Vikings Message Board.Com

I'm not commenting on the legal side of this, but I did want to point out that by my figuring, he could conceivably come back for the 2010-1 season at age 30. Would a team really risk all the public relations nightmare by signing him? If that team were the Vikes, I wouldn't watch them as long as he is on the roster.

It really just depends.

People seem to forget things pretty quickly and there are a fair amount of people who don't see what the big deal is about (It surely was debated enough here). By 2010, who knows? If he lays low for that time without doing anything else stupid (Which seems unlikely to me honestly) he'll probably be back.

For the price that he'll be (Cheap) I'm sure some team will go after him. He'll not be paid like he once was. No team is going to risk spending too much money on a guy with Vick's history, regardless of talent.

If he's able to keep himself out of trouble between now and then and stays in shape he'll be on some team. By then there won't be enough people with your mind set (Willing to disown their favorite team if he's on it) to make them shy away.

Vick was overrated to begin with.

Nevertheless, it is a sad road he has taken.

When the id is allowed to reign over the superego, these things happen.

The Dolphins might not have their QB situation figured out by 2010, so he might me wearing teal and orange!

(But I hope not....this season was bad enough for Phin fans.)

If Vick does his time shouldn't that be enough? If that isn't enough how much is enough? A permanent ban from the NFL? Exile to a modern day Devils Island?

Ray Lewis was heavily involved in the cover-up of a double homicide. If Lewis can come back and play in the NFL, I certainly think Vick is entitled to do the same.

I agree with that X. Prison sentences are "serving your debt to humanity." And like I stated in the other "real" Vick thread, I think the punishment was fair. I was personally hoping for 3 years with 85% time served for good behavior, but it was close enough. And really, he got it pretty rought.

"When the id is allowed to reign over the superego, these things happen."
That is the most Vulcan thing I've ever read. I will endeavor to squeeze that into a casual conversation.
Anyhow, Vick is done, son. I don't care how swoll he gets on bread and water, no team will take him after he spends 2 full years in jail as a dog-killing felon.

Prison usually has a large effect on a person mind.
Mike Tyson was never the fighter before he went.
I think Vick will probably get a shot at some point
and it wont work out. If no team takes him it will because
of the blow back with hiring someone who did something
so vile.

Cliff wrote:
If he's able to keep himself out of trouble between now and then and stays in shape he'll be on some team. By then there won't be enough people with your mind set (Willing to disown their favorite team if he's on it) to make them shy away.

People frequently underestimate the power of certain lobbies. The gun lobby, for example, used to be underestimated. You might be surprised at the strength of the animal rights lobby.

Besides, let's talk football. After three years of inactivity, and given that the guy's lifetime passing rating was something like 60 (I may be off by a bit, but you get my drift), why take a flyer on the guy? You'll alienate part of your fan base, and at best, you'll get a wide receiver or kick returner without a lot of experience at his position. It wouldn't be worth it to me, even if I hated dogs.

Mr. X wrote:If Vick does his time shouldn't that be enough? If that isn't enough how much is enough? A permanent ban from the NFL? Exile to a modern day Devils Island?

Ray Lewis was heavily involved in the cover-up of a double homicide. If Lewis can come back and play in the NFL, I certainly think Vick is entitled to do the same.

Ah ... the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Playing in the NFL isn't a right, it's a privilege. These guys are entertainers getting a minimum of hundreds of grand a year to give us all some joy on a Sunday afternoon. To deny someone that privilege isn't the same as condemning him to Devil's Island. I wouldn't deny him the right to gainful employment. And I'm not calling for him to spend eons in jail. I simply don't believe his mug should be foisted on people who are turning on their TV to watch their favorite team help them escape for a few hours.

I don't know the details of what Lewis did. He didn't become the "face" of people murder. Vick, however, did become the face of dog-torture. The situations aren't remotely close to one another.

Besides, Vick might have considered the consequences -- that there exist "wackos" like me who are diehard animal lovers AND football fans -- before he decided to get his kicks to begin with.

Colinito wrote:I agree with that X. Prison sentences are "serving your debt to humanity." And like I stated in the other "real" Vick thread, I think the punishment was fair. I was personally hoping for 3 years with 85% time served for good behavior, but it was close enough. And really, he got it pretty rought.

I have no problem with the amount of the punishment, Colinto. I wouldn't keep him out of the league to punish him. I'd keep him out to avoid punishing ME (for having to watch him wearing purple).

Rereading your first post DanAS1, I see that indeed you are talking in IFs. And I agree that I wouldn't want Vick on the Vikes or the Titans. It would make it hard to root for them.

And it is certainly improbable that a) Vick would be in shape enough to come back to the NFL (Jamal Lewis was out of "football shape" after only a few months in jail, despite working out every day), and b) Any team would actually take a flier out on him, due to negative PR and the fact that he was under heavy scrutiny as a QB before getting busted.

Improbable, but if he came out of prison in good shape and got a gig with an AFL team or something, and worked his way back up, then I'd say go for it.

I believe that people can change, and I allow for that change, but I realize it is very rare for that to happen, as it takes discipline, hard work, and a lot of deconstructing to make it all happen.

DanAS1 wrote: Playing in the NFL isn't a right, it's a privilege.

True but I'm not sure what relevance that has to this situation given that Ray Lewis, Leonard Little and countless others are playing in the NFL. You can also apply that cliche about something being a privilege rather than a right to about a billion other things as well. Maybe that's why that verbal construction is considered one of the most over-used cliches around.

I don't know the details of what Lewis did. He didn't become the "face" of people murder. Vick, however, did become the face of dog-torture. The situations aren't remotely close to one another.

I agree. A double homicide and animal cruelty are not remotely close to one another.

Besides, Vick might have considered the consequences -- that there exist "wackos" like me who are diehard animal lovers AND football fans -- before he decided to get his kicks to begin with.

Well ... that's it in a nutshell. The PETA response doesn't work for me. When the dust settles Vick will have paid an enormous price for this crime. At that point the punishment should end. As a society we would be better off being less vindictive than more, and suggesting that Vick should be banned from playing in the NFL has an air of pure vindictiveness to it.

Colinito wrote:
Improbable, but if he came out of prison in good shape and got a gig with an AFL team or something, and worked his way back up, then I'd say go for it.

I believe that people can change, and I allow for that change, but I realize it is very rare for that to happen, as it takes discipline, hard work, and a lot of deconstructing to make it all happen.

I would sound like a hypocrite if I said "let him play in the AFL, just not the NFL." But it's not like I'd boycott the guy from playing sandlot football, and at some point, even I would say he can play "professional" football. I just have to draw the line somewhere -- clearly, I wouldn't foist him on the NFL and all its animal-loving fans.

(By the way, I wonder how many of us are both (a) vegans and (b) have the NFL Sunday Ticket. That's got to be a pretty limited group. But those are my peeps!)

DanAS1

I simply don't believe his mug should be foisted on people who are turning on their TV to watch their favorite team help them escape for a few hours.

Well, rereading your first post this morning I saw that you weren't actually saying Vick shouldn't be able to come back to the NFL. I thought X was fighting a strawman. But this line seems to indicate that you are saying that Vick should be banned from the NFL.

Mr. X:

Well ... that's it in a nutshell. The PETA response doesn't work for me. When the dust settles Vick will have paid an enormous price for this crime. At that point the punishment should end. As a society we would be better off being less vindictive than more, and suggesting that Vick should be banned from playing in the NFL has an air of pure vindictiveness to it.

I agree. And I say that as the other vegan on the board. I don't really believe in letting extremists set policy, and people who think this was the worst crime ever are certainly extremists. It was a heinous crime, and he's paying (as X says) an enormous price that in my opinion fits very well. But once he has served his time and given back the money owed, he's free to do what any other felon in this country can do...and that includes playing football in the NFL if he has the necessary skills to do so.

I think it is improbable that he will play in the NFL again, but that is a huge difference from saying that he *shouldn't* be allowed to play in the NFL.

DanAS1:

(By the way, I wonder how many of us are both (a) vegans and (b) have the NFL Sunday Ticket. That's got to be a pretty limited group. But those are my peeps!)

I know, and Redskins haters too. If you love Bob Dylan and "The Big Lebowski" we may just be long lost brothers.