Dungy sees Buffalo as option for QB Vick
NEW YORK — Tony Dungy says Michael Vick could potentially wind up in Buffalo, which he says previously discussed signing the quarterback.
Dungy has served as an adviser to Vick since the Super Bowl-winning coach retired from the Colts after last season. Now a commentator for NBC, Dungy confirmed during the pregame show Sunday night before Philadelphia hosted Dallas that the Bills and Vick "talked originally" when Vick was searching for a team after serving 18 months in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring.
The Eagles signed Vick to a $1.6 million contract for 2009, with a team option for the second year at $5.2 million. But he has played sparingly.
"I told Michael to just worry about this year," Dungy said. "It's technically up to Philadelphia. If they want him back, he has to stay there. If they don't, there are some teams looking for quarterbacks: Cleveland, St. Louis and Washington.
"But I think a dark horse is Buffalo. They talked originally. There was some communication there. I think that could be a good spot."
Bills starter Trent Edwards struggled this season before sustaining a concussion. Ryan Fitzpatrick, a career backup, has been the starter with Edwards out of the lineup.
Vick has completed 2 of 6 passes for 6 yards and rushed 11 times for 25 yards, mostly out of the wildcat formation.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.