Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

^^ Yup. That's what is coming out of Philly:

"Kevin Kolb isn’t one for ultimatums – he handled his demotion this season with class – but the backup quarterback wants out if the Eagles plan on bringing Michael Vick back as their starting quarterback, a source close to the situation said."

[url=http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-eagles/113180254.html?ref=twitter.com]Kolb wants to start or wants out | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/09/2011[/url]

We'll see. I bet they could get some insane deal from a QB hungry team -Arizona, SF (where he would likely be a good fit in Harbaugh's system). So, the young team stocks up on more young talent. At the same time, not sure I trust Vick for the entire 18 game schedule (yes, I said 18) and playoffs. With Vick, you almost have to have a starter quality back up.

If I'm the Eagles, I trade Kolb, stock up on run-stuffers and LB's, draft a QB in rounds 3-5 and coach him up to take over in 2 years.

Given their run of success, however, I'd simply let the FO make the call and shut up. [I know they want a SB, but, damn I think they are jaded (and stupid) in Eagle land. You trade your pro bowl QB (who has taken you to the SB and NFC Championship and playoff and winning seasons), cut your starting RB and STILL end up winning your division and are stacked with young offensive talent. But you're Eagles' fans so you call for everyone's head and act like the apocalypse has arrived. Live in my world you idiots. Well, at least we have 3 Superbowl trophies.]

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776652]^^ Yup. That's what is coming out of Philly:

"Kevin Kolb isn’t one for ultimatums – he handled his demotion this season with class – but the backup quarterback wants out if the Eagles plan on bringing Michael Vick back as their starting quarterback, a source close to the situation said."

[url=http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-eagles/113180254.html?ref=twitter.com]Kolb wants to start or wants out | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/09/2011[/url]

We'll see. I bet they could get some insane deal from a QB hungry team -Arizona, SF (where he would likely be a good fit in Harbaugh's system). So, the young team stocks up on more young talent. At the same time, not sure I trust Vick for the entire 18 game schedule (yes, I said 18) and playoffs. With Vick, you almost have to have a starter quality back up.

If I'm the Eagles, I trade Kolb, stock up on run-stuffers and LB's, draft a QB in rounds 3-5 and coach him up to take over in 2 years.

Given their run of success, however, I'd simply let the FO make the call and shut up. [I know they want a SB, but, damn I think they are jaded (and stupid) in Eagle land. You trade your pro bowl QB (who has taken you to the SB and NFC Championship and playoff and winning seasons), cut your starting RB and STILL end up winning your division and are stacked with young offensive talent. But you're Eagles' fans so you call for everyone's head and act like the apocalypse has arrived. Live in my world you idiots. Well, at least we have 3 Superbowl trophies.][/quote]

Of course, we won't learn and grab him on April Fools' Day. Then we can compare that trade to the one for Sonny as well. :cheeky-sm

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Buster;776606]Go look up some toe pictures. You might as well jump all the way on their bandwagon and do it right.[/quote]

who's bandwagon?

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

I say we trade for Kolb with our 2011 2nd rounder and a conditional 3rd or 4th rounder in 2012.





...lol

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776652]^^ Yup. That's what is coming out of Philly:

"Kevin Kolb isn’t one for ultimatums – he handled his demotion this season with class – but the backup quarterback wants out if the Eagles plan on bringing Michael Vick back as their starting quarterback, a source close to the situation said."

[URL="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-eagles/113180254.html?ref=twitter.com"]Kolb wants to start or wants out | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/09/2011[/URL]

We'll see. I bet they could get some insane deal from a QB hungry team -Arizona, SF (where he would likely be a good fit in Harbaugh's system). So, the young team stocks up on more young talent. At the same time, not sure I trust Vick for the entire 18 game schedule (yes, I said 18) and playoffs. With Vick, you almost have to have a starter quality back up.

If I'm the Eagles, I trade Kolb, stock up on run-stuffers and LB's, draft a QB in rounds 3-5 and coach him up to take over in 2 years.

Given their run of success, however, I'd simply let the FO make the call and shut up. [I know they want a SB, but, damn I think they are jaded (and stupid) in Eagle land. You trade your pro bowl QB (who has taken you to the SB and NFC Championship and playoff and winning seasons), cut your starting RB and STILL end up winning your division and are stacked with young offensive talent. But you're Eagles' fans so you call for everyone's head and act like the apocalypse has arrived. Live in my world you idiots. Well, at least we have 3 Superbowl trophies.][/quote]

Well......I like Kolb and I would not necessarily mind him coming here!
First things First:
CAN he pass the PFT?
IS he certified to run the two minute offense?

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

I cant believe you guys want to pounce on him like this after he loses,and im talking about the player,not the person.He's probably the mvp of the league.Yes he's not looked as good the past few games,have you seen his offensive line? He got nailed on the very first play yesterday,if that would have been a skinsqb they would have fumbled and it would have been 7 points the other way.Have you forgotten why Reid chose him to start over Kolb? Because the off line sucked so bad,thats why.Now to blame him because he looks mortal when he's been pounded so bad the past few games to me sounds like sour grapes

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=htownskinfan;776725]I cant believe you guys want to pounce on him like this after he loses,and im talking about the player,not the person.He's probably the mvp of the league.Yes he's not looked as good the past few games,have you seen his offensive line? He got nailed on the very first play yesterday,if that would have been a skinsqb they would have fumbled and it would have been 7 points the other way.Have you forgotten why Reid chose him to start over Kolb? Because the off line sucked so bad,thats why.Now to blame him because he looks mortal when he's been pounded so bad the past few games to me sounds like sour grapes[/quote]

Most of Vicks pounding is because of his style of play not his line. Your also wrong about why Vick became the starter.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Hog1;776723]Well......I like Kolb and I would not necessarily mind him coming here!
First things First:
CAN he pass the PFT?
IS he certified to run the two minute offense?[/quote]

Don't know about the 2-minute drill, but he's horrid when the clock says 7:39. The Eagles neglected to notice this when they scouted him.

[YT]rtNnBhmczjo[/YT]

[YT]cxQVKJcgVyY[/YT]

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

Is Kolb really going to make an ultimatum? What he needs to do is earn a starting position and play well enough to keep it.
Who the hell does he think he is...Malcolm Kelly?

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

^^ Like Shaub did in Atlanta? Seriously, there is such a dearth of QB's that back-ups only need one or two spectacular or even better than average games to be highly sought after. All you need is a flash of talent and a FO desparate enough and, blamo!, first round pick baby! Anyone remember Scott Mitchell? Rob Johnson? Shaub at least panned out a little. How about SD giving up a ton of draft picks for the chance to take Leaf.

The QB position is so important and it is so hard to find consistent starters that teams will pay a lot on little evidence to grab a guy with potential. Real (Shaub) or imagined (Johnson).

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

Another one that worked out for the team taking the risk - Atlanta drafts Farve in Rnd. 2 of the 1991 draft and, a year later, trades him to GBay for the 19th pick in the 1992 draft (which Atlanta used to pick that immortal RB - Tony Smith!).

Farve's stat line in 1991? 0 for 4 w/ 2 interceptions.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=44ever;776597]And yet he went further than the Redskins. 1st year back and in the Play offs and the Pro Bowl, not bad. Wish he was here.[/quote]

As far as I know, he killed, tortured and abused more dogs than the redskins did, also.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776783]^^ Like Shaub did in Atlanta? Seriously, [B]there is such a dearth of QB's that back-ups only need one or two spectacular or even better than average games to be highly sought after. All you need is a flash of talent and a FO desparate enough and, blamo!, first round pick baby! [/B] Anyone remember Scott Mitchell? Rob Johnson? Shaub at least panned out a little. How about SD giving up a ton of draft picks for the chance to take Leaf.

The QB position is so important and it is so hard to find consistent starters that teams will pay a lot on little evidence to grab a guy with potential. Real (Shaub) or imagined (Johnson).[/quote]

Very true.
Another thing that has changed in the NFL is teams no longer keep QB's for a long time and let them develop on the bench. Like we did with Mark Rypien.
Teams do not have the patience to develop a guy or two.
Salary cap and free agency probably has a lot to do with it.
If you keep a backup for 3 to 5 years you probably won't be able to afford him as your back up much longer.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=freddyg12;776619]yep, I'm a Hokie, though I know plenty of Hokies that in the last couple years became Vick haters & remain so.[/quote]

I'm a huge Hokie as well and I don't know a lot of Vick haters unless your talking about Marcus Vick. Michael was what jumpstarted that entire football program. Without Mike a lot of the money, recruits, etc. would not be in Blacksburg.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

It is funny to read all the crap talk about Vick. I do not like or dislike Vick, but he is a legit NFL QB and is a dynamic player. Of course he does not have the accuracy of a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. There aren't many in this world that do. If Vick did have Peyon's arm he would be Superman.
Yesterday Peyton Manning lost yet another playoff game, is there a thread calling him a choker? All of you guys will be worshiping him again next season.
Vick spent 21 moths in jail, declared bankruptcy and still was able to again become a top 5 QB in the NFL. Not many people have done this.
Donte Stallworth was drunk driving and killed a [B]human being [/B]and only spent [B]30 days behind bars.[/B] He is currently playing for the Ravens. Where is the outrage for this guy?

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

What Stallworth did was an accident.
What Vick did wasnt.
And personally that dogfighting thing wasnt that big of a deal to me, I never liked Vick and once he became an Eagle, well.....I really started to dislike him a lot.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;776823]What Stallworth did was an accident.
What Vick did wasnt.
And personally that dogfighting thing wasnt that big of a deal to me, I never liked Vick and once he became an Eagle, well.....I really started to dislike him a lot.[/quote]

Drinking and choosing to getting behind a wheel is not an accident, it is criminal.
If he were sober and ran over and killed someone that is an accident.
Call it what you want, a persons life is worth more than a month behind bars.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=dblanch66;776810][B]As far as I know[/B], he killed, tortured and abused more dogs than the redskins did, also.[/quote]

As far as you know...

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Defensewins;776825]Drinking and choosing to getting behind a wheel is not an accident, it is criminal.
If he were sober and ran over and killed someone that is an accident.
Call it what you want, a persons life is worth more than a month behind bars.[/quote]

Donte's situation wasn't quite as black and white as that

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Defensewins;776825]Drinking and choosing to getting behind a wheel is not an accident, it is criminal.
If he were sober and ran over and killed someone that is an accident.
Call it what you want, a persons life is worth more than a month behind bars.[/quote]

No argument.

If Vick had done what did to human beings rather than to dogs, he would never have seen the light of day. If Vick had hit a dog while driving drunk, he would likely have suffered no criminal ramifications.

As for Stallworth, you'll get no argument from me. Stallworth, however, is not being recast as the victim. etc. etc.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SmootSmack;776834]Donte's situation wasn't quite as black and white as that[/quote]

True. Leonard Little on the other hand ....

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

Stallworth didn't go to court to defend himself even though he likely could have come out of without any criminal charges.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=dblanch66;776810]As far as I know, he killed, tortured and abused more dogs than the redskins did, also.[/quote]

And probably did more jail time than the Redskins too.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776837]True. Leonard Little on the other hand ....[/quote]

Preach

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=dblanch66;776810]As far as I know, he killed, tortured and abused more dogs than the redskins did, also.[/quote]

Be careful. I'm sure Vick isn't the only player that took part in dogfighting.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=DM72;776850]Be careful. I'm sure Vick isn't the only player that took part in dogfighting.[/quote]

Innocent until proven guilty, and even then we haven't even gotten a hint of any other players being involved in dog fighting though I bet that there are more then a handful that show up and bet on matches. It would be much harder to find someone that handled their own executions personally like Vick did.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=firstdown;776747]Most of Vicks pounding is because of his style of play not his line. Your also wrong about why Vick became the starter.[/quote]

the blitz is what has been killing him in the last few games,thats not a style of play,thats an off line issue.I could be wrong about why he was named the starter,my memory is not that great anymore,I thought that was one of Reids excuses when he was being so wishy washy on who to choose

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=Ruhskins;776843]And probably did more jail time than the Redskins too.[/quote]

I'd still take him. But unfortunately for us, the one thing Vick will never be, is a Redskin.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776836]No argument.

If Vick had done what did to human beings rather than to dogs, he would never have seen the light of day. If Vick had hit a dog while driving drunk, he would likely have suffered no criminal ramifications.

As for Stallworth, you'll get no argument from me. Stallworth, however, is not being recast as the victim. etc. etc.[/quote]

I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

Apples and oranges people. You can't directly compare Vick with Stallworth. Different circumstances and laws. It's not as simple as saying Stallworth killed a person, Vick killed dogs, why did Stallworth get off easier?

The case against him was bigger than just the fact he killed some dogs.

What ultimately got Vick into really hot water was his failure to fully cooperate with the federal investigation and then failed a drug test while awaiting trial.

He was operating and financing an interstate dog fighting ring that involved gambling and drugs. Under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act he could have faced much more severe penalties.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;776958][B]I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.[/B]

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.[/quote]

Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.

[quote=SolidSnake84;776958]Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.[/quote]

In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.

[quote=SolidSnake84;776958]So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.[/quote]

No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;776958]I disagree with you. For some reason our country is preoccupied with giving animals rights that go above and beyond those of a human being.

if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. Why?? Show me where else on planet earth do they put animal rights above those of a human being.

Stallworth killed a man, accident or no accident, DRUNK DRIVING that results in someone's death is still criminal, and in some states can actually be considered negligent homicide.

So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person. and i think thats messed up.[/quote]

Matty and JR really nailed their answers, but my thing is the logical fallacies that are becoming normal even in rational debate. I am just asking you to look at the logic in your post. You make several points that are, at best, stretches of logic.
1:[I]if Michael Vick had killed a person, even if it were murder, he would not have near as bad as a rep right now. For some reason people dont care when people kill other people, but the fact that he did crimes against dogs, make him the scum of the earth in peoples mind. [/I]

You are comparing a single instance of murder, to multiple and repeated brutalization of animals. A reasonable comparison would have been a person brutally murdering for enjoyment multiple people. These are known as serial killers and if caught end up in solitary confinement for life (often shortened).
(I also don't think murderers, if paroled, really have a "good" rep. Doubt they walk down the street getting offered million dollar contracts at their preferred profession)

2:[I]So the bottom line is, Vick was punished far beyond the normal limits when someone commits a crime against a person.[/I]
This is the logic that got me. Vick was punished for brutalizing animals (and more correctly like Matty said, interstate gambling). you gave one incident that shows a man who immediately regretted his actions, humbled himself, and had other mitigating circumstances; and made a huge logic step that somehow you had proven Vick's punishment was "beyond normal limits".


With as dependent as our society is becoming on web facts and individual opinions, I think HS's ought to have serious training in [URL="http://www.documentingexcellence.com/stat_tool/reasoning.htm#MISTAKING%20THE%20CAUSE"]Critical Thinking skills.[/URL]

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;776989]Sorry, you are simply wrong. Animals have no rights (okay, now find the link about some old lady who left her money to a cat). Sure. Some people have misplaced priorities. The country, as a whole, and as evidenced by its legal system does not. You cannot get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing and killing animals. You can get life imprisonment for intentionally torturing humans.



In most, if not all states that would be homicide. However, in Stallworth's case the man who was killed was likely negligent himself which may have resulted in no charges (not sure, not a criminal defense attorney). Certainly, in MD, in a civil case, Stallworth would not have been found liable to the man he struck in such a case. (contributory negligence by a defendent is an absolute defense).

Again, you want to talk Leonard Little or Jeremy Stevens, I am all with you. Stallworth, however, is simply (as Matty states) not an appropriate comparison.



No. The bottom line is that Vick was punished in accordance with Federal Sentencing Guidelines and is free to pursue his career of choice after participating in multi-year, multi-state, illegal, deceptive and conspirational gambling practices that, if done by me, would forever bar me from ever being again practicing law (or working as an insurance agent or any other position requiring a license) and that would likely make me unemployable in any position of authority or trust. Again, we aren't even considering the fact that he lied to his former employer and to the league's commissioner about his activities.

Was he Ted Bundy? No. Is he a wrongly accused felon who should be accorded martydom? No.

[B]Christ, how does this guy keep getting away with being portrayed as a victim??[/B][/quote]

Jeez...Man, take it easy will ya?
This guy should be Freekin' MVP if her were not being victimized by the Freekin' NFL......

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;777020]All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.[/quote]

Before you make moral judgements, understand what Vick was charged with. Please see Matty's earlier post (#110).

I'm glad that Vick has made the most out of his second chance. However, the moral aspect of this needs to be separated from the legal somewhat. If Vick had simply been revealed as a 'fan' of dog fighting w/no criminal charges, then people could hate him for purely moral reasons & their love of animals. The fact that he funded organized crime for years really made his legal troubles what they were, and as Matty pointed out he exacerbated it by not cooperating & also lying.

C. Cowherd brought up Vick today & named about 20 QBs he would take to start his franchise rather than Vick. He also said that the topic of Vick changes his show & really ignites people. Said he's exciting but not dependable long-term. I think the jury is still out on that (no pun intended). He then had a calller that rambled on about what Big Ben supposedly did & how everyone has committed crimes. Cowherd said repeatedly Ben wasn't charged w/anything, big difference.

Cowherd told the guy he was rationalizing bad behavior. So many people (not saying this to anyone here specifically) seem to do that w/Vick, they seem to think he got a raw deal. Would it have been different if he were running drugs or tied to the Mafia? It's still ORGANIZED CRIME & that's what ultimately was so stupid on his part. You're a franchise qb, highest paid in the nfl, and yet you choose to put funds into an illegal operation.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=freddyg12;777025]Before you make moral judgements, understand what Vick was charged with. Please see Matty's earlier post (#110).

I'm glad that Vick has made the most out of his second chance. However, the moral aspect of this needs to be separated from the legal somewhat. If Vick had simply been revealed as a 'fan' of dog fighting w/no criminal charges, then people could hate him for purely moral reasons & their love of animals. The fact that he funded organized crime for years really made his legal troubles what they were, and as Matty pointed out he exacerbated it by not cooperating & also lying.

C. Cowherd brought up Vick today & named about 20 QBs he would take to start his franchise rather than Vick. He also said that the topic of Vick changes his show & really ignites people. Said he's exciting but not dependable long-term. I think the jury is still out on that (no pun intended). He then had a calller that rambled on about what Big Ben supposedly did & how everyone has committed crimes. Cowherd said repeatedly Ben wasn't charged w/anything, big difference.

Cowherd told the guy he was rationalizing bad behavior. So many people (not saying this to anyone here specifically) seem to do that w/Vick, they seem to think he got a raw deal. Would it have been different if he were running drugs or tied to the Mafia? It's still ORGANIZED CRIME & that's what ultimately was so stupid on his part. You're a franchise qb, highest paid in the nfl, and yet you choose to put funds into an illegal operation.[/quote]Great points, heard bits of the Cowherd segment and he was definitely on point also.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

Let's be clear about another thing, Vick is not the MVP of the league. That's Tom Brady, again.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;777020]All these people like that idiot Tucker Carlson that were calling for Vick to be "executed", or for him to receive a lifetime ban. Thats where my argument came from.

There are people in the NFL who have killed people, been involved in shooting, stabbings, blah blah blah, and i bet you never at any point was anybody calling for a lifetime ban.

Ben Rapistberger is slapped on the wrist after allegedly raping 2 women, but nobody cares. I just think that the media went ballistic on Vick, especially the animal rights people who are in bed with the other groups...They took a man who committed bad crimes and projected him in an even worse light. Vick was a criminal, [B]but he is also a little bit of a victim when you look at how so many people have tried to go out of their way to keep him from doing what he loves.[/B]

Bottom line is when crimes involving animals occur, conventional wisdom, and also common sense are thrown out the window. The best thing we all can do, myself included, is just leave this debate about Vick alone. We will never agree. I will end this with saying that I'm glad Vick is getting a second chance and i also hope that he does not revert back to his old life when he starts making big bucks again. I hope he's changed.[/quote]

You had your last word and I will have mine:

In no way, shape or form is Vick a victim and only through the most convoluted "logic" could this once-again famous sports media darling ever be portrayed as one.

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;777033]You had your last word and I will have mine:

In no way, shape or form is Vick a victim and only through the most convoluted "logic" could this once-again famous sports media darling ever be portrayed as one.[/quote]

Some people are going to hate on Vick no matter what he does.

At least come out and say what you've got against Vick. I know your an animal owner. Is that the reason why? I looked back at your posts and it just seemed to me like you went out of your way to bash the man. Is it something other than that???

Re: What Michael Vick won't be
 

[quote=SolidSnake84;777036]Some people are going to hate on Vick no matter what he does.[/quote]
So I guess you are on the side of those who will defend MV...NO matter what he does?