During the week of the NFL Draft one team had an unusual conversation, a conversation that seemed unfathomable only a few years ago. It was about the signability of pre-eminent pit bull racketeer man Mike Vick.
The conversation, a team source said, was surprising not just because the topic of signing Vick was discussed extensively, but because there was agreement in the room: Signing Vick was something the team should seriously pursue if he were ever to be reinstated by the league.
|
|
| Any team that considers signing Michael Vick had better brace for some serious public backlash. (Getty Images) |
"There are more teams interested in signing Vick than they want to admit publicly," said one general manager, who asked not to be identified.
I've written before that Vick would return to the NFL, but as time goes by and memories fade about the pure atrocity of Vick's actions, the more emboldened teams are becoming over the idea of actually signing him.
Signing Vick -- if he's ever reinstated -- is increasingly becoming a reality and teams seem prepared to take on the nightmare fuel that is PETA.
It's believed -- possibly prematurely -- by a significant number of teams that it's a foregone conclusion Roger Goodell will reinstate Vick. Those sources point to Goodell's question-and-answer session during a recent panel discussion; the commissioner said he believes Vick has paid a drastic price for his actions and needs to demonstrate genuine remorse in the future to have a chance to return.
To some teams, it's not a question of if Vick will come back, but when.
That attitude, of course, seems rash. Goodell is notoriously independent and pseudo-draconian. He could easily tell Vick to go get bent and perform one of the great exorcistic psychodrama purges in league history by keeping Vick away from football.
The Vick question, even two years after he was shown to be a dog-abusing son of anarchy, still breaks down into two sub-questions. Should Vick be allowed back into football and, if he is, should teams sign him?
The answer to the first question is simple: Yes. He should be allowed back and the reason why is just two words: Leonard Little. The St. Louis defensive lineman killed a woman while driving drunk. How can a league re-admit someone who killed a human being but keep Vick out? It makes no sense.
The second question: Should a team sign Vick? The answer: Of course not.
They are separate issues. Goodell should reinstate Vick because the league has reinstated killers and in some cases the dregs of society, but any team that signed him would be courting trouble. Major trouble.
Winston Churchill once described American diplomacy as a bull that carried his own china shop with him. Vick doesn't carry a china shop, he carries an entire chain of them. He has always been selfish and irresponsible and there's no reason to believe that behavior will change. Vick expanded his empire from petty stupidity to a felonious criminal enterprise. That's quite an accomplishment.
Vick's always demonstrated a certain nifty perversity in his nature. It's as predictable as a lunar eclipse.
Nevertheless, I think Vick will be back. Teams increasingly believe he will be playing in the NFL next season and I think they know something about the commissioner's plans the rest of us don't. It's just a hunch.
It's risky business allowing Vick to return, but it seems some teams are ready to flirt with serious danger.
