|
Post by los on Feb 16, 2009 20:27:24 GMT -6
Its a culture thing spreadattack....growing up in the south, I knew lots of guys who fought roosters.....killed animals for sport(not always for food), like coon hunting, fox hunting, rat hunting....you name it.....these folks weren't criminals or serial killers.....this was part of their tradition and culture.....I didn't neccessarily embrace it, but am not so arrogant and self righteous that I would condemn it....I feel the same about Mike Vicks situation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 21:05:01 GMT -6
Its a culture thing spreadattack....growing up in the south, I knew lots of guys who fought roosters.....killed animals for sport(not always for food), like coon hunting, fox hunting, rat hunting....you name it.....these folks weren't criminals or serial killers.....this was part of their tradition and culture.....I didn't neccessarily embrace it, but am not so arrogant and self righteous that I would condemn it....I feel the same about Mike Vicks situation! So using your philosophy: I grew up in North Philadelphia, grew up around drugs, violence, murder. There the street gang is a culture thing. SO I shouldn't have an issue with any of that stuff, because I grew up around it. Sorry man, but just because alot of people did something back in the day doesn't make it right, and you know when something right and when it's wrong. Calling it so isn't arrogant or self rightous.
|
|
|
Post by k on Feb 16, 2009 21:26:48 GMT -6
Law breakers in my narrow mind have no rights. Seriously? Very un-American IMO.
|
|
|
Post by los on Feb 16, 2009 22:21:09 GMT -6
Using "my philosophy" is saying..."what may be considered as a normal tradition and part of the community's culture in one place......may be considered brutal or abhorrent in another place".....kinda like football, lol.....all I have to say is....its a good thing he didn't want to be a bullfighter, when he was growing up.....that would have been really messy
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Feb 17, 2009 10:23:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Feb 17, 2009 10:29:26 GMT -6
?
|
|
|
Post by los on Feb 17, 2009 12:30:16 GMT -6
Whats the question???, lol......if its about the game of football being considered brutal and repugnant, by "decent society", back in the old days?.....this is true......they almost banned the sport from being played in the US.....the people who participated in it, were considered thugs and hooligans, by many, in mainstream society......just something to think about, as many folks in football "seem" to have a hard time forgiving this young man for his mistake and letting him once again participate.
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Feb 17, 2009 12:50:29 GMT -6
Law breakers in my narrow mind have no rights. Seriously? Very un-American IMO. whats unamerican about giving my opinion on the matter?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 17, 2009 12:54:21 GMT -6
Again, it might be advantageous to distinguish what the actual argument is.
1. law breakers are bad people and their future needs to be controlled in addition to the application of the law? Does this ideology carry over to Tank Johnson, Cedric Benson, Plaxico Burress, Marvin Harrison, Jared Allen, as well?
2. A questionable quarterback returning to his team after being replaced?
3. An inconsistent, playmaking quarterback having value in the league as a starter? Last time I checked, there weren't many NFL teams trading for backups ("Falcons shopping Vick")
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Feb 17, 2009 15:45:12 GMT -6
Again, it might be advantageous to distinguish what the actual argument is. 1. law breakers are bad people and their future needs to be controlled in addition to the application of the law? Does this ideology carry over to Tank Johnson, Cedric Benson, Plaxico Burress, Marvin Harrison, Jared Allen, as well? 2. A questionable quarterback returning to his team after being replaced? 3. An inconsistent, playmaking quarterback having value in the league as a starter? Last time I checked, there weren't many NFL teams trading for backups ("Falcons shopping Vick") Excellent observations, and I appreciate you redirecting the discussion, so that it can be more focused. Allow me to answer your last question first... 3. Last time you checked... were there backup QB's starting for franchises, that obviously, shouldn't be starting QB's? EX./ Chicago, Tampa, Minnesosota, Seattle, etc... 2. Who's questioning the QB, that was winning without one legitimate WR... had a stud TE for a minute, but never had a real supporting cast... or even consistent coaching... But I guess that's what makes him questionable to some... Been nothing but a winner... on the field that is. 1. An athletes job is to be athletic... if they can do that, they are in the right profession. If fans want more from their athletes, then don't buy their jersey, or support the products they sponsor... heck... don't buy a ticket to the franchise they participate on... but if its not that serious to you... and you are just blowing smoke... Let the man play, enjoy his performance, and leave it at that... Its only football, its only entertainment... if you aren't entertained, then don't waste your time.
|
|
stylee
Sophomore Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by stylee on Feb 17, 2009 15:52:03 GMT -6
As brophy pointed out, there's lots of angles to consider here, even in his #1. (a) What do we find forgivable outiside the legal context? Or at least forgivable enough to play football again. I think everyone here can think of situations where they would never want a player allowed back in, no matter how much they harp about the NFL not being about making moral judgments - - f'rinstance, let's say Rae Carruth got off on a technicality. It would obviously be a messy PR move for a team to sign him and few teams would take such a risk. Even allowing him to be signed would look terrible for the NFL and they would probably take the prudent course of action and keep him out. If he were free after going through the legal process (imagine any evidence was gathered illegally, etc.), what non-moral/ethical/normative reason would you, as an individual and not as the NFL commish or team owner, have for keeping him out? On the topic of "forgivable/not forgivable", I think you have to look at guys like Jared Allen, Leonard Little, and their drunken ilk. If you ask "Why suspend/'expel' Vick if he's served his time?" then ask the same thing about Little and Allen. Little killed a human being. Allen did not, but if you deem him less guilty than Little for it, I think you've got a tough task ahead of you plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/Are these guys more or less fit to play in the league from your personal perspective than Vick? Does that opinion change if it came out that both guys came from a culture where drunk driving is accepted/encouraged? What is acceptable as a "cultural excuse" that some defend Vick with? Is racism defensible along such lines? Perhaps domestic abuse - I know plenty of people who come from families where abuse is the norm. Lots of angles.
|
|
|
Post by 2leegit on Feb 18, 2009 10:18:42 GMT -6
We all need to stop judging and throwing rocks. All of our houses are made of thin glass. The man should and will play again. Let him take a team to the playoffs or a SuperBowl, all will be forgotten. Ray Lewis has knowledge of two men who were killed by someone in his posse. This affected more families than anything Vick did. Enron, Madoff, and greedy corporations destroying people's lives affect me more than someone playing football again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 17:25:33 GMT -6
Why should they be different? Because he's Michael Vick?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 18, 2009 17:40:57 GMT -6
Why shouldn't the man have a right to earn a living? If some team wants him and he's done his time why shouldn't he have a right to play for him?
|
|
|
Post by CoachA21 on Feb 18, 2009 18:09:39 GMT -6
I agree with your statement Coach Phantom
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Feb 18, 2009 18:26:26 GMT -6
Why shouldn't the man have a right to earn a living? If some team wants him and he's done his time why shouldn't he have a right to play for him? WHY SHOULD HE HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL??? I despise bullies, psychopaths and abusers of women, children and animals. I do not consider them to have any rights. Dude is lucky I am not in charge of "corrections" for sure.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 18, 2009 19:11:35 GMT -6
Dude is lucky I am not in charge of "corrections" for sure. I think we all are pretty lucky, comrade
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 18, 2009 19:48:58 GMT -6
The thing about Vick that people are forgetting is that he wasn't just "fighting dogs." The man was bankrolling and actively running a multi-million dollar gambling and racketeering operation that revolved around animal cruelty! And that was just his HOBBY! Would you trust a guy with those kind of "connections" to be reponsible for winning games for your team?
It's not like he'd been a model citizen before that, either. Remember the lawsuit from that woman he knowingly gave the STD to? That ridiculous bong incident at the airport? How about flipping off the crowd in Atlanta? Or refusing to play for Dan Reeves? All of this was in a very brief career.
The guy's got raw athletic talent, but he was never a consistent QB and, just from what I saw leaked into the media, looked like he had "team cancer" written all over him long before he was sent to prison. Any team who gets him is wading into a minefield of negative PR and it's hard to see that as a justifiable risk, IMO. Also, as shaky as he was to begin with, who knows what sort of playing shape he'll be in after being away from the game for 2 years?
With some of the other QBs moving up through the college ranks, Vick isn't even as unique a talent anymore. Besides Vince Young, who may be on the block soon, you've got Pat White in the draft, as well as Tim Tebow, Juice Williams, Jake Locker, and other college QBs with similar ability coming up in the next few years. I'd rather grab one of those guys through the draft for a pittance instead of risking everything on a guy who's already destroyed one franchise by his cruel and just plain stupid actions. Then you've got other servicable QBs, like Jeff Garcia, who may be available and have proven to be far more reliable in NFL offenses.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Feb 18, 2009 19:52:19 GMT -6
Why shouldn't the man have a right to earn a living? If some team wants him and he's done his time why shouldn't he have a right to play for him? WHY SHOULD HE HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL??? I despise bullies, psychopaths and abusers of women, children and animals. I do not consider them to have any rights. Dude is lucky I am not in charge of "corrections" for sure. But he'll be out of jail soon. What should he do for a living?
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Feb 18, 2009 19:55:36 GMT -6
WHY SHOULD HE HAVE ANY RIGHTS AT ALL??? I despise bullies, psychopaths and abusers of women, children and animals. I do not consider them to have any rights. Dude is lucky I am not in charge of "corrections" for sure. But he'll be out of jail soon. What should he do for a living? Get a job cleaning out kennels at the animal shelter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2009 21:38:23 GMT -6
The thing about Vick that people are forgetting is that he wasn't just "fighting dogs." The man was bankrolling and actively running a multi-million dollar gambling and racketeering operation that revolved around animal cruelty! And that was just his HOBBY! Would you trust a guy with those kind of "connections" to be reponsible for winning games for your team? It's not like he'd been a model citizen before that, either. Remember the lawsuit from that woman he knowingly gave the STD to? That ridiculous bong incident at the airport? How about flipping off the crowd in Atlanta? Or refusing to play for Dan Reeves? All of this was in a very brief career. The guy's got raw athletic talent, but he was never a consistent QB and, just from what I saw leaked into the media, looked like he had "team cancer" written all over him long before he was sent to prison. Any team who gets him is wading into a minefield of negative PR and it's hard to see that as a justifiable risk, IMO. Also, as shaky as he was to begin with, who knows what sort of playing shape he'll be in after being away from the game for 2 years? With some of the other QBs moving up through the college ranks, Vick isn't even as unique a talent anymore. Besides Vince Young, who may be on the block soon, you've got Pat White in the draft, as well as Tim Tebow, Juice Williams, Jake Locker, and other college QBs with similar ability coming up in the next few years. I'd rather grab one of those guys through the draft for a pittance instead of risking everything on a guy who's already destroyed one franchise by his cruel and just plain stupid actions. Then you've got other servicable QBs, like Jeff Garcia, who may be available and have proven to be far more reliable in NFL offenses. You are absolutely correct, not to mention that he was already making hundreds of millions of dollars from the NFL. Where do you think the money to fund all his criminal activities came from...his salary. Lets look at it that way, he is one of the highest paid players in the NFL, so it's understood he didn't need the money...correct, so why take that risk for a few measley thousand dollars.? Why sink so much money , and take so many chances ? ....He knew it was illegal, he knew it could sink his career, and I'm sure he knew if pressed someone would roll over on him, because he was the biggest player in the game. So why ??, he ws just in $hit for trying to sneak a bong onto a plane, why risk all tha stuff to watch dogs rip the $hit out of each other. ....In my experience..because he's either one of those guys who adores the ganster criminal lifstyle, or is just another POS criminal himself...Neither one is better than the other, I wouldn't be suprised if he offended again This isn't a ghetto hard luck story, I 've seen these personally, ...the guy had a way out, money fame, adoring fans...even though he wasn't the best QB...NO excuse. Very often these things are tied into other criminal activities. Like drug rings /prostitution, and though I'm no animal lover (remember steak ..my favorite pet) the means by which they dispacthed these already seriously wounded animals was pretty dispicable. Drowning, electrocution, burining alive, hanging...makes a bullet to the head look pretty nice. I'm not one for "hey he made a mistake, did his time, and has repaid society"...Bull$hit it's funny how many people I see time and time again in front of a judge, especially with criminal enteerprise type crimes. A mistake is losing your temper and punching someone etc... Let me make it clear I don't care if he returns to the NFL.i don't think the league should let him back but I'm not in charge. does he have a right to make a living?..sure why not, but it should be outside the league.
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Feb 19, 2009 5:49:48 GMT -6
My guess is that Michael V isnt finished getting arrested in his life. Just a hunch.
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Feb 19, 2009 8:54:17 GMT -6
Here a question: Will the NFL reinstate him right away? Or will they continue his suspension? If I were the commissioner I would add 1 more year to his suspension, not necessarily to show Mike the error of his ways but, show (send a message) current and future players the error of Mikes ways. A statement of we will not tolerate this any more needs to be made. How many chances did pacman or chris henry have? Too many
Now if Vick wants to play there is Canada (Ricky Williams) for a year, Fine. If after that year and has stayed out of trouble in the real world, not in prison, he comes back to the NFL, fine. He will have showed he still has his talent or does not and a team can take a chance on him.
Say he has not lost any of his athletism... I could see a run heavy team take that chance... I do not think San Fran as a city (PETAs core) would welcome him, but a city like Detriot might(not sure what kind of Offense they will run)
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Feb 19, 2009 10:54:44 GMT -6
Here a question: Will the NFL reinstate him right away? Or will they continue his suspension? If I were the commissioner I would add 1 more year to his suspension, not necessarily to show Mike the error of his ways but, show (send a message) current and future players the error of Mikes ways. A statement of we will not tolerate this any more needs to be made. How many chances did pacman or chris henry have? Too many This I agree with. While I believe the man has a right to work in his profession in this case professional football. I don't think his self inflicted time a way from the game (prison) should count towards any disciplinary action or possible suspensions from the NFL. The NFL is not some sacred institution. Its a business. An entertainment business. So why can't he play for some NFL team? Is it because of the money he will make? If thats the case its a jealousy issue? "How dare that dog murdering felon make more money than I do!" And if you don't want kids to idealize him, its up to you the parent (as it always has been ) to teach your kids why he isn't worthy of such distinction. Personally I don't care what happens! Whether he plays again or not, it won't affect me one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Feb 19, 2009 11:01:11 GMT -6
What will really be nice is if someone would kill this thread. Because this is a never ending argument. We should agree to disagree, respectfully
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 19, 2009 11:04:40 GMT -6
Here a question: Will the NFL reinstate him right away? Or will they continue his suspension? which makes the whole issue of his contract an even more stickier situation. Had he been cut, it'd be one thing, but the fact that the Falcons still have him under contract, and likely have absolutely no use for him (and the baggage his 'cause' has generated) you have the player, the franchise, and the league painted into a corner. I suppose the only other precedent under Lord Goodell is Pac Man Jones, whos contract situation was considerably different than this one.
|
|
|
Post by red2slam on Feb 19, 2009 11:11:18 GMT -6
the feds will be watching him to no end. He paid for his crime. Let him be. Its not like he was a good qb to begin with. Their is a reason few if any teams are knocking down the door to obtain his services. And it has nothing to do with dog fighting. Anybody who thinks the feds wouldnt love to lock him up for good, IMO are crazy.
|
|
|
Post by raiderpirates on Feb 19, 2009 11:33:50 GMT -6
Winning % could place him atop the NFC West right now. Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by knighter on Feb 19, 2009 14:51:00 GMT -6
Don't kid yourself, if Charles Manson could run a 4.3 and hit like Ray Lewis SOMEONE would sign him if he was ever granted parole. An athlete is an athlete, and Mike Vick can play. Love him or hate him someone is going to think he is worth the risk. For me (a dog lover) his crime is horrible, but the man has paid his debt to society, has served his time. Like it or not even I feel the man has a right to do his "job". Just so happens his job is to play football.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2009 19:03:25 GMT -6
What will really be nice is if someone would kill this thread. Because this is a never ending argument. We should agree to disagree, respectfully Ok, Lets cage it and throw it in a pool......=
|
|