From somebody that doesn't know ANYTHING about football:

He did his prison time, right? The punishment was meted out by a proper court of law, right? Officially he owes "we the people" nothing, right? So, why the fuss about whether or not he plays football in the NFL again? Doesn't he have the right to earn a living doing what he knows how to do, which is play football?

I'm afraid that our country is getting to the point that nobody can start over. It's like "Survivor" or "American Idol" once a person makes a mistake - I don't want to debate the crime itself here - and punishment is served, that the American people want to keep punishing offenders. What happened to our country? It hasn't always been that way, has it?

Maybe pacman357 and rfenst can weigh in.

Thanks in advance for not turning a legitimate question into a flame festival.

Many employers do not like to hire convicted felons.

He paid his debt to society. He is a free man once again. He has the right to pursue any avenue of employment available to him. Whether it is as a garbage collector, car salesman, or NFL quarterback. Can't keep a man from making a living.

Personally, I don't see what Vic did as being too much worse than what Tatum did to a fellow human being. And even if it is worse, he actually did his time and should be allowed back. If the guys who beat their wives can still play then the guys who beat dogs should be allowed to play too.

Playing in the NFL is not a right it is a priveledge. If the NFL decides that Vick is not the type of person they want reperesenting their product then they have the right to not hire him.

In effect each player is an ambassador or sales rep for the product which is the league. The owner of the product be it the team or the league has the right to decide who they want representing thier brand.

00camper............why do you hate American dogs?

The Commissioner is trying to get rid of the outlaw and criminal element that has flourished in the NFL over the last 15 years and he will clean up their acts one way or the other/

It is a not a right to play in the NFL......the ones who play should honor the game and the fans.

Charlie

It's all about the money.

If some owner out there figures that they can withstand the initial backlash and turn Vick into a moneymaker, you can bet he'll play again.

If nobody makes a move for him, the league will bar him for show.

It's all about the money. The NFL is about very little else.

Vick was also not a very good player. He is a phenomenal athlete but football is a team sport. Atlanta is better team without him.

He can't work in a system unless he is the star. Pair him with an elite reciever and the receiver will be pissed off because Vick looks to run before he looks to throw. Pair him with an elite running back and the running back will be pissed because he will have to split his carries and yards with the QB.

Vick was a novelty. With the advent of the wildcat offense defensive coordinators have spent a lot of time in the off season trying to figure out schemes to stop it. The defenses he would face today will be a lot more prepared for him them they were a few years ago.

Take a fast athletic safety and line him up in a middle linebacker spot and have him shadow the wildcat back is the way some teams hope to counter it.

He did not pay his debt to GOD.

Keep your God outta my football!!!

#10 How do you know?

MikeyRavioli,

Thanks, I think. I have no idea what you're talking about specifically, but if I understand the gist, you're telling me that nobody will hire Vick because his competitive advantage has been erased by other teams working to defeat something special that Vick did before he went to jail. Am I right? Gee, I hope so.

As far as the right vs privilege to play, being an ambassador, etc. I agree. Maybe it's the media hand-wringing I don't understand.

Keep 'em coming!

Oh yeah. Andy, I hate American dogs because they don't taste like chicken. 🙂

^ #13

I think Mikey's main point is that Vick is not a team player.

Well, the commissioner (who I seem to recall is a lawyer) is trying to clean up the league's image. He's suspended players for DUI, drug offenses, domestic violence, etc. He's hammering on the point that playing in the league is a privilege, not a right. If he were wrong about that, I suspect we'd see lawsuits left and right by now.

What Vick did was despicable. Is it fair to suspend him 4 more games? I don't think so. I do think the conditional admittance is fine...keep him on a short leash (pun intended). But, if it wasn't legal, the practice would have been challenged long ago.

The tragedy is that Vick harmed or caused to be harmed a lot of innocent animals. He also pissed away a fortune, his reputation, etc. Whatever else happens, I have no sympathy for him. He's a thug, and he did this all for sport. What an idiot.

^7

Seriously? If professional sports ever remove the criminal element they'll be a shadow of what they are today. I tend to doubt that will ever happen, given how much $ is invested in making sure sports keep bringing in fans.

And fans love this crap. The badboy types have huge fan bases, even the more notorious ones. The NFL might claim to be looking to clean up the game, but they're really looking to clean up on merchandising and advertising.

My main point ultimately is that hiring him is a risk / reward situation. While he has the right to earn a living he does not have the right to play in the NFL.You are taking a huge risk that he is not going to fall into a behavior that will get him jailed or banned from the NFL again versus the reward that he is going to improve your team.

It's all about the money.

If the money wants him there, he will play. If not, they'll ban him.

It's that simple.

He has Dallas or Washington written all over him. Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder are the only 2 owners stupid enough to throw a contract his way.

^ #19

Dallas. That's where the criminals go.