Update: The Eagles have issued the following statement:
Under normal circumstances, we would not issue a public statement regarding a matter still under investigation. However, due to the intense speculation that exists, we believe it is important to make a statement this afternoon regarding Michael Vick.
"Following the incident that occurred in Virginia on the morning of June 25, Michael and his representatives promptly contacted law enforcement agencies, the Philadelphia Eagles and the National Football League. The Eagles were provided with very detailed information during that discussion as to what took place at the event. Those details have not changed in any way over the course of the last week. Our investigation to this point has confirmed and has been consistent with the information that was originally communicated to us.
Furthermore, any report or speculation that suggests the Eagles are considering releasing Vick are not true. We will continue to gather information and monitor the situation and we will not have any further comment until that process is complete.
Should the Eagles release Michael Vick?
|| 1950 (61.3%)
|| 1233 (38.8%)
Total votes = 3181
Right in the middle of the holiday weekend, what should plop uninvited onto your Eagletarian's barbecue grill than a strangely-sourced Associated Press report saying that the Birds are "strongly considering" releasing Michael Vick.
Strangely sourced because the report is attributed to someone "familiar with the team's thinking."
I dunno, maybe I'm strange that way, but if I were going to report something like that, I'd want it from someone who actually worked for the Eagles, and was PART of the team's thinking. I'm pretty darn "familiar" with their thinking myself, but unfortunately, that doesn't make me an authoritative source on personnel moves.
For the record, I did talk to somebody from the Eagles about the AP report, and he called it "total crapola." I'm calling that a strong denial.
Here is the substantive part of the report: "The person says the team might cut Vick no matter what police conclude during their investigation of a shooting that followed the quarterback's birthday celebration in Virginia Beach last week. The person spoke to The Associated Press early Saturday on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation."
Are the Eagles, at some point, going to end up washing their hands of Vick over this? I'd say it's about 50-50 right now, being familiar with the team's thinking, as I am. I think, obviously, Vick didn't need to stir up any sort of controversy, so the part about the police not needing to charge Vick for the Eagles to act certainly is true. Right now, Vick's biggest problem is the video that seemingly undercuts what he said originally about the timeline of events.
But again, if nothing more emerges, how fair is it to cut the guy because somebody got shot outside a party he held? Even if you think signing him was a mistake -- and I do -- shouldn't he be directly implicated in some way, before you take away his job?