Vick ! Back in the NFL...

[rasputin]

So is the death of someone as a result of someone's intentionally getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated less vicious and cruel?

Yes, when the terrible consequences were not specifically intended. I'm not justifying the getting behind the wheel when drunk. I am making a distinction between intentional and reckless conduct.

[blazindw]

Yes, when the terrible consequences were not specifically intended. I'm not justifying the getting behind the wheel when drunk. I am making a distinction between intentional and reckless conduct.

I think that's where I disagree with people...I never will think the taking of a human's life, by any means, is less cruel than that of an animal. Other's may disagree with me, but that's where I come from.

[CLT Devil]

Yes, when the terrible consequences were not specifically intended. I'm not justifying the getting behind the wheel when drunk. I am making a distinction between intentional and reckless conduct.

If you go out to a bar and get drunk, knowing that you will drive home, your behavior is intentional. Drunk driving, with the exception of some unforseen emergency, is an intentional behavior.

[Shammrog]

That won't be a problem. They are dead.



He is entitled to make a living. He is not entitled to play in the NFL. The NFL, like all sports, is entertainment. This will say a lot about the football watching public. Just what level of behavior are we willing to overlook in the name of being entertained?

See, allen, we agree for like the 8th time this year!!!

Actually, I think if a team wants to sign him that is fine. But, I don't even know if it will happen.

If it does, just wait - there are a lot of people in general who loves dogs. Shammrog included. Some of these are bound to be NFL (defensive) players.

You can bet that if Vick gets signed somewhere, someone is going to take one mother of a cheap shot at him as payback. I not opining as to whether it is fair, or whether its right - I am just saying someone is going to knock him into next week.

[Mal]

The reason some people work up more "froth" for Vick's actions than Leonard Little's are that Vick's were cruel, vicious, and INTENTIONAL.

Are you suggesting that one may atone for their selfish, reckless act that kills another human being and be given another chance, but that one who acts cruelly cannot be given leeway to learn from their mistakes and repent?

As it is, our society has set up legal penalties for the two types of actions in which Vick and Little have engaged. The one you find more morally repugnant carries (on average, if I'm not mistaken) less than or at least no more of a penalty than the other. This would suggest to me that either our laws are out of synch with our society's moral compass, or that the majority of the population ascribes to the opposite view as you. I think it's more likely the latter (as the animal rights movement has had a pretty strong impact on policymaking over the last 15-20 years).

The intentionality and cruelty you note is counterbalanced in our conception of criminal justice by the human damage and suffering wrought in the case of homicide, which overwhelms the karmic injustice and animal suffering in the case of dogfighting, at least in the minds of most of the public. A criminal act that leaves human children without a father, or a parent, grandparent and siblings without a child, grandchild or sister, or a husband without a wife (not to mention the collateral psychological damage to friends, colleagues, coworkers, neighbors, lovers, and whatnot), if our choices are reflected in policy, is viewed as sufficiently more awful than one in which innocent dogs die, as to overcome lack of specific intent on the part of the killers. This is what makes the population's general reaction to Vick a little curious to some of us.

And again, Vick has served his time in prison. He was absolutely raked over the coals for months on end in the press at the time his crimes became public. If people feel so strongly about his actions now, I think they'd be better served advocating for harsher criminal penalties or cracking down on other dogfighting operations, rather than pouring lighter fluid on the ashen remains of Vick's reputation and pretending they can set it afire all over again.

[Shammrog]

I think that's where I disagree with people...I never will think the taking of a human's life, by any means, is less cruel than that of an animal. Other's may disagree with me, but that's where I come from.

I think yours is a very reasonable and justifiable position. I don't necessarily agree, but I think your view is entirely valid.

What I think rasputin is getting at (or at least where I would come from) is that while drunk driving is intentional, the killing/injury of a person while drunk driving is not intentional. That is, it is not the intended consequence. Whereas with this type of animal cruelty, the killing/injury of the animal is most definitely the intended consequence.

[rasputin]

I think yours is a very reasonable and justifiable position. I don't necessarily agree, but I think your view is entirely valid.

What I think rasputin is getting at (or at least where I would come from) is that while drunk driving is intentional, the killing/injury of a person while drunk driving is not intentional. That is, it is not the intended consequence. Whereas with this type of animal cruelty, the killing/injury of the animal is most definitely the intended consequence.

Another rare instance of agreement between Shammrog and myself. Regarding the penalties, the penalty for a simple act of drunk driving (with no accident or injury) usually doesn't involve jail time. When the unthinkable occurs, the penalty is usually greater. Perhaps this shouldn't be the case, but it is. And when the consequences weren't specifically intended, it may be unfair to punish for the consequences. The penalty for attempted murder is less than if the attempt were successful. (Sideshow Bob, scornfully: Do they award Nobel Prizes for "attempted chemistry"?) My point is, lots of people "intentionally" get behind that wheel. Most don't hurt people and most don't get caught. Should they be punished more than Michael Vick was?

[bjornolf]

To bring this back to football a little, someone was asking about teams that might be interested in Vick. They were talking about that the other day on the radio, and someone said any team that was unsettled at backup, or anyone from the Tony Dungy coaching family, Vick's new "mentor", would be interested.

Patriots- I think the Patriots are one of the teams unsettled at backup. Plus, they have so much veteran support that they are able to integrate former trouble makers without too much trouble (See Moss). Also, the "genius" at the helm thinks he can make anything work and win. AND, we're still not 100% sure of where Brady will be at the start of the season. As we saw last season, even if he is 100%, it only takes one play to put a guy out, and Cassel's not there to back him up any more.

Vikings- Very unsettled at QB. None of their QBs are legit starters now that the Favre thing has fallen through, not to mention the confidence hit this will have on Jackson, who's probably already a little fragile. A very average QB makes this team a Super Bowl contender for the NFC. I think Vick, if he can get back to anywhere near his former level, would definitely qualify. They have a strong offensive line, a SCARY running back, AND a solid defense. That's way more than the Falcons had when Vick first came to the league and took them from joke to contender almost immediately.

Bears- They signed Cutler, yes, but he's not completely proven yet. He's still young, and he has health problems that could shorten his career and add to injuries (severe diabetes has almost ended his career already). Plus, there's not much behind him. Plus, Lovey Smith is a Tony Dungy disciple.

Steelers- Not much behind Big Ben. Mike Tomlin is a BIG Tony Dungy follower. Plus, it would add a lot of spice to an offense that is good, but could be a lot better. Big Ben took over 50 sacks last year, which is unacceptable. Vick could not only help back him up, but also give defenses pause about blitzing when he's on the field.

Redskins- I still think that Jason Campbell could be the guy. As Steve Young (a guy that I assume we'd all agree knows more about playing NFL QB than all of us combined) said it takes three years or MORE to master this offense. Campbell's only had one. I think we need to give him at least another season to figure it out. Poor guy has had seven different offensive systems in eight years, including his college days, and although he's four seasons into his career, he's only started 35 games. He also didn't get any support from the defense. Yes, they were ranked in the top 5, but of the top 15 defenses, they had the least take aways and sacks. It's a LOT easier to look good as a QB when the defense helps you out by giving you a few short fields. Orakpo and Hayneworth should help that. An ANEMIC punt return game didn't help much either. The Skins DESPERATELY need to get Randle El out of the return game. However, Vick would give Campbell, and the offense, a major weapon that might help alleviate the fact the receiving corps is average at best and is a proven field position changer with his legs.

[JasonEvans]

Thanks for keeping this on-topic Bjornolf!

Let me add another team or two who seems to be interested in Vick--

1) Jacksonville Jaguars - quick, can anyone name the Jags backup QB? It is 37-year-old Todd Bouman who has not thrown a pass in a game since 2005.

2) Dallas Cowboys - America's Team under Jerry Jones like to be mavericks. Plus, Jerry seems to think he and his organization are bigger than any public relations nightmare (let's bring in T.O.!). There are some teams that would have trouble with the negative publicity of Vick. Dallas is not one of them.

3) Baltimore Ravens - So far, they are the only team I have found that will admit to discussing whether or not they should look at Vick. Jim Harbaugh says the Ravens are talking about it. We'll see.

4) Buffalo - T.O. came out this week and said some very critical things about Vick's suspension by the NFL. It is clear that T.O. is a big Vick supporter. If T.O. wants it, will Buffalo comply?

Worth noting-- these teams do not need to see Vick as a QB -- starter or backup. A player with Michael's speed and ability to see the field would be hugely valuable as a slot receiver, returning kicks, playing RB, or in an occasional Wildcat formation. The notion that he cannot help a team is silly. There are PR reasons to not be interested in him, but not football reasons.

Plus, I bet he comes absurdly cheap for the first season or two at least.

--Jason "question-- does a team with a larger Af-Am fan base (like Washington) have a better PR situation with Vick?" Evans

[bjornolf]

I didn't mention the Cowboys or the Raiders (another owner that likes to take chances) cause people had already mentioned them.

I had heard about the Jags, but forgot.

I agree on the Ravens. Flacco could have just caught lightning in a bottle last year. Let's see how he does now that everybody sees him coming. Somebody like Vick could give him another weapon and take some of the pressure off him.

I'm not sure about Buffalo. Their owner is already taking a pretty big chance on TO. Would they want to bring in TWO potentially team-destroying distractions in the same year? I'm not saying they wouldn't try it, I just don't think it's a great idea for them right now. Plus, I think Vick needs some stability. Any team with TO doesn't qualify.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

--Jason "question-- does a team with a larger Af-Am fan base (like Washington) have a better PR situation with Vick?" Evans

That's Wilbon's argument

The Redskins don't need a QB, you say? That didn't stop Daniel Snyder and Vinny Cerrato from drooling over Mark Sanchez and Jay Cutler during the offseason. The Redskins franchise is as local as Vick, who played at Virginia Tech, can get. It's going to be a more sympathetic place for a number of reasons, including the fact there's a huge black population/fan base, much of which thinks Vick's punishment was excessive.

I couldn't care less, except that a Vick media circus would likely affect my new commute. I drive right past Redskins Park on the way to work.

[whereinthehellami]

I have ties to VT and love the place. I understand how Vick helped Blacksburg but the guy is no good. He didn't just kill dogs he tortured them with his buddies for fun. They got a kick out of it. The whole second chance thing is crazy. Sure he should get a chance to earn a living but it in no way should it be where impressionable kids are involved.

[allenmurray]

See, allen, we agree for like the 8th time this year!!!

Actually, I think if a team wants to sign him that is fine. But, I don't even know if it will happen.

If it does, just wait - there are a lot of people in general who loves dogs. Shammrog included. Some of these are bound to be NFL (defensive) players.

You can bet that if Vick gets signed somewhere, someone is going to take one mother of a cheap shot at him as payback. I not opining as to whether it is fair, or whether its right - I am just saying someone is going to knock him into next week.

I also agree that if a team wants him, fine. I don't think the NFL should ban him - however I do think they have ther right to ban him if they choose.

[allenmurray]

And again, Vick has served his time in prison. He was absolutely raked over the coals for months on end in the press at the time his crimes became public. If people feel so strongly about his actions now, I think they'd be better served advocating for harsher criminal penalties or cracking down on other dogfighting operations, rather than pouring lighter fluid on the ashen remains of Vick's reputation and pretending they can set it afire all over again.

Well said. Vick served his time. Folks who feel he did not serve enough have an issue with the laws and courts, not with Vick.

[Mal]

Staying on the topic, I note that bjornolf's and others' analysis generally see Vick as a backup/insurance QB and wildcat/wideout/trick play option. I noticed the Vikings mentioned as a possible interested party, but in this case as the starting QB.

Without commenting on the possibilities with other teams, I'd submit this is never gonna happen. Most importantly, Wilf and Chilly haven't yet forgotten the Love Boat incident, and neither has the fan base. The franchise has been trying to play the straight and narrow for a couple years now, and will be more wary of steering clear of the controversy Vick will bring than the average franchise.

If they were to pick up Vick, I suspect it'd be as the backup and changeup player mentioned in other teams' schemes, and not the starter. For one thing, the Vikings need receivers. For another, the type of QB the Vikes need to complement Adrian Peterson is one who can complete a high percentage of passes to keep 8 guys out of the box and open up the running lanes. And who can protect the ball. This latter one is what scared a lot of people about Favre. He played possession QB his last season in Green Bay, but everyone knows he really wants to throw 35 times a game and is prone to having 3 of those passes picked off. Anyway, Vick had an atrocious completion percentage. He's a huge threat when he gets outside the pocket and runs, but that's not what the Vikings need. Jackson's good on the run, too, and if I recall, when he returned as the starter in the second half last year, he was hitting on over 60% completions. Not to mention Vick hasn't played a snap in almost three years, so you'd go at least a month before he was back at full stride, possibly spotting the Bears a game or two. So if he were to be a Viking, I see it as being in the same role he'd play elsewhere, for now.

[kexman]

I can't believe that a back-up QB or a change-up player would be worth the distractions and media circus that signing vick would entail. I would not be pleased if my Buffalo Bills signed him (not likely).

I would think that you would have to see him as a potential starter with a decent upside to go through with the PR hit and distractions. Since he was a questionable starting QB before he left I doubt a 3 year hiatus will improve his performance.

With that being said he will probably sign with someone since he does have some talent that potentially is worth a flyer

[elvis14]

I can't believe that a back-up QB or a change-up player would be worth the distractions and media circus that signing vick would entail. I would not be pleased if my Buffalo Bills signed him (not likely).

I would think that you would have to see him as a potential starter with a decent upside to go through with the PR hit and distractions. Since he was a questionable starting QB before he left I doubt a 3 year hiatus will improve his performance.

With that being said he will probably sign with someone since he does have some talent that potentially is worth a flyer

Actually with TO already playing for the Bills, having even more of a media circus wouldn't be that much of a difference. Seriously, however, professional football players are in front of the media all the time. Having more of the same might be a distraction but not a major one.

To say that Vick was a "questionable starting QB before he left" is something I disagree with. He was not a pocket passer and did need to improve his completion percentage. That said, he was not questionable at all. He was a game changer because of his ability to run that complimented his passing (even though his passing wasn't great). He was a non-traditional QB but if he were a better person there would have been about 25 teams ready to sign him if he was a free agent 2 years ago. I know there were some calling for his backup to start but any NC State fan can tell you that the most popular player on some teams is the backup QB. I didn't see anyone calling for Vick to be benched when they were winning (due to a good defense and Vick on offense).

I think having Vick as a "change up player" and backup QB would be worth the distractions and PR hit. Depending on how he is used he could really help an offense be effective. In fact history tells us that the first time Vick has a productive game and helps a team win, it's fans will forget all the PC BS. Note, I'm not saying that the right thing, I'm saying that's what generally happens.

Jason Evans mentioned earlier that Vick will probably come with a low price tag as well. I'd expect him to sign a 1 or 2 year contract that is relatively inexpensive.

[throatybeard]

I've got a slightly different take on whether Vick should be suspended.

It seems all the ESPN-type talk right now is about whether Goodell's verdict was appropriate, and whether 3, 4, 5, or 6 games is more appropriate. I think all this debate is absurd, because the gradations of punishment are insignificant with respect to the scale of the crime.

He did awful, awful stuff for a long time. He has now paid his debt through the criminal justice system. To say that a separate punishment from the NFL may be appropriate makes sense. What doesn't make sense is putting the price of 3, 4, 5, or 6 games on the life of these dogs.

Either you let him back in the league or you don't. Otherwise you're equating relatively insignificant "additional," non-legal punishments on him. If you let him back in, let him go from day one. If you don't, don't.

[SupaDave]

I've got a slightly different take on whether Vick should be suspended.

It seems all the ESPN-type talk right now is about whether Goodell's verdict was appropriate, and whether 3, 4, 5, or 6 games is more appropriate. I think all this debate is absurd, because the gradations of punishment are insignificant with respect to the scale of the crime.

He did awful, awful stuff for a long time. He has now paid his debt through the criminal justice system. To say that a separate punishment from the NFL may be appropriate makes sense. What doesn't make sense is putting the price of 3, 4, 5, or 6 games on the life of these dogs.

Either you let him back in the league or you don't. Otherwise you're equating relatively insignificant "additional," non-legal punishments on him. If you let him back in, let him go from day one. If you don't, don't.

Technically the league never really got a chance to punish him. His legal proceedings took precedence - much like Stallworth's.

[SupaDave]

A team that will likely show interest is the Seattle Seahawks. He has a friend there in Mora Jr and Seattle is not necessarily a protest kinda town. Not to mention he's a larger more capable Seneca Wallace...

Thought I'd reiterate this in conjunction with the fact that Hassleback is a huge question mark b/c of all his recent injuries...