Blog Entry

Vick back -- sort of

Posted on: July 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Edited on: July 27, 2009 4:45 pm
  •  
 
Mike Vick can play NFL football again.

Sort of.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally reinstated Vick Monday. Vick is free to sign with any team immediately, but he will not be fully reinstated. Goodell will make a decision by Week Six at the latest, but that decision could come earlier.

That means Vick is twisting in the wind. There is still uncertainty about when he will be able to play. Wtih that hanging over his head, who signs him?

Would you take a PR nightmare for the possibility of having him for 10 or 11 games? I wouldn't. Most teams won't either.

So who signs him? Teams haven't exactly lined up, but they might have been waiting for the commissioner to make his decision. Now that it's out, we'll see.

I've heard the New England Patriots mentioned, but that makes no sense. What would they do, take snaps away from Tom Brady? Make him a receiver?

It makes no sense.

I think Vick's best option is to play in the UFL with Orlando. He can make $1 million for six games and show he can still play after two years of inactivity.

I hear he wants no part of that league. But if he has no options, we'll see.

Vick really isn't an attractive option to the NFL right now. He made it that way when he stupidly fought the dogs. Goodell enhanced it Monday with his ruling.

Vick is back. Just not all the way.

Who wants him? Anybody?
  •  
Category: NFL
Tags: Mike Vick
 
Comments

Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posted on: July 28, 2009 10:25 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

The guy spent more time in jail than Stallworth spent in for killing a fellow human being.  Why I don't want to be a broken record I can't get over how certain people in society value animals more than humans. For the millionth time, this is not the case. Stallworth made one judgement in error with no intent for what happened to happen. After he was arrested for committed his crime, he admitted his role and did everything possible to be open and honest with the officers investigating the crime.

Michael Vick built a life around his crimes. He purchased a home for the sole purpose of committing crimes. He repeatedly took actions for the sole purpose of committing and hiding his crimes. These repeated actions numbered in the hundreds and lasted over a period of many years. After he was arrested for committing his crimes, he repeatedly lied to everyone; the officers, the NFL, his employers and the public.

As a convicted felon who has shown that he has no problem leading a life outside of the rules of our society, I have no problem with the NFL being cautious in their approach with him. The NFL is a business that is allowed to determine who can and cannot be employed. I assure you that Mr. Vick and his felony history will never get a job at the bank I work at or any other high-risk job. There are likely hundreds of other doors that are closed to him because of his poor decisions. Why do you think the NFL HAS to let him back? This isn't the only place in the US where Vick can "try to make some money so that he can take care of himself & his family". The Department of Sanitation is always hiring. They offer a decent wage (by general public standards). He doesn't have the right to demand THIS job back.




Since: Apr 9, 2008
Posted on: July 28, 2009 9:58 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

I'M SORRY ANIMAL LOVERS, BUT THIS WHOLE MICHAEL VICK CASE HAS GOTTEN TOO MUCH ATTENTION. IT WASN'T ENOUGH THAT HE HASN'T PLAYED IN 2 YEARS NOW THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE HE'S BEEN REHABILITATED. NEWS FLASH; JAIL DOESN'T REHABILITATE, IT SIMPLY INCARCERATES. HOW IS IT THAT BIG BEN THE STEELER QB IS NOT BEING SCRUTINIZED? HOW IS IT THAT THE POLICE SAID WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS ON PURSUING AN INVESTIGATION IN THAT CASE, BUT THESE JERKS WANT TO KNOW IF VICK IS REHABILITATED? WONDER FOR A MOMENT IF BIG BEN DID RAPE THAT WOMAN. SUPPOSE IT'S TRUE. WHAT HAS NANCY GRACE SAID ABOUT IT? THEY SAY WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR HER TO COME FORWARD WITH HER STORY? WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR VICTIMS TO COME FORWARD WITH THIEIR STORIES ABOUT THEIR PRIEST. IT'S THE NATURAL OF SEX CASES, BUT WE HAVE A POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYING WE ARE NOT LOOKING INTO IT. WOW!!! BUT WE'LL ALL SIT BACK FOR 6 WEEKS AND SEE IF MICHAEL VICK CAN BE A GOOD BOY. THE NFL COMMISSIONER LIKE THE SLAVE MASTERS OF OUR UGLY PAST, NOW MAKES AN EXAMPLE OF MICHAEL VICK BEFORE THE WORLD, THAT OTHERS MIGHT BE GOOD BOYS AND NOT ANGER UNCLE ROGER. ALL FOR SOME DAMN DOGS. CAN WE FIND THOSE THUGS WHO KILL THE BABY SEALS EVERY YEAR FOR THOSE BEAUTIFUL MINKS THAT, WHO KNOWS MAYBE EVEN ROGERS WIFE WEARS? I AM ONE ANGRY MAN OVER THIS GARBAGE DISPLAY BY THIS PUPPET MASTER OF A COMMISSIONER.



Since: Jun 9, 2007
Posted on: July 28, 2009 9:47 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

ps - how about getting his sorry a pic off of the main web page and putting a real football player up there?

It's training camp!!



Since: Jun 9, 2007
Posted on: July 28, 2009 9:44 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Since MV decided that he didn't want to work with the humane society (he could have done some good and shown some true remorse) or any other 'pro animal' org, he is dead meat in my eyes. When you get down to it, someone who did what he did with those animals isn't all of a sudden going to see the light.

I don't care about his 'debt to society' - he had a chance to help make a difference against dog fighting and chose not to f with it ...

I wish him nothing but the worst in the new football league.

BTW - he wasn't a good QB (read passer) when he left the league and has probably lost at least half a step. So his value - running away from people on the field - is really diminished. Who in the NFL would want the combo of bad PR plus a marginal QB?



Since: Jul 28, 2009
Posted on: July 28, 2009 9:32 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Well, I have no problem with Vick being back in the NFL, but exactly WHO would take him?  I don't really think the Pats would exactly have room for him other than being a backup man, but they already have one so that's pointless.  But, who knows what will go on?  Maybe the Pats will have room, or maybe some other team will take him, but he's better off playing in some other football league until NFL teams are ready to take him back.



Since: Jul 27, 2009
Posted on: July 28, 2009 6:01 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Mammoth Boob,

I would love to debate with you all night, but I would rather bang my head against the wall for the next 8 hours.  You must not be able to read, or refuse to, because you are either repeating the same arguments from your last post (which I have already debunked) or you are repeating my arguments back to me, as if they were your own. And you managed to throw another comment about the offensiveness of my previous post.

If you read clearly and carefully, you will see that I never called you a liberal.  I simply mentioned that your debate tactics are used by liberals.  Whether you are a liberal or not is none of my concern - you can ascribe to any political philosophy that you choose.  

The reason I chose to single out your posts is that you continue to defend MV with pitiful arguments, actually no argument at all, then resort to name calling when you stupidity is countered.  You referred to another poster as coming up with "retarded" statements, simply because they don't agree with your opinions.  To some, your "retarded" statement might be considered offensive, but no one insulted you with accusations of bigotry and close-mindedness.  For a person who preaches such tolerance concerning racial issues, I would expect you to show more sensitivity toward the mental challenged.

OR, Maybe those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones, huh Mammoth?




Since: Aug 10, 2007
Posted on: July 28, 2009 4:36 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

As for MV, he's not from Africa, he's from Virginia.  I suggested deportation in response to your comment about how unjust our society has been to the dog strangler.
I suggested his ancestral homeland as a destinationWhat you suggested was the equivalent of sending him back where he came from......in the same sentence impling he was stupid and barbaric, that he was below your society.  You said those things not me, I was simply pointing out how offensive I thought those statements were.  I do believe I have the right to do that.....dont I?

Yes Mammoth, I'm feeding my hatred.  My hatred of those who would support a dog killer.  If I've offended you, my work here is done.  
Hatred is hatred.  If you are capable of hate you are capable of hate.  If you can hate someone because they, in your eyes, support a dog killer.  Then you are capable of hating for skin color, eye color, religious beliefs, etc.

You are the racist.

This is a typical tactic of liberals who love criminals, but don't have the ability to win an argument.  Just drop the race card, and the argument is over.  Sorry chief, I'm not afraid of the R word.  You really should stick to commenting on football, and stay out heavier debates.Now I'm a liberal racist who loves criminals.......and for the record I am not trying to win an argument.  I am simply trying to make a point, voice an opinion.....and by the way...

....or maybe you don't possess the mental acuity or civility to be a member of our polite society.....Originally that was part of your arguement as to why vick should be deported, I simply stated the same arguement from an opposing viewpoint. 



Since: Aug 10, 2007
Posted on: July 28, 2009 4:21 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Moody,

I love when the posting comes down to missing punctuation and misspelling.....ill take that as a compliment.

Anyway on with the post, debate, whatever you want to call it.  You keep saying he implied nothing of the sort, so I went back to read it again.  And he absoluted did...read it again.

Those of you defending Vick with "those dogs were bred to fight", you are retarded.  Does that mean if he were involved in cocker spaniel fighting ring, that you would feel different because they weren't bred to fight?  It takes the same kind of sick, heartless bastard to kill a dog that it does to kill a human. He said "It takes the SAME kind of sick, heartless bastard to kill a dog THAT IT DOES to kill a human."  Perhaps you can parse this for me the correct way.  Doesn't same mean alike, no different.....i don't see how that simply means Mike is a heartless bastard.  I could support someone simply thinking Mike is a heartless bastard, or at least was.  I unlike most of you that simply must hate  over this believe he may have been a heartless bastard but has or at least in the process of change. 

If he were simply saying Michael Vick is a heartless bastard for doing what he did to dogs, then why compare what he did to killing a human.....

I do not think an arsonist crime should be overlooked because it was empty.  The same as do not think Michael Vick's crime should have gone unpunished, he absolutely should have been punished for what he did.  But what he did does not make him a monster.....it makes him a felon.  It does not mean he is capable of killing a human being, it does not mean he is not capable of change. 

I do think that killing a human being should carry a heavy penalty than killing a dog.  I do think there is a heavy value on a human life than an animals life.  If given the opportunity to save a human life or an animals life, I would save the human life everytime regardless of who they are or what they have done.  The last I checked murder is the taking of a human life, not an animals.....to compare what Michael Vick did to what a murder has done is insulting to the survivers of anyone that has lost a loved one to a real monster.

I also find it funny when someone makes a point by simply stating an opinion....such as,

Your argument is stupid, yet you state it with self-assuredness of a debate champion.  You appear very foolish, as noted by several other posters.What about the argument is stupid, if you are gonna call me stupid perhaps you can show why.  Otherwise you are saying im stupid for disagreeing with you....the All and Mighty Moody. 




Since: Jul 27, 2009
Posted on: July 28, 2009 4:00 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Perhaps you meant this in another way, and just didnt realize how offensive your comment potentially was to someone....Yes Mammoth, I'm feeding my hatred.  My hatred of those who would support a dog killer.  If I've offended you, my work here is done.  

....or maybe you don't possess the mental acuity or civility to be a member of our polite society.....
Tremendous argument, smart guy.  You have the debating skills of a six year old.  As for MV, he's not from Africa, he's from Virginia.  I suggested deportation in response to your comment about how unjust our society has been to the dog strangler.  There is nothing racist in my post.  I think most rational folks would agree that someone who strangles, drowns, and shoots dogs is uncivil and lacking in cognitive ability.  It has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with actions.  I suggested his ancestral homeland as a destination, because, if deported, I would want be deported to my homeland of Ireland.  It is you who seems to be hung up on race, since it was you who introduced it into the discussion.  You are the racist. 

This is a typical tactic of liberals who love criminals, but don't have the ability to win an argument.  Just drop the race card, and the argument is over.  Sorry chief, I'm not afraid of the R word.  You really should stick to commenting on football, and stay out heavier debates.    






Since: Jul 27, 2009
Posted on: July 28, 2009 3:24 am
 

Vick back -- sort of

Mammy Steel -

Thanks for slowing it down for me - I'm getting a migrane from your missing punctuation and misspelling.  

He implied nothing of the sort.  You are parsing his words for no reason, other than you have nothing to refute what he actually IS implying - Mike Vick is a heartless bastard.  Even you would have to agree with that fact, despite your obvious boner for Mike Vick.

You are attempting to diminish the crime by comparing it to a more serious crime that has no relevance to to the discussion.  No, Mike didn't kill anyone.  He did, however, run an illegal dog fighting ring, and personally kill dogs with his own hands, among other crimes.  Should an arsonist's crime be overlooked because the building he burned was empty?  Your argument is stupid, yet you state it with self-assuredness of a debate champion.  You appear very foolish, as noted by several other posters.





The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com