ADN

It's evident that "dog-lovers" and those aware of the Michael Vick story, crime and punishment, have checked himself off as a lifetime person on their personal vendetta list because of it all, and do not wish to see M. Vick succeed anywhere. It goes against "their" moral being, not the other collective community that wants to give Vick another chance. At the very least, they don't want him to succeed at what they feel is a popular venue or privilege, like the NFL, or maybe Hollywood (think of an actor that's gotten in trouble, like that drunk-driving racist Mel Gibson; did anyone call for his screen-actors' guild card?). I prefer rational arguments. Vick committed a crime, accepted his sentence, and later, accepted a second opportunity to market the sport in which he once-previously highly-succeeded at... what's your gripe at this point?

Vick committed a crime, was punished for it, so he can go rot in hell for all I care, but I'll be damned if I have to see him on television or the newspaper again! He doesn't deserve any more coverage, let alone me acknowledging it! He lost all credibilty and rights to a successful life the moment he started killing dogs! -- the average mindset of a Vick antagonist

There have been far moe egregious crimes committed by high-profile persons, whether they were athletes, actors, or accountants, but it's the most vocal and emotionally-tied picketers that are calling for Vick's head. The rest, they don't care or mind as much at the reality of the situation. Vick is going to play professional football again, and with due time and a bit of support, he will prosper as well as one of the most electrifying athletes in the sport today.
It is solely a matter of when and where at this point.

Kumicho wrote:Man, please...The NFL is a shithole...

The NFL earns more money than all the other sports combined probably, but pay their best players, with more on the line than any other sport, considerably less...Do you realize you could be a top flight NFL player, suffer a career ending injury, and not be able to get a pension..? The A-Rod's and CC Sabathia's of the NFL make almost 3x's less than the A-Rod's and CC Sabathia's...Not to mention all the problems people have with getting adequate care after the game... Guys go out and get the crap kicked out of them for 10 years and have shit to show for it, they had to practically be forced to become an equal opportunity employer, and you have people sitting in places who have never even played the game sitting up deciding how its to be played...

How you figure the NFL gets umpteen chances, and players get one shot..?

The NFL does earn more in revenue indeed, the Super Bowl is the most watched sporting event in the entire world. Not sure if I'd call what NFL players make as "less". MLB doesn't really have a salary cap. That's why A-Rod can get paid more in a single game (even if he strikes out every at bat) then I do in an entire year. MLB starting pitchers are even worse as they only play ~30 games per year. What, Roger Clemens was paid $1 million per game the last time he played for the Yankees? MLB is completely out of control but the players have ALL the say in that.

But back to football, it's the top of the mountain because less than 1% of college kids go on to play in the NFL. I won't even bother to point out how many go from high school to college.

Regarding their pension...they get more and more for every year they play. They can warm the bench an entire career and make a ton of money (for average people) after they retired. Then there are the millions they make as pros, through contracts and sponsors. Michael Vick had his $100 million contract plus what he had with Nike and everyone else.

The highest paid player in the NFL right now is Nnamdi Asomugha who signed a 3 year $45 million contract yet plays on the NFL's worst team (yearly average). THAT right there is a pedestal and NOT the same one that Michael Vick should get a chance at again.

¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п wrote:It's evident that "dog-lovers" and those aware of the Michael Vick story, crime and punishment, have checked himself off as a lifetime person on their personal vendetta list because of it all, and do not wish to see M. Vick succeed anywhere. It goes against "their" moral being, not the other collective community that wants to give Vick another chance. At the very least, they don't want him to succeed at what they feel is a popular venue or privilege, like the NFL, or maybe Hollywood (think of an actor that's gotten in trouble, like that drunk-driving racist Mel Gibson; did anyone call for his screen-actors' guild card?). I prefer rational arguments. Vick committed a crime, accepted his sentence, and later, accepted a second opportunity to market the sport in which he once-previously highly-succeeded at... what's your gripe at this point?

Vick committed a crime, was punished for it, so he can go rot in hell for all I care, but I'll be damned if I have to see him on television or the newspaper again! He doesn't deserve any more coverage, let alone me acknowledging it! He lost all credibilty and rights to a successful life the moment he started killing dogs! -- the average mindset of a Vick antagonist

There have been far moe egregious crimes committed by high-profile persons, whether they were athletes, actors, or accountants, but it's the most vocal and emotionally-tied picketers that are calling for Vick's head. The rest, they don't care or mind as much at the reality of the situation. Vick is going to play professional football again, and with due time and a bit of support, he will prosper as well as one of the most electrifying athletes in the sport today.
It is solely a matter of when and where at this point.

I'm not calling for Vick's head at all. Did I demand that he serve 15-20 years in prison? No. He served his time so it is what it is. I just don't think a man that did what he did deserves to be a role model for children anymore. Remember the Michael Vick Experience commercial he did for Nike?



I notice that I didn't see any part of the drowning and torturing of dogs? I didn't see laughing at any dog fighting events as dogs tore themselves to pieces? Something is just WRONG about that commercial.

I didn't reference you at all in my post, so it was not just aimed for your reply.

I just said that there is a vocal minority that are not taking into account the reality here: they have little to no influence on what Michael Vick can do with his life in the future, which most certainly at this point involves him rejoining the NFL as an athlete once again.

The NFL is not a children's league, nor does it or should it want to promote each and every player within its organization as role model. Nobody in society is perfect, so why should the public relations department insist to keep pushing the NFL as a "family league"?

The last part of your comment is ridiculous. Ray Rice still does commercials, and he was accused of manslaughter. Does he need to mention each and every time a camera is on him that he has the capability of killing you if you look at him the wrong way? Or how about OJ Simpson? He was also accused and speculated to have committed double homicide, yet he still had two films before and after his infamous trial. Do you think he should have stopped right in the middle of a slapstick scene and turned to the audience and just admit what he did? As the above two do not make sense in the scope of reality, as such, nor does a national commercial which features Michael Vick that was produced at least a year before charges were brought up against him make sense to include what he does in his personal life, whther or not that includes illegal activites.

¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п wrote:I didn't reference you at all in my post, so it was not just aimed for your reply.

I just said that there is a vocal minority that are not taking into account the reality here: they have little to no influence on what Michael Vick can do with his life in the future, which most certainly at this point involves him rejoining the NFL as an athlete once again.

That's true...considering he's a horrible QB anyway he surely won't be making any impact where he is at right now.

¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п wrote:The NFL is not a children's league, nor does it or should it want to promote each and every player within its organization as role model. Nobody in society is perfect, so why should the public relations department insist to keep pushing the NFL as a "family league"?

Actually, the NFL is all about the image. Why do you think they stepped in to have ESPN discontinue the "Playmakers" TV series? They were concerned that people would think that happens in the NFL too. Drugs, steroids, wife beating, homosexuals, lots of baby daddies...the NFL was and seriously still is concerned about their image.

¡ñ±£¿®∆L Ф¶†ïς@п wrote:The last part of your comment is ridiculous. Ray Rice still does commercials, and he was accused of manslaughter. Does he need to mention each and every time a camera is on him that he has the capability of killing you if you look at him the wrong way? Or how about OJ Simpson? He was also accused and speculated to have committed double homicide, yet he still had two films before and after his infamous trial. Do you think he should have stopped right in the middle of a slapstick scene and turned to the audience and just admit what he did? As the above two do not make sense in the scope of reality, as such, nor does a national commercial which features Michael Vick that was produced at least a year before charges were brought up against him make sense to include what he does in his personal life, whther or not that includes illegal activites.

Ray Rice? Who? I actually had to look him up. Some RB for the Ravens? I didn't see anything about manslaughter in his Wiki. I really don't know where you are going with him. Maybe you are confusing him with Ray Lewis? Being accused is far different than being found guilty. I can't consider anyone that has been accused of anything. Roethlisberger is being accused of rape by a nutty woman of all things.

OJ Simpson? Sheesh...you are extremely confused here. OJ's last movie was Naked Gun 33 1/3 that was filmed in 1993 and released to theaters in March of 1994. Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered in June 1994. You seem to have your dates VASTLY confused or something. Of course I am not defending him but he sure didn't do any movies nor play in the NFL after the trial...even though he was found not guilty.

I honestly have never liked Michael Vick. The dog incident sure didn't help but I always thought he was a real drag to the Atlanta Falcons organization even before then. Of course he drew in the fans but he couldn't throw the ball. He got his head coach fired. His backup (Matt Schaub) was a better QB and the Falcons traded him away.

Yeah, I'm horrible with examples. :|

What I was trying to convey is that neither Ray Lewis or OJ Simpson, before or after, advertised their crimes to the general public, so it really boggled my mind why you would think differently about Vick's situation.

I notice that I didn't see any part of the drowning and torturing of dogs? I didn't see laughing at any dog fighting events as dogs tore themselves to pieces? Something is just WRONG about that commercial.

So why would you feel that Nike or any other company that endorsed Vick before he was arraigned would need to highlight something they had no knowledge of whatsoever. Commercials are horrible representations of life and truth; I despise them, especially the ones endorsing the Manning bros. with Oreos.

I'm not trying to lift your bias regarding Vick, or even telling you to lighten up or try to like him; I don't like him either because I don't know him from Jeremiah L. Granger, so he's just another joe to me, though a more accessible "celebrity joe". What is somewhat irksome is that you are continually finding the tiniest discrepancies and nitpicking them to death, which then further drives us from the original topic at hand.

Michael Vick didn't need to be disciplined any further by the NFL; either he was to be banned from the sport altogether, or work his way back into it from the ground up. The initial suspension was to save face for the organization and not make sensationalized headlines going into week 1 of the season. Vick was reprimanded by the US judicial system and that should have been enough. The NFL conduct code shouldn't supercede or try to issue further hardships upon the party at fault; what was decreed by the NFL regarding Plaxico Burress is what should have been instituted for M. Vick, in that upon release from prison and his debt to the community, he is immediately eligible to rejoin te NFL and sign with a team.

I'm glad Vick now has a chance to earn his keep by week 3 of this upcoming season, but I still think it's two weeks long. The best thing Vick can accomplish in the next 20 months is keep his profile low and make a good case for me to forget about him.

I'll add to the Vick disaster...nice headline on this one!

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=290903020

"Vick rushes for TD, sacked four times as Jets beat Eagles"

Not to mention a mere 26 yards passing on 11 attempts and an INT, 2 fumbles.

Electric to watch, eh? I'd rather watch paint dry.

^ But that has nothing to do with this topic.

Honestly, you are entitled to your opinion about Michael Vick, you can hate him for whatever reason you want....but this thread is not about how much you like or dislike Vick....it's about whether or not he should be allowed to play in the NFL...and to what extent he should be punished, if at all, by the league for his off the field actions.

Aside from a bunch of hate filled posts about all the reasons you think Vick is a scum bag, I've yet to see any real, concrete, and practical ideas about how this situation should be properly handled by the NFL...

If this thread is going to be reduced to you posting links about everything Vick does wrong for the rest of his career, thinking it will in some way justify your stance that he shouldn't be in the NFL, then that's fine...but I'll know to just avoid this thread, as it lacks anything that is in any way thought provoking or worthy of discussion.

I do however still think this topic is worth discussing, in terms of how leagues should punish athletes (or even if they should at all) for their off the field incidences, but listening to you complain about how bad Vick is, why you dislike him, why you think he should die in a fire for all the sins he has committed...is just getting tiresome and irritating. So I guess you can hijack this thread and we can start another one....or you can feel free to start an anti-Vick thread where you rip on him constantly, and actually have it be perfectly on topic...hell it'd probably get quite a few hits, I'm sure there are other Vick haters roaming around on the site.... but posting old commercials and stat lines from preseason games is running this potentially great thread straight to the ground.

I don't mean to sound rude but can you read? I have stated already in this very thread that I do not "hate" Michael Vick. :think:

And how the fuck can someone hijack a thread that they started? :|

Dude you can use the word hate or dislike, it doesn't change anything I said.

And it is not only completely possible for someone to hijack their own thread...but its happening right now


Look at the title of the topic....its about whether or not Goodell is being fair or unfair to Vick, and what the proper punishment should be for him....and that can extend to a greater discussion of how all commissioners can treat their players...

but instead you just keep posting links and saying things about why you dislike Vick... it is not adding to any discussion...you've made your point that you do not like him for various reasons....let's move this discussion forward.

Do you guys think Donte Stallworth should be allowed to play in the NFL ever again?