Anytime the discussion to trade Kevin Kolb arises, there's almost always some sort of mention that by trading Kolb, the Eagles run the risk of having a bare cupboard in the event the "injury-prone" Michael Vick should be lost for an extended period of time. It's a valid point, of course, as Michael Vick is prone to injury more than your typical QB simply because of the number of shots he takes.
Some people note that Michael Vick has only started all 16 games in a season once in his career. That's true, but somewhat misleading, as he started 15 games in three of them. Others have made the point that in the past 4 seasons that Vick has been the starting QB for his team, he has only missed 5 games due to injury. That of course factors out his jail time.
So I figured I'd take a look at the other QB's around the league and see how Vick compares to them from an "injury-prone" standpoint. I took all the QB's that were their team's undisputed starter for the past 2 years, added up the number of games they would be the clear-cut starter for their team, and tallied how many games they played/missed due to injury. Since it has no bearing on being "injury-prone," I didn't include games in which the QB sat out Week 17 because they were locked into a particular playoff seed (Vick and Brees are two examples). I also factored out benchings (McNabb, Alex Smith), and any other circumstances in which a QB missed a game due to a non-injury related circumstance. I also lazily omitted a couple QB's (Kyle Orton comes to mind) whose career needed more of a microscope than I cared to give it. Here are the findings (after the jump):
|Player||Possible games||Games played||Games missed||% of games started|
At 82%, Vick is the 3rd lowest among this sample group, but similar to guys like Romo, Schaub, Hasselbeck, Palmer, and McNabb. This is due in large part to Vick's 2003 season, when he broke his fibula in the preseason and missed the first 11 games of the season, seen here:
|Vick||Possible games||Games played||Games missed||% of games started|
|2009||Not the starter|
While I agree that Vick is more likely to get injured than a QB with a quick release that never runs and rarely takes shots (like a Peyton Manning), I don't think "injury prone" is quite the correct phrase. I see "injury prone" players as the guys that always seem to find themselves as "questionable" in the injury report, with an assortment of ailments, kind of like our old friend Brian Westbrook. That doesn't really apply to Michael Vick, at least historically so far in his career. It's the season-ending knockout punch that should be of gravest concern, obviously.