Michael Vick?

[Rockmeister]

Goodell suspended him after he plead guilty, which means that he's been suspended now for over a year and a half. If Goodell is going to suspend him even longer after he gets out, that's up to him. I just think any sort of lifetime ban against the guy would be inordinate and unfair.

Why is it unfair? Personally, what Vick did was wrong, wrong, wrong. He deserves what he got and personally, he deserves to be suspended more. What NFL team will want him is beyond me. Vick has not even shown me that he is remorseful.

 

[VF21]

Why is it unfair? Personally, what Vick did was wrong, wrong, wrong. He deserves what he got and personally, he deserves to be suspended more. What NFL team will want him is beyond me. Vick has not even shown me that he is remorseful.

This is one thing we totally agree about. Michael Vick, from everything I've seen, doesn't even think he did anything wrong so any "remorse" he might try to show is for the cameras, the judges and the public in an attempt to rehabilitate his reputation...

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

The Raiders have done a lot of dumb stuff, but they have too much money tied up in JaMarcus Russell to take Vick's contract on. They need a better receiver than one they can create. Al Davis is crazy, but even that would shock me.

Vick will be back in the league, I'd bet money (or reasonable facsimile of same) on it.

 

[Superman]

Why is it unfair? Personally, what Vick did was wrong, wrong, wrong. He deserves what he got and personally, he deserves to be suspended more. What NFL team will want him is beyond me. Vick has not even shown me that he is remorseful.

You have every right to be upset about what Vick did. That's fine. What you don't have the right to do is say that he deserves more than what he's getting. The sentence was handed down, he's serving it, and the NFL will make a decision on whether to reinstate him or not. I'm personally not the type of person who thinks that a person should have to pay for their sins forever. He did his time, and now let's get over it. I really don't care whether he's remorseful or not; I'm fairly certain he won't be involved in that kind of conduct ever again, though.

You don't have to get over it if you don't want to.. You can hate him forever. But if the NFL decides to ban him for life over this, then they need to reconsider their decisions regarding guys like Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, and other people who have committed more serious offenses against other humans, and then make a fair decision about Michael Vick.

And I'm not trying to downplay what he did. I'm not trying to excuse it or rationalize on his behalf. It was dumb, it was wrong, inhumane, and he deserved to be sent to jail for it. I just don't think that he deserves to be blackballed for the rest of his life, and if an NFL team wants to see if he can help them, that should be up that team. But a lifetime ban is inordinate and unfair.

 

[Superman]

This is one thing we totally agree about. Michael Vick, from everything I've seen, doesn't even think he did anything wrong so any "remorse" he might try to show is for the cameras, the judges and the public in an attempt to rehabilitate his reputation...

This is a catch 22 for him. You've already decided that he's not remorseful, so anything he does that expresses remorse, you're going to write it off as being a PR move. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Whether the guy is remorseful or not, he's serving a two year prison sentence. The judge assigned to the case went above and beyond what even the prosecutors recommended. He hasn't been let off easy. He hasn't complained about being treated unfairly. He did the crime, he's doing the time. Why isn't that enough? Even if he had gotten the maximum five year sentence, PETA and lots of other people would have been right there as he was being released, calling for him to be sent back to jail. I just don't get it. What is it exactly that you all think he deserves?

It honestly seems like some people won't be happy until the guy is hanging from a rope.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Ray Lewis and Leonard Little were not punished under Roger Goodell. They certainly deserved more for what they did, but the NFL didn't punish players the same way they do now. Godell (and others) saw that as a major problem with the league and set out to fix it. I have no doubt that if Goodell was comish when Lewis was on trial he would have been suspended for that entire year.

In any event if Goodell reinstates Vick only after time served it would be inconsistent with the way he has punished other players during his two years as commish. Vick needs to serve at least one year after he is released. After that I'd be fine with him being reinstated, I would be disgusted by whichever team actually signs him.

 

[Superman]

Ray Lewis and Leonard Little were not punished under Roger Goodell. They certainly deserved more for what they did, but the NFL didn't punish players the same way they do now. Godell (and others) saw that as a major problem with the league and set out to fix it. I have no doubt that if Goodell was comish when Lewis was on trial he would have been suspended for that entire year.

In any event if Goodell reinstates Vick only after time served it would be inconsistent with the way he has punished other players during his two years as commish. Vick needs to serve at least one year after he is released. After that I'd be fine with him being reinstated, I would be disgusted by whichever team actually signs him.

I get that, but it would be extremely inconsistent and unfair to banish Vick for life for dogfighting, when Lewis and Little were involved with the deaths of other people.

If Goodell gives him another year, on top of everything else, then I can understand that. It would be consistent with the way Goodell has handled legal matters since he took over. But to just say "I hate Michael Vick for what he did, and the NFL should never let him play again" is a stretch.

And if a team decides to see if he can help them, then that's up to them.

 

[uolj]

You have every right to be upset about what Vick did. That's fine. What you don't have the right to do is say that he deserves more than what he's getting.

Maybe you just phrased it wrong, but of course we have the right to say that someone deserves more punishment than they got.

Personally I'm fine with allowing him back in the league, perhaps after a suspension to start the year. That assumes there are teams that want his services, though.

 

[Rockmeister]

You have every right to be upset about what Vick did. That's fine. What you don't have the right to do is say that he deserves more than what he's getting.

Maybe you phrased this incorrectly, however, I do have the right to say he deserves more. Just as you have the right to say he has served his time. I don't feel either one of us is correct or incorrect on this issue, we just have different opinions.

 

[Superman]

I honestly don't think that anyone except the sentencing judge has that right.

Regardless, even if you reserve that right for yourself, when will it be enough? I mean, you can't argue that he got off easy, not by any means. The prosecutors suggested 12-18 months; the judge gave him 23 months. It wasn't a slap on the wrist. He's lost all his money and all his endorsements. And that's what he gets for breaking the law.

No one is arguing for Michael Vick. He's not even arguing for himself. Everyone knows that what he did was despicable. So now, once his prison sentence is over, what do you want to happen? You want him to go back? For how long? You want him to be blacklisted from the NFL? For how long? Forever? What if you walk into the grocery store and he's stocking shelves on the dog food aisle? Will you boycott that grocery store?

At what point does the man get to continue his life?

 

[kings4lyfe32]

Superman, I agree with you 100% on this

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I get that, but it would be extremely inconsistent and unfair to banish Vick for life for dogfighting, when Lewis and Little were involved with the deaths of other people.

I thought you were arguing against any further sanctions. I think another 2 years is appropriate and sets a decent standard - if you get convicted of a crime you will serve a suspension of equal time to your sentence at the end of your sentence.

With this rule in place I think he could also remove any pre-conviction sanctions except in the case of habitual offenders like Pac-Man, but this time could be applied to the suspension above after conviction.

 

[Superman]

I thought you were arguing against any further sanctions. I think another 2 years is appropriate and sets a decent standard - if you get convicted of a crime you will serve a suspension of equal time to your sentence at the end of your sentence.

With this rule in place I think he could also remove any pre-conviction sanctions except in the case of habitual offenders like Pac-Man, but this time could be applied to the suspension above after conviction.

I think even that is too much. What if it were a three year sentence? Throw three more years on to it? The average NFL career doesn't even last three years. Might as well ban him for life. He's not going to resurrect an NFL career after four seasons. It would be hard enough after two.

I think Goodell has been sort of heavy handed in some instances, and right on in others. I like that he seems to go on a case by case basis and doesn't have a blanket rule that he applies for each offense.

I can't argue with Goodell slapping another year on, though. What I expect is for him suspend Vick indefinitely, and agree to revisit the situation after a year, kind of like a parole board. I think that's what he did with Adam Jones.

 

[uolj]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I'd say a suspension of about half of a jail or prison sentence would be appropriate. Or maybe always a year after any felony prison time. Part of it is making sure the person can be a law abiding citizen again before allowing them to be part of the league again.

 

[Superman]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I'd say a suspension of about half of a jail or prison sentence would be appropriate. Or maybe always a year after any felony prison time. Part of it is making sure the person can be a law abiding citizen again before allowing them to be part of the league again.

And that's fine. You get convicted of or plead guilty to a felony, or you do jail time, mandatory one year suspension. That's fine, and it's probably needed, considering all the trouble NFL players have been getting into the past two years.

 

[kingsnation]

Mike Singletary did nothing to take the 49ers off that list. Someone asked him about Vick, and he didn't give a quick and unequivocal "no."
"I'm not going to say I'm open or closed," Singletary said of the possibility of the 49ers acquiring Vick. "I'd say it has to be something Scot (McCloughan) and I talk about and feel good about one way or the other. But we have not talked about it at this point in great detail. We're trying to focus on what we have.
"I think right now we really need to look at the two guys we have," Singletary added. "If everything works out with Alex and he's back, we need to look at that and go as far as we can go with that. The whole Michael Vick thing, we have to sit down and talk about that. But for right now, we have enough on our plates."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/sh...o-employ-Michael-Vick-and-it-m?urn=nfl,141978

 

[kingsnation]

ESPN: 49ers, Vikings interested in Vick?

INDIANAPOLIS -- Two teams with unsettled quarterback situations -- the San Francisco 49ers and the Minnesota Vikings -- might be interested in acquiring suspended Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick.

Rest here..

Just seems like a bunch of pointless media hype to me..