Captain Caveman

I wouldn't give this much thought. I doubt there's been much more contact than maybe a sales pitch by HKS. Especially since Minnesota was his first response, and as he mentioned they don't even have funding. It sounds to me like they don't really have anything on the horizon, but generally companies don't like to admit to that kind of thing. Just my 2 cents.

I think the difference is that the poster's on this board don't have their hands full trying to execute their own assignment on Sundays. (They have their hands full of pretzels, and fermented beverages.)

Fair enough, but I think it was probably a rhetorical question, since we seem to agree that he had a bad year last year. I think that he certainly has the tools to be a dominant LT for years to come, the question which remains to be answered is will he continue to work now that he has his fat contract. I don't the think the Bills were confident in this, which is why they traded him rather than paying him.

Nice link Senator. I take Tucker's word over my own on the subject any day of the week.

Right. But consider that he only played in 13 games, and against 10 teams. So less than a third of the league actually played against him last year, which makes me wonder how valuable the players vote is. I'm pretty sure that the players don't have the time to be watching games against teams they don't play in the middle of the season. So how many of the players from the 22 teams that didn't play against him last year just decided to go with the status quo and go with the guy who was voted in the year before? I doubt it will happen, but maybe the player's voting in the future should somehow take into account whether you're voting for a player whom you've actually played against that year?

I wonder if Goodell might do the honors for RW, since he is a native WNY'er. Does anyone know if a commissioner has ever presented anyone for induction before?

Hmm, try interpreting it one more time. Only one player has started for them on every opening day at LT since 1997 - Tra Thomas.

Try interpreting it again.

Yeah, I know that some people do make trips of 3- 4 hours and more, and I salute you. I'm just saying I think that the further out you get, it's harder to rely on people coming to the games. I think I'm going to go listen to "Love it to Death".

I was also thinking it may have something to do with school, but I checked, and Southern Miss had their graduation two weeks ago.

I think that your analogy is a little skewed since: 1. You haven't included Milwaukee, from which the Packers derive much of their fan base. 2. You make the difference between 100 miles (between Buffalo - Toronto) and 200 miles (Green Bay - Chicago) sound like nothing, when in fact, I think it's a pretty decent distance between the two. I would bet that there are a lot more people willing to drive two hours each way to a game (with traffic) than three and a half hours. 3. Even though the population for Toronto and Chicago are similar, I don't think it's safe to assume the same commitment to football. Toronto will always be a hockey town, and they'll have to pull in a lot of fans from Southern Ontario, Hamilton etc... to be successful.

I doubt Jauron would be telling everyone he'd have an update at the end of the week if he didn't know what was going on.

Unless it's maybe a personal matter? Could be a family thing, or any one of a hundred other things he doesn't want in the news.

Considering the OTAs are supposed to be voluntary, and are supposed to be non-contact drills (which makes one wonder how Henderson injured his shoulder in the first place), Del Rio is opening himself and the Jags up to questioning by the league and the NFLPA. Of course I'm not stating anything that wasn't in the article.

He's accepting Canadian currency as part of a deal which he felt was necessary to keep the team in Buffalo. If he feels that having a team in Toronto would threaten the Bills (which he most certainly would) then it would be an entirely different story. I'm not saying going to say never as did the previous post, but I think it's unlikely that Ralph would accept a franchise in Toronto without massive compensation.

As I said before, I'm sure the league has more qualified people than you or I looking into this, and they'll act appropriately. There's not all that much to be gained from allowing this guy back into the league, especially since his best days are almost certainly behind him. And there certainly is a risk of losing advertising $ from sponsors scared to be associated with a league that would reinstate Vick, whether you see it or not. Nobody is saying they'll stop making money, only that it's possible they'll make less with him around, and that he's not worth the risk.

As for the financial incentives / disincentives, you're missing the point. Does one team have the right to sign Vick to make an extra million $, if it costs each other team in the league a quarter of a million $ in lost tv / advertising revenue? And I'm not saying that it would or would not be the case. All I'm saying is that the NFL has people far more qualified than you or I looking at this, and if they decide that it would hurt the league overall, they have every right to keep him out. As for it being about Goodell cleaning up the league, I partially agree, but again, it has to be looked at from a financial perspective. The whole reason the NFL is so worried about cleaning up the league's reputation is to keep the revenue flowing. So far, it hasn't been greatly impacted by player behavior, but that doesn't mean it might not have a negative impact, especially if things continue as is or get worse. If Goodell decides that having Vick in the league is what is best for the league, then he will do that. I don't have a problem with it. But you keep arguing that Goodell doesn't have the right to ban him. You may not like it, but he absolutely does have that right, and it's been granted to him with consent of the owners and players. Get over it.

Saying that everyone deserves a second chance is fine, but what does that mean? It means they are allowed back into society, and will play by society's rules. In our society, that means that a company can hire them, or refuse to hire them if they feel it will be bad for business. I'm not asking for the guy to be punished further, and I really think too much of this conversation has focused on punishment, which I also feel should be left to the courts. All I'm saying is that if Goodell thinks it will hurt the NFL financially to have him back, then he should not allow him back. It's not about Michael Vick getting punished, or PETA, or anything other than the league making money.

They cheated back then too (see Parcells, William.)

You're really reaching with the Asians / Mexicans analogy. But even so, if the NFL won the right to keep out Maurice Clarett because he was too young, they can sure as hell keep out MV because he's too much of a felon.

While one team may be able to justify signing him if it thinks he will help them more than hurt them, the commissioner is supposed to be looking out for the entire league. If Roger Goodell thinks having Michael Vick in the NFL is bad for the NFL, for whatever reason, then he can and should should ban him. If the individual teams don't like his actions, they can try to oust him. Again, I'm not proposing this as punishment for Vick, and I'm not going to get into the argument of whether he deserves more or less punishment than what he's already received. But in the real world (and even NFL players have to live in the real world) it's pretty uncommon for someone who commits a major crime to just be able to go back to their old life. This isn't because people are going out of their way to further punish an individual (usually); it's just a side effect of going to prison.

I think the key is that they have to be able to run the football in those conditions, in order to keep the defense honest and open up the passing game a little bit. It doesn't mean they have to actually run on every first, second and third down. And when the field is slick, making the defense account for the running back first makes it even harder for them to adjust and cover a receiver coming out for a pass. How successful would Kelly have been if not for the constant threat of Thurman breaking a big gain on the ground?

I'm not sure if he should be allowed to play again or not, but to all those who don't think the NFL should be able to ban him, think about it this way. Say he worked as a salesman for a manufacturing company. Would that company be justified in not hiring him back after his release from prison, if it felt that it was going hurt the company financially due to decreased sales? In effect, every player in the NFL is a salesman of the game, and the league, and if the NFL feels that it will be hurt by allowing Vick back in, in my opinion it has every right to ban him. It's not about punishing Vick, it's about doing what's right for the league.

I'm assuming you're stating that he can't play LDE because of his limitations against the running game? (Most teams tend to run more often to their right side - our left.) If he's as good of a pass rusher as people think, maybe they move him to the right side and move Schobel over to the left? As for your assertion that he fits into Ellison's spot, I'm not sure he'd be any better in pass coverage (which the LB's are sometimes forced to do) then against the run. I think they start working him at LDE, and see how it goes. Eventually, I think you're right that they'll want him to take over at RDE.

It pretty much happened here, right? http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=83432