Glazer: Bengals offered Vick contract

[Chris Raiden]

Twitter / Jay Glazer: 1st team to jump into the ... (http://twitter.com/Jay_Glazer/status/3307378636)

From the more things change file...the Bengals reportedly offered Michael Vick a two year contract.

[Sascha]

Not surprising he didn't go to Bengals, who reportedly offered more money. They really didn't fit the guidelines that Dungy and co. were looking for.

[Wolverine]

Is anyone surprised by this at all?

[william00777]

is there a worse situation for him to go to than cincy? not to knock the team but we all know the history. Lewis may not be on the hotseat for the owner but I know fans that aren't happy with his performance. I just don't think that would have worked out as well the only good thing is they have a strong leader at Qb IMO.

[Chris Raiden]

Yep, this would have been a horrible move for Vick. The headlines would have written themselves, and the team's image would have taken yet another hit.

[Who Dey]

If they would have signed him, I'd be looking for a new team. Nothing Mike Brown does surprises me anymore.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Situations like this are part of the reason why Vick has a guy like Tony Dungy helping advise him. I think its clear at this point that Vick has never had the best guidance around him during his life and all of the things that Vick said recently about why he chose Philly are words that sound like they came directly out of Dungy's mouth.

[Badeye]

You can't rehabilitate a sociopath. Doesn't matter if he has Dungy as a mentor/advisor or not. Any human that does what Vick did to animals has a serious mental disorder that affects how they view the 'world' around them...living creatures are seen as 'objects'.

You can't 'rehabilitate' that, folks. And if I hear this punk say one more time "I made a mistake" I'll scream. No, punk, you commited multiple FELONIES.

Vick got off very light - he could have easily been prosecuted and convicted under the prevailing RICO statutes, and gone away for 30 or more years for running a multi state criminal enterprise.

btw, the Bengals did NOT offer Vick 'more money'. The Eagles final year option was for over 5 million, if they choose to exercise it. Bascially, Mike Brown reinforced the two most worst aspects of his personality, stupidity when it comes to judging humans, and his well known penchant for being cheap.

[Texecutioner]

Situations like this are part of the reason why Vick has a guy like Tony Dungy helping advise him. I think its clear at this point that Vick has never had the best guidance around him during his life and all of the things that Vick said recently about why he chose Philly are words that sound like they came directly out of Dungy's mouth.

A wuu wuu wha what????

But I thought Vick was being discriminated against by the NFL owners? Certainly it couldn't have been teams out there trying to sign the guy. So much for that little theory of yours about him being discriminated against. :lol2:

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

A wuu wuu wha what????

But I thought Vick was being discriminated against by the NFL owners? Certainly it couldn't have been teams out there trying to sign the guy. So much for that little theory of yours about him being discriminated against. :lol2:

I never said Vick was being discriminated against. I said that if every team in the league continued to ignore the guy without as much as talking to him to see where he was at, that it would THEN be discrimination. And by all reports at the time, thats exactly what most teams were doing. Many of those reports turned out to be false and we found out recently that quite a few teams who were reportedly not interested at all were infact talking to Vick and considering signing him.

BTW, so much for your little theory that I looking dumber and dumber standing up for Vicks talent level since no team had signed him.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

You can't rehabilitate a sociopath. Doesn't matter if he has Dungy as a mentor/advisor or not. Any human that does what Vick did to animals has a serious mental disorder that affects how they view the 'world' around them...living creatures are seen as 'objects'.


Sorry but this is some liberal BS if i've ever heard it.

First of all your use of the word sociopath is out of place. Look up the definition please. Unless you're a liscensed psychiatrist who has evaluated Vick first hand you cannot possibly come to the conclusion that Vick doesn't posess a conscience. Just because the guy killed dogs doesn't make him completely void of moral responsibility. That is the very definition of a sociopath. If Vick is a sociopath then so is every single hunter in this country who kills animals for fun and personal enjoyment rather than for necessity.

Secondly our entire society as a whole devalues the life of animals. What you're arguing is that Vick devalues that life more than you feel is acceptable by your own moral compass. People are a product of the way they are raised and at some point when those people grow up they're expected to correct the poor decisions in their lives. Vick never did that. If he's guilty of anything its of ignorance and stupidity for not seeing the truth sooner.

Thirdly, a man doesn't have to posess the best moral compass in the world to be a healthy and contributing member to society. All he has to have is the sense to know right from wrong and the respect to live up to it. Spending 2 years in prison and losing $50+ million can go a long way to instilling respect and humility into a man. I don't do things the right way in my life because im the most moral of men, I do them because I fear what'll happen if I don't.

[Texecutioner]

I never said Vick was being discriminated against. I said that if every team in the league continued to ignore the guy without as much as talking to him to see where he was at, that it would THEN be discrimination.


Really?? You didn't ha?

Phil wrote


"This is about the majority of football teams in the NFL comitting the exact same BS discrimination against felons that companies all over this country have been doing for decades."


"When teams who could use him started announcing publicly that they would not even consider him without even as much as talking to the guy, that stunk of discrimination."


"The guy hasn't been given a chance by a single team in the league and 75% of the league publicly stated they wouldn't even consider him without even talking to him."



"He is being locked out of playing. No matter how you look at it thats whats happening."



"All of these teams who flat out refused to even talk to Vick are going to create a sh*tstorm of controversy for discriminating against a felon."



"Vick is being discriminated against in a similar way its just for different reasons."

"

"Instead of discriminating against him for being black they're discriminating against him for being a felon."


"Vick is undoubtedly more talented than more than half of the backup QB's in the league and he can't even get a tryout with a team and you don't think thats discrimination? You're either from Mars or you're sick of me proving you wrong."

http://www.pigskinheaven.com/forums/general-nfl/84168-vick-not-signed-collusion-3.html


Boy, Phil you certainly aren't good at covering your tracks. But don't worry, I'll wait for the classic "Eagle Phil response," where you say that I'm just changing your words and giving them new meanings. :lol2:

But sorry Phil. Those are your words and no matter how hard you try and spin what you meant before, you can't change your words no matter how hard you try. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about and you still don't, and if you'd just admit it at some point, I "might" let you off the hook.




And by all reports at the time, thats exactly what most teams were doing. Many of those reports turned out to be false and we found out recently that quite a few teams who were reportedly not interested at all were infact talking to Vick and considering signing him.

There were plenty of reports about teams talking to Vick at that specific time. They just weren't saying which ones exactly. But there were several reports about the Packers at that exact time and it was even mentioned in that thread. You panicked because you knew that you had been beefing with everyone to anyone on this site that even remotely said either anything negative about Vick or didn't believe in what he could do in the future, so you reverted to using a "Jesse Jackson" argument at that point. That's exactly what happened and everyone knows it.


BTW, so much for your little theory that I looking dumber and dumber standing up for Vicks talent level since no team had signed him.

Uuum, yeah you were. By the fact that there wasn't tons and tons of interest all over the league proves that theory and point. Not one team was highly interested in him coming in to compete for a starting job at QB. And you reverted to a discrimination argument to try and save face and not only did you do it, but you argued that as being the case for over 10 pages and also said that hunters which includes anyone that fishes from time to time to have the same mentality of a guy who drowns and electricutes dogs for fun.


I just think it's really really funny how not only were you wrong for so many pages in that thread, but now that it's been proven and it was really obvious that teams were going to talk to Vick and someone was going to sign him. But go one and continue tap dancing Phil. Cheap entertainment is never that bad I guess.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Really?? You didn't ha?



WOW, you're dense dude, seriously.

Yes I said all of those things, and all of them were written UNDER THE PREMISE that the vast majority of the teams in the league were reportedly ignoring the guy. That very premise turned out to be almost entirely false as almost every team that was negotiating and talking with Vick behind the scenes appeared on the list of teams who had publicly stated that they weren't interested. That includes the team that ended up signing him.

I said all along that it would be disciminatory to straight up ignore Vick based on the fact that he was a felon. Since many teams were obviously lying about their interest in Vick it renders that point obsolete.

Like I said before, don't continue to talk to me if you can't follow simple lines of logic and if you're just here to wave your own flag.

[Texecutioner]

WOW, you're dense dude, seriously.

Yes I said all of those things, and all of them were written UNDER THE PREMISE that the vast majority of the teams in the league were reportedly ignoring the guy. That very premise turned out to be almost entirely false as almost every team that was negotiating and talking with Vick behind the scenes appeared on the list of teams who had publicly stated that they weren't interested. That includes the team that ended up signing him.

So now you're saying that you "assumed" that no one was talking to Vick and that they were all ignoring the guy and so that's why you said all of that? It was clear at the time that a few teams were talking to Vick. That was known at the time, so that assumption doesn't exactly wash when you've been following the guy's every movement for weeks.

So are you now willing to admit then, that there was no discrimination on the part of the NFL owners? Are you now willing to admit that Jackson didn't have a clue what he was talking about, or are you going to keep posturing?


I said all along that it would be disciminatory to straight up ignore Vick based on the fact that he was a felon. Since many teams were obviously lying about their interest in Vick it renders that point obsolete.

Any team and any business can do that if they don't want to take on people who are felons. That's not exactly discriminating. That's saying hey, if you committ a crime that's a felony and are convicted we don't want you around. And I don't think a ton of teams were running around lying about their interest in Vick either. It just wasn't a ton of teams interested. There were a few though, and that was no surprise. It's also no surprise that any team in the league wouldn't want to bring him in either after seeing what they saw in his last two seasons at QB, and knowing he hadn't played in two seasons, and knowing what kind of reputation he had because of how he tortured many dogs.


Like I said before, don't continue to talk to me if you can't follow simple lines of logic and if you're just here to wave your own flag.

You wanted to throw out a ton of accusations and stuff at myself, Tron, and quite a few others, oh and also the NFL owners, so now you're getting your words and ideas thrown back into the fray since they were incorrect Phil and you wanted to act all obnoxious about it at the time. Next time don't jump to so many conclusions and act like you're the high and mighty know it all on everything, especially on subjects that you have no experience in.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

So now you're saying that you "assumed" that no one was talking to Vick and that they were all ignoring the guy and so that's why you said all of that? It was clear at the time that a few teams were talking to Vick. That was known at the time, so that assumption doesn't exactly wash when you've been following the guy's every movement for weeks.


No i'm saying that I and many others were misled by people like YOU who were posting "do not want Vick" lists and keeping track of teams in the league who publicly stated they didn't want Vick. My comments were all made as a reaction to multiple reports all over the place that over 75% of the league had completely ruled Vick out of the question without even talking to him. Those lists all turned out to be inaccurate, so how can you blame somebody for the way they reacted to an inaccurate list?

Since that whole thing turned out to be bogus, any response I made to the false reports is obviously obsolete. Thats like saying "I think Joe is a jerk because he punched Sarah in the face." If Joe never punched Sarah in the face then my comments about him being a jerk cannot be held against me.




So are you now willing to admit then, that there was no discrimination on the part of the NFL owners? Are you now willing to admit that Jackson didn't have a clue what he was talking about, or are you going to keep posturing?


I wouldn't have stated that there was discrimination involved in the first place if people weren't reporting that teams were ignoring the guy.



Any team and any business can do that if they don't want to take on people who are felons. That's not exactly discriminating. That's saying hey, if you committ a crime that's a felony and are convicted we don't want you around.


Tex, there are laws that cover this and clearly you don't know them or you aren't considering them. No company can flat out tell a guy to shove off based on the fact that he is a felon, its against the law. They still have to allow him to apply for a job and give him the same opportunity for employment that they would any other normal citizen. In the end they can choose not to hire that person based on the felony if infact the crime comitted creates an issue in the day to day operation of the job itself but they cannot under any circumstances outright ban a guy from consideration just because he's a felon. You really should know this and I can't believe you truely would argue otherwise.

[Tronix]

No i'm saying that I and many others were misled by people like YOU who were posting "do not want Vick" lists and keeping track of teams in the league who publicly stated they didn't want Vick. My comments were all made as a reaction to multiple reports all over the place that over 75% of the league had completely ruled Vick out of the question without even talking to him. Those lists all turned out to be inaccurate, so how can you blame somebody for the way they reacted to an inaccurate list?

Since that whole thing turned out to be bogus, any response I made to the false reports is obviously obsolete. Thats like saying "I think Joe is a jerk because he punched Sarah in the face." If Joe never punched Sarah in the face then my comments about him being a jerk cannot be held against me.

B.S. sir, you are liable for what comes out of your mouth, if your sources were incorrect, and you spewed libelous garbage as a result, you are still held responsible, which is why there are standards with reputable media sources, not to report anything that isn't verified, you have taken me to task too many times for commenting on unverified stories, don't think you are getting off, with committing the same thing, without me, shoving that one down your throat, Phil you are human after all. And your source for believing what the league is doing with Vick, is a list posted, and written by Tex? :rofl: you're too much Phil.




I wouldn't have stated that there was discrimination involved in the first place if people weren't reporting that teams were ignoring the guy.

and by people you mean, us, and other bloggers. lol




Tex, there are laws that cover this and clearly you don't know them or you aren't considering them. No company can flat out tell a guy to shove off based on the fact that he is a felon, its against the law. They still have to allow him to apply for a job and give him the same opportunity for employment that they would any other normal citizen. In the end they can choose not to hire that person based on the felony if in fact the crime committed creates an issue in the day to day operation of the job itself but they cannot under any circumstances outright ban a guy from consideration just because he's a felon. You really should know this and I can't believe you truly would argue otherwise.

You're right, Phil, there are laws, none of them are, that they have to offer employment to a felon. Do they have the right to apply? Sure. Does the company have to review the application/resume? absolutely. It is also 100% in their discretion to immediately reject the applicant if there is anything on their they disapprove of, that doesn't involve Race,sex,sexual orientation, or nationality. Nowhere listed in there is criminal record. Go ahead, and find that one for me Phil. Companies have the right, to establish their own hiring practices, so long as it doesn't violate EEOP laws.

Edit*..I just went to the naitonal EEOP website, here is issues that fall under their jurisdiction.

* Age
* Disability
* Equal Compensation
* National Origin
* Pregnancy
* Race/Color
* Religion
* Retaliation
* Sex
* Sexual Harassment

I'm sorry Phil, where is criminal history in this?

:rofl:

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Edit*..I just went to the naitonal EEOP website, here is issues that fall under their jurisdiction.

* Age
* Disability
* Equal Compensation
* National Origin
* Pregnancy
* Race/Color
* Religion
* Retaliation
* Sex
* Sexual Harassment

I'm sorry Phil, where is criminal history in this?

:rofl:

Those are the criteria under which it is outright illegal to turn a person down for a job under. You can NEVER EVER EVER under any circumstances refuse to hire somebody based on any of those criteria.

When it comes to felony convictions you can refuse to hire somebody based on a felony, but you cannot deny them the opportunity to apply for employment nor can you deny them the standard consideration process given to any other everyday citizen. I never argued that teams should have fell over offering the guy a job, just that it was wrong to write him off completely without ever even talking to the guy.

Edit: Here ya go, from your buddies at the EEOC...


FEDERAL LAW LIMITING EMPLOYER USE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION INFORMATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts the state's ability to use criminal convictions in employment decisions (42 USC §2000e-5, et seq.). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has ruled that automatically disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (These two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)
The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from jobs, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by "business necessity." The legal test requires employers to examine (1) the job-relatedness of each conviction, (2) the nature of the crime committed, (3) the number of convictions, (4) the facts surrounding each offense, (5) the length of time between the conviction and the employment decision, (6) the person's employment history before and after the conviction, and (7) the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation. According to the EEOC, the job-relatedness inquiry is the most important, and focuses on whether the job position applied for presents an opportunity for the applicant to engage in the same type of misconduct which resulted in the conviction (Bednar, "Employment Law Dilemmas," 11 Utah Bar J. 15 (Dec. 1998)).

[Tronix]

nor did they. Just like I said last week, NO ONE VIOLATED VICK'S RIGHTS. And his hiring proves it.

Point is, do you even fathom how many times, you and I have been back and forth over similar situations? And you never fail to rip me for quoting things that I can't provide a link for, and you did the same thing, and here you are desperately trying to ignore that we are calling you on it.
Don't ever, talk about my posts, when I am discussing the "word of the day"..they have far more basis than your Vick argument did.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

nor did they. Just like I said last week, NO ONE VIOLATED VICK'S RIGHTS. And his hiring proves it.

Point is, do you even fathom how many times, you and I have been back and forth over similar situations? And you never fail to rip me for quoting things that I can't provide a link for, and you did the same thing, and here you are desperately trying to ignore that we are calling you on it.
Don't ever, talk about my posts, when I am discussing the "word of the day"..they have far more basis than your Vick argument did.

But wait, didn't your poor researching habits just prove exactly my point about most of your "word of the day" reporting? And thats that you sir are as unreliable as Tex's "list" is? You just went out to the net to prove me wrong and it took me about 2 seconds to show you your error.

Yes I made a mistake relying on Tex to provide accurate information as well as many of the other reports I heard from more reliable news sources that reported the same exact thing. Thats not Tex's fault though, he reported what he heard in an attempt to create some discussion, thats a good thing. But don't sit there like a jackass after the fact and try to scream about injustices at somebody who was simply doing exactly what the point of the thread was in the first place, which was to react to the information given. I reacted to the information given, if it ended up being incorrect information thats not my fault.

[Tronix]

FEDERAL LAW LIMITING EMPLOYER USE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION INFORMATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts the state's ability to use criminal convictions in employment decisions (42 USC §2000e-5, et seq.). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has ruled that automatically disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (These two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)

NO ONE AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED HIM, IN FACT EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE REVIEWED THEIR ROSTER AND CONSULTED MANAGEMENT TO DETERMINE IF THEY COULD USE HIM. (This is that white elephant, I mention all the time.)


The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from jobs, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by "business necessity." The legal test requires employers to examine (1) the job-relatedness of each conviction,

(2) the nature of the crime committed,
There is no question to the brutality of the crimes themselves. The PR hit a team takes for signing him alone, qualifies for exemption under this law.

(3) the number of convictions,
2 arrests
1 STD
1 failed drug test
shall I go on?

(4) the facts surrounding each offense,
Vick committed a crime, and lied to the commissioner to get out of it, he showed almost no remorse until he got to jail, which is typical felon behavior.

(5) the length of time between the conviction and the employment decision,
he was just released, there has been no time for a track record to be shown, because no time elapsed, before he was cleared to join a team

(6) the person's employment history before and after the conviction, and He's only had one job, so this point is moot.

(7) the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation. According to the EEOC, the job-relatedness inquiry is the most important, and focuses on whether the job position applied for presents an opportunity for the applicant to engage in the same type of misconduct which resulted in the conviction (Bednar, "Employment Law Dilemmas," 11 Utah Bar J. 15 (Dec. 1998)).
This career allows him the opportunity to commit anything, because of the high salary, he can buy an entire, dog fighting set up inside of one month.
Now, I'm not saying he will, or that he shouldn't have a job, but don't go spouting his EOE rights, when he violates no less than 4 of their standards, with his own actions.

[Tronix]

But wait, didn't your poor researching habits just prove exactly my point about most of your "word of the day" reporting? And thats that you sir are as unreliable as Tex's "list" is? You just went out to the net to prove me wrong and it took me about 2 seconds to show you your error.

Yes I made a mistake relying on Tex to provide accurate information as well as many of the other reports I heard from more reliable news sources that reported the same exact thing. Thats not Tex's fault though, he reported what he heard in an attempt to create some discussion, thats a good thing. But don't sit there like a jackass after the fact and try to scream about injustices at somebody who was simply doing exactly what the point of the thread was in the first place, which was to react to the information given. I reacted to the information given, if it ended up being incorrect information thats not my fault.

read again, impetuous one. :rolleyes:

[Tronix]

But wait, didn't your poor researching habits just prove exactly my point about most of your "word of the day" reporting? And thats that you sir are as unreliable as Tex's "list" is? You just went out to the net to prove me wrong and it took me about 2 seconds to show you your error.

no it took me two seconds to find a narrow outline of their standards.

you can dig deep into sub categories and find something that can be twisted, but the laws you posted clearly state what they protect against, and in that regard, the owners were 100% in their rights to arbitrarily decide, they had no desire for, Vick's services.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

NO ONE AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED HIM, IN FACT EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE REVIEWED THEIR ROSTER AND CONSULTED MANAGEMENT TO DETERMINE IF THEY COULD USE HIM. (This is that white elephant, I mention all the time.)


Plenty of teams automatically disqualified him. Just because they 'may' have discussed him in private doesn't mean he was given the full opportunity to apply for a job. As per the reports, most teams disqualified him without even talking to him.



There is no question to the brutality of the crimes themselves. The PR hit a team takes for signing him alone, qualifies for exemption under this law.


I don't think a PR hit qualifies as "the job related-ness of the conviction." Especially in a league where convicted felons are making a living all over the place.

Job relatedness is much more specific than some imaginary PR hit. Its understandable not to hire a thief to work a cash register or a child molestor to work a daycare. Killing dogs has nothing to do with the job related-ness of playing football.



2 arrests
1 STD
1 failed drug test
shall I go on?


I forget are we talking about felony convictions here or are you just whining about a bunch of indescretions in Vicks past? Last I checked he wasn't convicted of felonies in anything that doesn't pertain to dogfighting.



This career allows him the opportunity to commit anything, because of the high salary, he can buy an entire, dog fighting set up inside of one month.
Now, I'm not saying he will, or that he shouldn't have a job, but don't go spouting his EOE rights, when he violates no less than 4 of their standards, with his own actions.


This doesn't mean that he isn't making efforts to show rehabilitation. He's saying and doing the right things, he's got a well respected mentor helping guide him in the right direction which is the equivalent to getting self-help, he's working deals with the humane society in an attempt to give back to the community. Vick by all accounts is doing plenty to show some rehabilitation, if he weren't the comissioner who everybody here seems to respect so much wouldn't have reinstated him.

[Tronix]

Plenty of teams automatically disqualified him. Just because they 'may' have discussed him in private doesn't mean he was given the full opportunity to apply for a job. As per the reports, most teams disqualified him without even talking to him.

well part of it, is 2/3rd of the teams didn't need him. The rest discussed it. You mention he is better than most back ups and you may well be right. All the more reason not to have him as a back up, knowing once or rather if he gets back to speed, it may create a QB controversy.



I don't think a PR hit qualifies as "the job related-ness of the conviction." Especially in a league where convicted felons are making a living all over the place.
It is, when Goddell is supposedly trying to "clean the league up" his words not mine.


Job relatedness is much more specific than some imaginary PR hit. Its understandable not to hire a thief to work a cash register or a child molestor to work a daycare. Killing dogs has nothing to do with the job related-ness of playing football.
except that with this job and Vicks position in particular, there is a certain amount of media exposure, and sponsors to consider, and the Eagles, had sponsors calling the Eagles, to find out what they were thinking..it was tense on day of. I heard that on the big 4 last night. That is something, every team had to factor in, thats how it relates to Dog fighting and playing football.




I forget are we talking about felony convictions here or are you just whining about a bunch of indescretions in Vicks past? Last I checked he wasn't convicted of felonies in anything that doesn't pertain to dogfighting.

maybe not, but if you we're considering hiring him, and those transgressions came up, wouldn't you think twice about hiring him? Maybe they don't relate but they do show a willingness to succumb to temptation and illegal activities, with no regard to the law. Thats usually enough to keep you from getting most 7 figure jobs.




This doesn't mean that he isn't making efforts to show rehabilitation. He's saying and doing the right things, he's got a well respected mentor helping guide him in the right direction which is the equivalent to getting self-help, he's working deals with the humane society in an attempt to give back to the community. Vick by all accounts is doing plenty to show some rehabilitation, if he weren't the comissioner who everybody here seems to respect so much wouldn't have reinstated him.

now, this, I agree with 100%. :cool:

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

well part of it, is 2/3rd of the teams didn't need him. The rest discussed it. You mention he is better than most back ups and you may well be right. All the more reason not to have him as a back up, knowing once or rather if he gets back to speed, it may create a QB controversy.


Few of these teams out there who have questionable starters would complain about being forced into a QB controversy when their backup proves to be better than their starter. Coaches claim to hate QB controversies because they'd rather know who their QB is going forward, but once presented with one few coaches ever steer their teams away from it because they recognize that having a QB controversy likely means that your starter wasn't good enough to begin with.



It is, when Goddell is supposedly trying to "clean the league up" his words not mine.


Goodell is the same guy who went to Tony Dungy and proposed that Dungy mentor Vick. Goodell has as much invested in the Vick rehabilitation act as anybody else does.



except that with this job and Vicks position in particular, there is a certain amount of media exposure, and sponsors to consider, and the Eagles, had sponsors calling the Eagles, to find out what they were thinking..it was tense on day of. I heard that on the big 4 last night. That is something, every team had to factor in, thats how it relates to Dog fighting and playing football.


I would agree on the media exposure point if we were talking about a starting QB. A backup QB has no more media exposure than anybody else on the football team does.



maybe not, but if you we're considering hiring him, and those transgressions came up, wouldn't you think twice about hiring him? Maybe they don't relate but they do show a willingness to succumb to temptation and illegal activities, with no regard to the law. Thats usually enough to keep you from getting most 7 figure jobs.


That depends. Do I as a business owner know about the personal lives of my other employees and their past transgressions? Do I know that the guy who is answering phones for me gave an STD to a woman? Do I know that the guy who cleans my office at night has been busted for smoking weed? Thats the problem with the NFL and the high horse mentality, Vicks past indescrepancies certainly aren't out of place in the NFL. How many potheads are on each team? How many of these rich young men run around fornicating with anonymous women? The league and the teams know about all of this stuff and they turn their heads regularly. Even in the age of Goodells high standards how many guys got busted with pot the past couple of seasons and saw no punishment?

[Tronix]

Goodell is the same guy who went to Tony Dungy and proposed that Dungy mentor Vick. Goodell has as much invested in the Vick rehabilitation act as anybody else does.
I agree with this too, and think Goodells faith in Dungy's judgement is why Vick is getting a chance. Like I've said before, I agree with you that he deserves this chance, I've even spoke up and gave the Eagles props for making the move. But if they didn't, they would have been fully within their rights to deny him employment based on his past.




I would agree on the media exposure point if we were talking about a starting QB. A backup QB has no more media exposure than anybody else on the football team does.

But we aren't talking about no normal run of the mill back up QB. This was the guy who went to jail for dog fighting. He'll have the media's full attention for atleast the rest of this season.




That depends. Do I as a business owner know about the personal lives of my other employees and their past transgressions? Do I know that the guy who is answering phones for me gave an STD to a woman? Do I know that the guy who cleans my office at night has been busted for smoking weed? Thats the problem with the NFL and the high horse mentality, Vicks past indescrepancies certainly aren't out of place in the NFL. How many potheads are on each team? How many of these rich young men run around fornicating with anonymous women? The league and the teams know about all of this stuff and they turn their heads regularly. Even in the age of Goodells high standards how many guys got busted with pot the past couple of seasons and saw no punishment?

My best friend was busted with pot, he works for UPS. he was required to report it, and had he been found guilty, they cold have fired him. Maybe your buisness is lax, and that'd be your right, but on the flip side, it's equally right to have higher standards, and they have as much right to demand background checks, and perfection in that regard, just like Ivy league schools do, just like certain, housing developments and other "buisness'" to argue, that the NFL must accept anyone irregards to his back ground based on their "right" to have an equal chance. They have a equal right to apply, no one is saying they don't. The NFL and the teams has the right to say "no thanks".

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

But we aren't talking about no normal run of the mill back up QB. This was the guy who went to jail for dog fighting. He'll have the media's full attention for atleast the rest of this season.


Thats probably true, but the media exposure is already starting to die down alot and I think that trend will continue as long as Vick continues to do the right things. Is PETA gonna be there to cause trouble? Probably, although they'll likely have to be on their best behavior so that Philly fan doesn't put their faces in the dirt. LOL.

PETA vs Philly Fan battle royale!

I'll take Philly fan!

To this I agree with what somebody else said a few pages ago, I think the media is trying hard to make this a bigger story than it is. Its a big story no doubt but its not as big as they want to make it and likely will continue to try to make it. As for the franchise though, there are risks, albeit small ones. The guy is on a 1 year deal for mediocre backup QB money and you didn't have to give up anything to get him, no draft picks, no players. If it doesn't work you cut him and its business as usual, no harm no foul. If it works out though, if Vick turns his life around and becomes a good player again the benefits can far outweigh any risks you took. Thats the part I didn't get the whole time when teams were running from Vick, there is virtually no measureable risk.



My best friend was busted with pot, he works for UPS. he was required to report it, and had he been found guilty, they cold have fired him. Maybe your buisness is lax, and that'd be your right, but on the flip side, it's equally right to have higher standards, and they have as much right to demand background checks, and perfection in that regard, just like Ivy league schools do, just like certain, housing developments and other "buisness'" to argue, that the NFL must accept anyone irregards to his back ground based on their "right" to have an equal chance. They have a equal right to apply, no one is saying they don't. The NFL and the teams has the right to say "no thanks".


I don't know about your friends situation so I'll stay out of that but I do know from my own work and business experience that few jobs care about things like this unless there is a clear and present safety or liability issue on hand. Its not hard to imagine that UPS might be uptight about drug use when the vast majority of their workers work in an environment where they are either running heavy equipment or working alongside it. Delivery trucks, forklifts, etc. Even a guy who just sorts packages is dealing with insured valuables.

Obviously even a lax company isn't going to want you showing up to work totally spun nor will it tolerate you shooting up in the bathroom but when it comes to peoples personal lives a don't ask don't tell mentality certainly prevails in most work environments.

[Sascha]

No company can flat out tell a guy to shove off based on the fact that he is a felon, its against the law. They still have to allow him to apply for a job and give him the same opportunity for employment that they would any other normal citizen. In the end they can choose not to hire that person based on the felony if infact the crime comitted creates an issue in the day to day operation of the job itself but they cannot under any circumstances outright ban a guy from consideration just because he's a felon. You really should know this and I can't believe you truely would argue otherwise.

Glad he's in the NFL and not still in college then, what with all the Bulldogs and Huskies he'd be facing.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

Glad he's in the NFL and not still in college then, what with all the Bulldogs and Huskies he'd be facing.

:soelman:

That was good.

[OSU8085]

I think there is a reason the browns didn't take a look at him with the dog pound that would have been a mess.

[Badeye]

Sorry but this is some liberal BS if i've ever heard it.

First of all your use of the word sociopath is out of place. Look up the definition please. Unless you're a liscensed psychiatrist who has evaluated Vick first hand you cannot possibly come to the conclusion that Vick doesn't posess a conscience. Just because the guy killed dogs doesn't make him completely void of moral responsibility. That is the very definition of a sociopath. If Vick is a sociopath then so is every single hunter in this country who kills animals for fun and personal enjoyment rather than for necessity.

Secondly our entire society as a whole devalues the life of animals. What you're arguing is that Vick devalues that life more than you feel is acceptable by your own moral compass. People are a product of the way they are raised and at some point when those people grow up they're expected to correct the poor decisions in their lives. Vick never did that. If he's guilty of anything its of ignorance and stupidity for not seeing the truth sooner.

Thirdly, a man doesn't have to posess the best moral compass in the world to be a healthy and contributing member to society. All he has to have is the sense to know right from wrong and the respect to live up to it. Spending 2 years in prison and losing $50+ million can go a long way to instilling respect and humility into a man. I don't do things the right way in my life because im the most moral of men, I do them because I fear what'll happen if I don't.

You screwed up by suggesting I'm a liberal...so I won't bother addressing the rest of your rationalizing.
Have a nice day.

[|(evin|(olb|(ritik]

You screwed up by suggesting I'm a liberal...so I won't bother addressing the rest of your rationalizing.
Have a nice day.

aww schucks, I guess I just missed out then didn't I?

[Badeye]

Yes, you did. No big deal to me.