That accusation got me thinking - there was a kernel of truth in there, because we're all just guessing, squinting to read tea leaves, and I really do see the case for keeping Andy, along with the case for getting rid of him. So, why not set forth both lines of thinking, as I perceive them? Here goes:
Why Andy stays
He has been here 13 years, the longest and most successful tenure in franchise history, had three losing seasons, assuming this team doesn't win out to go 8-8. No back-to-back losing seasons, or even back-to-back seasons out of the playoffs. If you keep Andy, hire a proven defensive coordinator, and bring in some talent at linebacker and safety, does anybody think the Eagles shouldn't make the postseason again next season?
Also, management let Andy do a lot of stuff last offseason, like luring Howard Mudd out of retirement and bringing in Jim Washburn. What if your new coach has his own people and his own ideas there? You've sunk a year into making these lines into what Mudd and Washburn prefer (and you've also sunk some money into that, signing Washburn creation Jason Babin for 5 years and more than $27 million).
Michael Vick is a project of Reid and offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg. The Birds are tied financially to Vick at least through 2012. Vick is an outspoken Reid supporter.
In fact, Reid has a lot of very vocal support in the locker room. There is no serious debate over whether the team has quit on him. It clearly has not, even if it has underachieved.
