, I do think this is an overpay, 6 years and 40 million guaranteed is pretty steep for Vick. It is possible for Vick to be worth the money though, as the numbers do consider him an elite quarterback on a per play basis.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:59am

Well, here are his DVOA figures with some stats twiddling:
year: pass DVOA (pass attempts), rushing DVOA (rush attempts), average DVOA weighted by attempt, rank
2006: -20.1 (417), 36.4 (119), -7.56, 23
2005: -10.7 (424), 21.9 (85), -5.26, 23
2004: -31.4 (369), 30.5 (106), -17.59, 30
2003: -21.1 (110), 29.3 (33),
2002: 7.2 (454), 19.5 (103), 9.47, 14
2001: -34.7 (137), 64.7 (28),

Rank is where he fits in against other QBs if you consider only passes for the other QBs, and I excluded any QBs with fewer than 200 attempts on the year.

In 2002, his best year prior to the comeback, he was worse than Tommy Maddox by this metric. I did misspeak when calling him a bottom 10 quarterback. What I should have said (and really meant) was in the 23-32 range that would be the bottom 10 assuming there were a stable 32 starters.

by Bad Doctor :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:04am

Intropy, it's odd in all your stats twiddling that you neglected to consider 2010, which is only the most recent season and the one that involved 85% of the same personnel and playcalling that he'll have going forward. It would seem to be a hair more relevant that how well Vick threw to his ace receivers Brian Finneran and Peerless Price during the third season of The Sopranos, no?

Look, I'm not sold on the guy. I don't love this deal, both as an Eagles fan and as a human being seeing Vick get P.A.I.D. But it's really the only thing the Eagles could do. I'd love to kick the tires on the guy to see if his drop off at the end of the year was a fluke and the first 8 games or so was the real deal, but they don't have that luxury looking at both Vick and Desean Jackson as free agents at the end of the year and only having one franchise tag. I know that's not going to play well at this site, and I'm not going to ignore the obvious deficiencies in both Jackson's and Vick's (outside of his first 8 games of 2010) games. But they are huge playmakers, and very marketable to boot. If you're the Eagles, you gotta hitch your stars to their wagons for the next 4 years. Sure, if they remain hugely flawed, you're in bad shape, but you're also in bad shape if you lose one or both of them, flawed or not. Kevin Kolb throwing to Maclin and Riley Cooper with lots of draft picks in your pocket does not a championship contender make.

by bingo762 :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:17am

I agree with everything you just said but can a team use the franchise tag on a player 2 years in a row? Didn't The Eagles use the franchise tag on him this year?

by 0tarin :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:04pm

They can franchise him twice in a row (unless things have changed with the new CBA), but he'd get a 20% (I believe) boost on top of his previous year's franchise tender. For QBs, that very rapidly becomes impossible for the team to sustain.

by BaronFoobarstein :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:00pm

I left out 2010 because the question I was trying to answer was "Before his comeback, where did Michael Vick rank among QBs when you factor in his running game?" 2010 just wasn't pertinent to the question. But since you bring it up:

2010: 20.6 (406), 29.7 (90), 22.25, 8

You are right about 2010 being a more important predictor than any single prior year considering the personnel similarity and just the fact that it's recent, and DVOA is not designed to separate individual players from their offense. But the weight of all of his prior seasons combined probably means something too. I think he's going to regress, not to the bottom 10, but to a middle of the pack QB.

As to the rest about the Eagles options. Maybe, maybe not. Vick is doubtlessly exciting and marketable, but is he the guy who will help your team win? Is he significantly better than Kolb? . Those are tough decisions, and the Eagles certainly have more experienced people than some forum guy (me) making them. Time will tell.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:11am

Averaging only works when the signs are different. I think averaging doesn't work in your 2002 example.

by Southern Philly :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:45am

C), but Andy Reid knows a ton more about QBs than all of us combined. He's more than earned the benefit of the doubt on the viability of Mike Vick as a high level QB for the next few years.

"I think the Eagles would have been better served seeing if someone else would bite on big trade and keeping Kolb."

No, just no. That's having a Super Bowl contender take steps backwards to save money by shipping out a guy who just turned his career around. That sends all kind of wrong messages to the rest of the team.

by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 11:08am

Kolb panicked behind that line. The line is only getting older and more disorganized. Kolb was never going to work long-term in Philly, and that was obvious by half-time of game 1 last year.

by chemical burn :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:17pm

Yes, that line that is starting 2 rookies is only getting older and more disorganized. Very good point.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:49pm

It did look like it was getting older and then they were forced to start two rookies, which is a pretty decent indication of disorganisation.

It doesn't help that Danny Watkins is playing like he'd look good in a niners' uniform.

by chemical burn :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:54pm

You're crazy - Watkins and Kelce have had a ton of miscommunications in pass blocking, but they both look excellent in run blocking - they were blowing the Ravens defense 5 yards back on every play. Ronnie Brown looks excellent. They're not a run-first team, but as usual they will be effective when they do decide to rush. The Eagles pre-season o-line issues are the stupidest non-story of the season thus far.

Also, starting rookies is not a sign of disorganization, especially when they have the option of starting veterans (like Jamaal Jackson who is no scrub) that have simply lost out on the starting jobs. The rookies have played well, they won the starting jhobs the Eagles weren't forced to play them for cap/injury reasons like what's happening in Dallas and NY. As for age (which was the original issue) Jean-Max Gilles, Nick Cole and Jamaal Jackons are younger than the dinosaurs jettisoned by the NYG and Dallas who really were old enough to warrant concerns about age - a pair of 27 & 26 year old linemen are not exactly cause for alarm.

The age comment was 100% ridiculous.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 8:04pm

"Watkins and Kelce have had a ton of miscommunications in pass blocking, but they both look excellent in run blocking" - exactly like a true 49er, have you seen Anthony Davis or Mike Iupati play?

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 4:21pm

"It did look like it was getting older"

If they didn't start the two rookies, they would've been getting older... because every offensive line gets older if they don't start guys younger than the previous year. The question is are they getting old. And no, they weren't. Not even close. Like, not even an average age of 30 old.

The age comment, as was said elsewhere, was just ridiculous. The disorganized bit I'd agree with. But it's not age. It's because of a new offensive line coach.

by chemical burn :: Wed, 08/31/2011 - 7:41pm

I completely disagree they're disorganized. Their (by week 3 at the latest) will be (going from LG to RG) Peters, Herremans, Kelce, Watkins, Justice. Peters, Herremans and Justice are well-proven stalwarts. Watkins is the highly touted 1st round pick (and there's no history of 1st round o-line prospects getting significant playing time, such is this radical, disorganized and confused move.) Kelce is the wildcard, but he's starting because he earned the spot of a pretty darn good player in Jamaal Jackson. I don't want to get hyped up about pre-season, but Kelce has not just looked good, but special. He gets to the second level with effectiveness like I haven't seen: he finishes his first block and then is out there to knock down the safety on almost every running play. He's raw, he's a 7th round pick. But he's got something. There's nothing disorganized about their thinking. It seems jumbled because of the shortened off-season and they're making a big change in going with a 7th round rookie over and proven veteran. But that doesn't mean they suddenly turned into the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

I honestly think Watkins pass-blocking is an issue and the patch-work line holding them over until Justice gets back isn't thrilling, but this isn't comparable to the series of head-scratching/bad moves that the Giants and Cowboys have made in the off-season.

by Theo :: Mon, 08/29/2011 - 11:55pm

In other news:
the Raiders have retired the #2 jersey. New QB Pryor wasn't allowed to wear number #2, and is wearing #6.
This MUST be the first team to retire a number because the last player sucked too much.
I hope they hold a ceremony and instead of hanging the #2 jersey high in the stadium, they burn it, pee on it and throw it in the trash bin.

by John (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:05am

Nah, give it its due respect: have Al Davis wear it.

by Chocolate City (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 2:34pm

Gosh, I remember when I used to feel bad for Lane Kiffin.

by bingo762 :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 9:16am

Does anybody know how the deal is structured? When I see $40 million guaranteed, I read 4 year contract at $10 mill a year and then he'll be cut.

by bingo762 :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:02am

Philly.com is saying 14.4 this year and 16.7 after that. So what we're really looking at is a 3 year deal at least. Right?

by Noah Arkadia :: Wed, 08/31/2011 - 12:11pm

According to PFT, all of the guaranteed money is paid in the first 2 years.

by rageon :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 10:43am

If Vick plays out the deal, will he have earned more money (on the field) than any other player in history?

by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 4:30pm

Not even remotely close. His per-year average minus bonuses was $10M/year and he only played 2 years there. He had to return ~$7.5M of the $30M bonus, so it's only something like $40M that he earned with the Falcons.

Manning, for instance, has already earned more than Vick will on all of his current and previous contracts.

by Johnny Socko (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 12:54pm

$40 mil buys a lot, and I mean A LOT, of weed. Party at Ron Mexico's house!

by rageon :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 1:55pm

And Valtrex. Lots of that, too.

by John (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 5:44pm
by John (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 5:45pm

(Should have noted: thanks to 18to88 for the link.)

by LT (not verified) :: Tue, 08/30/2011 - 5:53pm

EDIT: deal is actually more like 5yrs - 35.5 guaranteed - 80 total.

by Ranccor (not verified) :: Thu, 09/01/2011 - 12:14pm

Great article about Vick's money over at ESPN.


Written before this big deal, but I found it pretty interesting.