clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

I could be the source who said the Eagles would cut Vick

New, comments

Hey everyone, I'm JasonB. I've blogged about the Eagles here for nearly five years. Having covered their every move over that time, I think I've become pretty familiar with the way the team thinks. According the Associated Press, I would be good enough to quote as a source.

PHILADELPHIA -- A source familiar with the team's thinking says the Philadelphia Eagles are strongly considering releasing Michael Vick.

The source says the team might cut Vick no matter what police conclude during their investigation of a shooting that followed the quarterback's birthday party in Virginia Beach last week. Vick has said he had nothing to do with the shooting.

A source "familiar with the team's thinking?" I've read a lot of oddly sourced reports before, but I don't know that I've ever seen an anonymous source quoted who didn't claim any connection to the team, just that they were familiar with their thinking. Why does that person even need to be anonymous? I get if a member of the organization were the source why they'd want to remain anonymous since they'd presumably lose their job for talking to the press... But some guy who says he knows how the Eagles think? How is that a person whose anonymity needs protecting?

If that's the standard, why don't you all tell me what you think the Eagles will do and I'll make a report of my own. Because as readers of a site like this, I'd say you're all familiar with the teams' thinking.

Anyway, this guy might the source. I mean he's obviously hiding his identity with those glasses and fake beard. Although I'm told this character knows a thing or two about how the team thinks as well....

Who knows what the Eagles will end up doing here. They might end up cutting the guy, they might not... but this type of stuff is nonsense. It was considered erroneous and inflammatory enough that the Eagles felt they needed to issue a formal denial...