Hatcher Would Rather Face Foles Than Vick - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth
Blue Star
The center of the Dallas Cowboys universe

Hatcher Would Rather Face Foles Than Vick

Eagles QB Nick Foles accounted for four touchdowns in Michael Vick's absence last Sunday



    Cowboys defensive tackle Jason Hatcher has a lot of respect for both Nick Foles and Michael Vick, but if he had to pick his poison going into this week’s showdown with the Eagles in Philadelphia, he’s going with the less mobile Foles.

    “I would like to see Foles,” Hatcher said, per the Dallas Morning News. “Vick is like a rabbit. He’s all over the place. Foles is more like a stationary guy in the pocket. Both of them are awesome quarterbacks. Foles is playing his butt off these last couple of games. Either one, but I would take Foles over Vick. Foles can throw it. It’s going to be a challenge either way.”

    Vick missed the Eagles victory over the Buccaneers last week, but Philly didn’t miss a beat with Foles at the helm. All Foles did was throw for three touchdowns and run another one in.

    “I think they’re both good quarterbacks, and I think they’ve proven that over their careers, and I think they’ve proven that in this offense,” Cowboys head coach Jason Garrett said. “They’ve both been productive. Again, they do it a little bit differently. You don’t see Foles make the dynamic plays with his feet that Michael Vick has become known for, but Michael Vick can throw the ball from the pocket, he can make those plays, and Nick Foles shows he can move the ball around the field. He’s a mature quarterback. He showed that last year in the time that he played and he’s certainly shown that this year in the couple chances he’s had to play.”

    Stay on top of the latest Dallas Cowboys news with NBCDFW.com. Follow NBC DFW on Facebook or have breaking Cowboys news sent directly to your phone with Blue Star SMS alerts. Text "bluestar" to 622339 (NBCDFW) to subscribe, text HELP for more info, and text STOP to end the subscription. Message and data rates may apply.Read more about it here.