Reid's contract; utilizing Vick

Some interesting links to pass along this Wednesday afternoon.

We start with an item from Mike Lombardi of the National Football Post. Lombardi touches on two topics.

One is Andy Reid's contract situation. Considering that Jeffrey Lurie obviously had to be talked in to the Michael Vick signing, Lombardi wonders if Vick's success and Reid's extension are tied together to some extent. With two years left on his contract, is now the right time to start negotiating with Reid? Lombardi advises against it, saying the Eagles' best option is to wait and see how things play out:

Waiting is the right move. There are too many variables right now to make a huge commitment to Reid for the future, especially since he has two more years left on his current deal. The move to not extend doesn’t imply that the team isn’t happy with his work; it just implies that they’re honoring their commitment to Reid. The lack of an extension now doesn’t imply they won’t eventually extend -- it just means not right now.

Lurie was actually asked about Reid's contract situation when he addressed the state of the franchise at Lehigh.

"You all probably, more than most journalists in the country, know how I feel about Andy," he asid. "Outstanding in every way. I see great success for Andy with the Eagles and that will continue."

A follow-up question asked him if there have been talks about an extension.

"I know you guys have to ask questions like that, but in the history of dealing with coaches and with Andy in particular I’ve never ever spoken publically about it," Lurie said. "Even when we have slow season starts, as we often do, and everyone wants talk about [whether Andy is still going to be the head coach]. Everything will happen very privately and that’s the way it’s always been. I think that’s why it works so well. We talk very directly and honestly and don’t use the public forum."

So basically, if they do talk extension this season, we won't know about it until something is signed or agreed upon.

Lombardi also wrote about how the Eagles could best use Vick, and he offered a take I hadn't previously seen or heard. His suggestion? Use Vick as a change-of-pace QB for 8-12 plays a game. Let him run around, tire out the defense a little, get the opponent thinking about attacking the Eagles differently and then bring in Donovan McNabb to throw against a bunch of worn-out players.

It's an interesting concept. Of course, that would mean taking McNabb off the field for 8-12 plays a game. Remember when Patriots owner Robert Kraft was asked about New England bringing Vick in? He answered -- why would we want to run less plays with Tom Brady on the field? I know McNabb's not Brady, but doesn't the same theory apply to some extent?

And Ron Jaworski has preached about the importance of McNabb being in a rhythm, something Lombardi's system would disrupt.

And finally, one more link to pass along from the folks over at Iggles Blog, who take a look at McNabb's performance in the red zone compared to Vick's.

I actually wanted to take a statistical look at Vick's previous numbers inside the 20 for an MTC post, but IB has it covered. They found that Vick accounted for far more negative plays than McNabb in the red zone, meaning he threw more INTs and was sacked more often.

But their completion percentages were pretty similar (keep in mind the comparison looked at three-year windows for each QB). And as you would expect, Vick is a far bigger weapon in the run game.

Anyway, check out the link for greater detail.