clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Snide Debate: Should The Redskins Have Signed Michael Vick Last Year?

Rick Snider has covered the Redskins since 1983. He's a columnist with the Washington Examiner. Read more at

Rick Snider says the Redskins should have taken Vick when they could last year...I disagree with that one sternly.

Rick: The Washington Redskins could have had Michael Vick instead of Donovan McNabb and saved two very needed draft picks if they hadn't been afraid of controversy last year. I know you love Donovan, and so do I, but the Redskins blew it not getting Vick last season.

Kevin: Coming off that loss to the Rams, I think that's an easy statement to make. So many Redskins fans (myself included) wanted the Redskins to rebuild from the bottom up, but to say the Redskins would have been better off last year with Vick is an egregious statement. You're telling me you'd want Jim Zorn, who demanded as much respect as a deaf, high school substitute teacher (this happened to me), to manage and coach Vick? Players owned that team and the media last year. It was a disaster. Vick would have been at the clubs with DeAngelo Hall and the bottom line is he still would have gotten sacked...a lot. Haynesworth and Vick on the same team addressing the media with a 4-12 team. I shudder to think of that. Compare that to the coaching staff of the Eagles who have worked on his mechanics, built a PR team around him, and have turned him into a film room junky. Don't you get it?...with the Redskins' "The future is now"'s always a fail.

Rick: It's not about last year. It's about this year. Vick wouldn't have played last year. Well, maybe the final month when no one cared anymore. But last year couldn't have been a bigger circus even with Vick here. He needed last season to get his head together because nobody goes from prison to the playing field without some transition time. The Redskins could have groomed him for this year and saved those two picks. And, Vick is now looking like his old self, which is pretty good. The Eagles didn't give up on McNabb for Kolb. They gave him up for Vick, which did it in a way to soften the public relations fallout.

Kevin: Oh come one! After losing to the Lions and practically the Rams weeks 2-3, every single person would have been calling for Vick, especially behind that awful Oline.

Continue reading this post >>

My point is Vick would not have been groomed in DC like he was in PHI this past year. From top to bottom the Redskins were so f'd up, and Vick easily would not be the player he is now. The puppy stomper needs to be surrounded by quality people 24 hours a day and that would never happen in DC...the city where all his degenerate friends live a 2-hour Escalade drive away from. There's a reason big named, free agents always are problematic in discipline. Vick would have been a disaster in DC.

Rick: They would have called, but it wouldn't have happened. Not that early. Probably November. Today, Vick would be perfect behind yet another so-so line.

Kevin: You still haven't addressed that Vick would have been a disaster here last year. Zorn and Cerrato both hated Campbell, what makes you think either wouldn't have STARTED Vick after a great pre-season or if struggling against 6 undefeated teams. With the Skins still being a losing team last year, Vick would have been another outcast that leaves DC and performs better elsewhere (see Brandon Lloyd).

At a high-level, sure Vick and draft picks is better than McNabb...but how this team was run last year and the drama that ensued would have been disastrous. Vick would no way would be where he is today.