Michael Vick: persecuted by PETA?

[drkitten]

And this is kind of where your analysis fails. Compared to Vick, there aren't a lot of of people who can do what he does.

Actually, there are huge numbers of people who can do what he does -- has the league stopped holding games for the past two years while he was in prison?

Who was playing quarterback, if not him?

 

[technoextreme]

He has paid for his crimes. If he has redeemed himself and shown remorse, he should be allowed to put his life back together.

One the one hand this is right. On the other hand he made the commissioner look like a moron in putting his trust in him and blatantly lied to him. TO is right though. Why is it that drunken idiots who have killed people get off far more lightly than Vick has.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, there are huge numbers of people who can do what he does --

No, they can't. Oh sure, you can send people out there, and they can stand in the QB spot on the field. But they can't do what he does, which is play the position very, very well.

 

[drkitten]

No, they can't. Oh sure, you can send people out there, and they can stand in the QB spot on the field. But they can't do what he does, which is play the position very, very well.

Actually, there are lots of people who can do what he does, which is play the position, very, very well.

Have you noticed all the articles in the sports press over the past three years about how the standard of play has dropped so dramatically now that Vick is no longer on the field? Neither have I.

And the reason for that is simply because it hasn't. There are more than enough people who can play quarterback very, very well to fill thirty team's roster (which is why, for example, Cassel was able to step forward for Brady.) Every team has a backup quarterback, which means there are at least thirty people able to play starting quarterback at the NFL level who aren't currently doing so -- and who aren't named Vick.

 

[shawmutt]

I have to hold back the tears as I contemplate a man that has made more money than I'll see in ten lifetimes, gets caught committing an atrocious felony, goes to jail, and now can't make tens of millions more. As others have pointed out, there's no reason the NFL should take him back--there's plenty of talent out there. Let him flip burgers.

 

[shawmutt]

Why is it that drunken idiots who have killed people get off far more lightly than Vick has.

Yeah, because conservatards rarely bring up Ted Kennedy in that argument.

 

[tomwaits]

No, they can't. Oh sure, you can send people out there, and they can stand in the QB spot on the field. But they can't do what he does, which is play the position very, very well.

Oh? He's really not all that good of a quarterback. Sure he can run fast, but he has poor throwing accuracy, which is why it's often said that he would be better off as a DB or WR than a QB.

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9854202/Owens-says-NFL-should-reinstate-Vick

I agree with Terrel Owens, a sign that the Apocalypse is upon us.

Here's the deal. Michael Vick is being unfairly persecuted by the NFL, who are afraid of angry animal lovers. He was severely punished for his nasty crime: running a dog fighting ring. Even wrongful death suits often don't amount to damages at this scale for the defendant.

Wrongful death suits are civil suits, but a criminal record will commonly prevent many forms of employment. As he is being prevented from working that is in many ways different from being punished as such.

Mr Vick not only went to prison, and has paid his proper societal debt as determined by our courts, but he lost (by paying back bonuses, losing salary, and losing his endorsement contracts) something like 40 million dollars.

Failed to earn not lost.

Let's put this in perspective. If I were to run a dog fighting ring out of my home, got caught, and went to court, to apply 40 million worth of penalty to me you would have to:

Why should the NFL be forced to employ a felon if it doesn't want to?

As for endocements, I am sure he would be a great spokeman for any dog food company right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

He has paid for his crimes. If he has redeemed himself and shown remorse, he should be allowed to put his life back together.

He can do that, but how many people here are in carreers that would be over if they had a a felony record? Where is the outcry for that?

 

[drkitten]

He can do that, but how many people here are in carreers that would be over if they had a a felony record? Where is the outcry for that?

At least one. The traditional phrase used is "moral turpitude," and it's been one of the three traditional ways to relieve a university of a tenured professor for literally centuries.

And "tenured professor" is one of the most secure jobs out there.

 

[Brainster]

No, they can't. Oh sure, you can send people out there, and they can stand in the QB spot on the field. But they can't do what he does, which is play the position very, very well.

No. He's a mediocre quarterback, largely because he's ineffective as a passer. His career passer rating is 75.7, which is well below average in this era. In 2006, he was ranked 20th among qualifiers in passing. In 2005 he was 25th. In 2004, he was 20th. In 2003, he was injured and did not qualify. In 2002, his best season, he ranked 18th.

He's basically just a little below middle of the pack. If you want to say that his running ability upgrades him a bit from that level, I wouldn't disagree too hard. But I have been watching pro football for over 45 years and I have never seen a quarterback who could run for significant yardage that didn't end up injured.

 

[drkitten]

As for endocements, I am sure he would be a great spokeman for any dog food company right?

That's another important point. The NFL has no control over Vick's endorsement contracts. Anyone who wants is free today to ask Vick to endorse their product.

They're not asking? Why is this the NFL's problem?

 

[pgwenthold]

No. He's a mediocre quarterback,

Nonsense.

He was, when he was playing, one of the top 30 quarterbacks in the entire world (to be generous - you, in fact, are admitting that he is one of the top 20). He is "mediocre" only by NFL standards, but that is when compared to the elite of the elite. However, that does not change the fact that he is a better quarterback than 99% of people playing football.

The question is, would whoever replaces him be as good as he is? And what is the value of the difference between them?

 

[ugot2bekidding]

He has paid for his crimes. If he has redeemed himself and shown remorse, he should be allowed to put his life back together.

Let's not forget that he denied it at first. He participated in dog fighting for years, and would have continued to do it for years if he hadn't gotten caught. He is scum.

While I understand that he paid for his crimes, I for one do not want him in the NFL. I do not want to be reminded of dog-fighting every time I tune in to my favorite entertainment sport. Let him make his living elsewhere, I wish him all the best, as long as he's not in a football uniform.

/end rant

 

[Cain]

I feel so sorry for Michael.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, there are lots of people who can do what he does, which is play the position, very, very well.

Have you noticed all the articles in the sports press over the past three years about how the standard of play has dropped so dramatically now that Vick is no longer on the field? Neither have I.

The Falcons sure did. When Vick went out, they collapsed (finished 4 - 12 after two .500 seasons) They had to go out and find someone else to fill into his place. That is someone who is now not available to someone else.

And the reason for that is simply because it hasn't. There are more than enough people who can play quarterback very, very well to fill thirty team's roster (which is why, for example, Cassel was able to step forward for Brady.) Every team has a backup quarterback, which means there are at least thirty people able to play starting quarterback at the NFL level who aren't currently doing so -- and who aren't named Vick.

And why are they backup? Because they aren't as good as the person they are sitting behind. As the Falcons discovered when they tried someone else.

But I have to tell you, none of this matters. If it is true, as you say, that Vick is easily replacable, then no one will want to sign him. OTOH, if someone wants to sign him, it will be because they think he is the best option to help the team (they aren't going to do it for good PR, that's for damn sure).

 

[pgwenthold]

That's another important point. The NFL has no control over Vick's endorsement contracts. Anyone who wants is free today to ask Vick to endorse their product.

They're not asking? Why is this the NFL's problem?

It's not, and no one is saying it is.

The NFL's question is, should a team be allowed to sign him?

(the NFL doesn't control players, it controls teams)

 

[pgwenthold]

Let's not forget that he denied it at first. He participated in dog fighting for years, and would have continued to do it for years if he hadn't gotten caught. He is scum.

While I understand that he paid for his crimes, I for one do not want him in the NFL. I do not want to be reminded of dog-fighting every time I tune in to my favorite entertainment sport. Let him make his living elsewhere, I wish him all the best, as long as he's not in a football uniform.

/end rant

And you are welcome to your view. Heck, I might even agree with it.

Then again, I feel the same way about Brett Favre. I don't want to see him in a uniform again, either.

Now what's the difference? Not much, in principle. In practice, of course, it is very different. The number of people who don't want to see Michael Vick is much larger than those who don't want to see Brett Favre. But the point is, any team that signs him will have to take this into account. What is the cost they endure to their fanbase if they sign him? Is it worth it to them?

These are decisions the teams have to make. The NFL has a say to the extent that they think that the move will hurt the league overall, but, all accounts are that the commissioner is granting reinstatement, so apparently, he is not too concerned about the hit on the league (he figures that most fans might abandon a team, at best, but won't quit on football). So it is the teams' decisions to make, and if a team thinks that too many fans will be put off, then they won't sign him. OTOH, if a team is willing to sign him, then it means that they think the upside is higher than the downside. That's their call, not mine.

 

[Segnosaur]

No. He's a mediocre quarterback,

Nonsense.

He was, when he was playing, one of the top 30 quarterbacks in the entire world (to be generous - you, in fact, are admitting that he is one of the top 20). He is "mediocre" only by NFL standards, but that is when compared to the elite of the elite. However, that does not change the fact that he is a better quarterback than 99% of people playing football.

Ummm... I think when someone claims a player is 'mediocre' (or even poor), I think the assumption made is that they are comparing them to other players within the same league or at the same level. (The fact that Mickle Vick may be better than your average high-school football player isn't exactly that relevant here.)

 

[Cicero]

No, they can't. Oh sure, you can send people out there, and they can stand in the QB spot on the field. But they can't do what he does, which is play the position very, very well.

Atlanta Falcons 2008 season: 11-5 without Vick

Season 2004 with Vick: 11-5
Season 2005 with Vick: 8-8
Season 2006 with Vick: 7-9


Vick is very much expendable.