I apologize again!

[Wilson from Gamehendge]

Apology accepted on Spiller. There is nobody on this team with that kind of talent, or potential.

 

And on Vick - anyone capable of what he did should be in a mental institution, not allowed to play a game that strokes his colossal ego. His actions classify him as a narcissistic sociopath, all your obnoxious apologizing cant change that fact. He apologized, so frickin what. Nevermind he is a crappy QB.

 

The rest of your post i agree with. Green is worse than a busted toll booth gate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

 

This coming from a Bills fan...I bet you like ALL 3 of our QB's better than Vick, and think they give us a better chance at winning, right?

 

 

"I dont want a criminal on my team...I want us to lose every game we play and then watch as they pack up and move out of state!"

 

You're a !@#$ing moron!

Edited October 11, 2010 by Wilson from Gamehendge

[garbag3man]

Obviously you don't own a dog, and have no compassion for the millions of us who do.

 

But his crime aside, Vick is still a convicted felon.

 

I think the NFL should draw the line and tell these guys that if you do something bad enough that your lawyers cannot even get it plea bargained down to a misdemeanor, and you need to serve time in a federal prison as a convicted felon, you will be banned from playing again in the NFL. Period.

 

But that's just my opinion. Obviously, the NFL doesn't agree, and you "dog-killing convicted felon lovers" are happy to see Vick doing so well in Philly. I would not have ever wanted him in Buffalo, so no need to "apologize" to me.

 

 

I disagree with this. I am a dog-lover through and through. I have a 1 yr old Lab-Pit Mix and am disgusted that someone could do that to animals.

That being said, the guy did serve his time. Are you saying that people who go to jail should never be able to work anywhere? He committed a horrible crime, and he was punished for it. He has seemingly turned a corner, and if he does something wrong again, throw the book at him, but he served his punishment, and deserves his second chance.

 

That being said, I am tired of all of the same threads. Yes, this team isn't good right now, I don't think anyone questions that. Does no one here understand what rebuilding is. Everyone is tearing Nix/Gaily apart for their draft history (they have had one draft, in which the have seemingly hit on a few good players). They got Troupe who is showing some potential, a stud RB to build the team around, and a WR who showed some good flashes of potential before he got injured in camp. We could have gone out and traded picks to get Vick and signed Dansby and we would have a team that would win 7 games, give up a ton of points, and be no closer to having a future for this team.

 

They are rebuilding the right way, everyone just has to realize that right now, that means we have to suck. You can't rebuild a team at 7-9 and 6-10 every year. If you look at the Falcons they had the 3rd pick in the draft and got Matt Ryan. The Dolphins had the 1st pick and got Jake Long. You need a top 5 pick to rebuild your team. So we are on our way there and everyone needs to settle down and understand that this is how you build for the future.

[Wilson from Gamehendge]

Apology accepted on Spiller. There is nobody on this team with that kind of talent, or potential.

 

And on Vick - anyone capable of what he did should be in a mental institution, not allowed to play a game that strokes his colossal ego. His actions classify him as a narcissistic sociopath, all your obnoxious apologizing cant change that fact. He apologized, so frickin what. Nevermind he is a crappy QB.

 

The rest of your post i agree with. Green is worse than a busted toll booth gate.

And what exactly HAS Spiller done except a returned td? Does he even have 100 rushing yards...in 4 games?

[BillsPhan]

i respect your opinion, but I figure if he went to prison, did his time and is allowed to play he should play. In a world where children are murdered, where rape is a political weapon, where bodies are being found in deserts in Texas and Arizona I'm just not all that excited about the dog issue....

 

Excellent points! Those crimes you bring up are much worse then Vick's dog fighting ring. And you are right, he is allowed to play and he is playing better then I ever thought he was still capable of playing.

 

But the NFL is still wrong to allow him to play and I'll tell you why. Some day an NFL player will get convicted of some degree of rape or even some degree of murder, and they will serve their time in prison, and then because Vick was let back in as a convicted felon, that scum bag will have to be allowed back in to play too. It sounds crazy, and obviously they should get enough time to serve where they won't have any career left, but it is possible.

 

Oh wait a minute, is Donte Stallworth back in the NFL yet? He did actually kill a man with his car in Cleveland a while back, didn't he? He plea bargained down to some kind of lower manslaughter charge, and I don't even know if it is a felony on his record, because he served very little if any time in prison for it. But ask yourself this question: Would Donte' have been more careful driving that night, if he knew a felony would have meant him never playing in the NFL again? Would Plaxico have walked into that bar carrying that unlicensed loaded hand gun if he knew a felony would have meant never playing in the NFL again??

 

I'm sorry, it just seems to be so logical for the NFL to draw that one line in the sand and demand it's rich players to act like human beings!!

[BillsPhan]

I disagree with this....Are you saying that people who go to jail should never be able to work anywhere?....

 

Of course not. Convicted felons coming out of prison can fill out job applications and find work with any companies that will hire them. I believe they should have that right, and they do have that right as U.S. citizens.

 

I do not believe however, that they should be allowed to ever play football in the NFL again. Remember, it is not a "right" to play in the NFL, it is a privilege. Commissioner Goodell has made things stricter for the "bad" guys of the NFL and that's his right. I think he should just take that big step to make it a rule not to allow convicted felons back into his league.

[Bill from NYC]

Apology accepted on Spiller. There is nobody on this team with that kind of talent, or potential.

 

I've got to take your back here. If the Bills selected in the top 3 or even first, Spiller was the pick. This is proven by how much he has meant to this particular football team.

 

Running backs and small gadget players don't grow on trees, so it stands to reason that a franchise should allocate its best resources to cornering the market on them, if possible.

[Orton's Arm]

I find this attitude puzzling. Not from the dog lover perspective, but from a criminal justice one.

In the United States, if you are convicted of a crime and serve out your punishment you are supposed to be given the same rights as any other citizens (special cases like pedophiles aside). You certainly are free to pursue employment. Why do you put playing football (or any sport) somehow above this principle?

You seem to be conflating two very separate concepts.

 

Concept 1: After a criminal has been punished, his legal rights are restored. (With the exception of pedophiles, obviously.)

 

Concept 2: Private sector employers can and do use information about a person's past history to make hiring decisions. There is no expiration date on that information. That information can include good things "Mr. X graduated from Harvard 40 years ago," or bad things, "Mr. Y raped a woman 40 years ago."

 

A convicted felon who's served his time has the legal right to seek gainful employment. But private sector employers aren't required to hire him. If a man was convicted of stealing money, and if I'm a private sector employer, I'm not going to hire him for a position that requires him to handle money. If a man was convicted of raping a woman, I'm not going to hire him to be a women's counselor.

 

There is nothing immoral about the idea that certain bad actions should be associated with permanent consequences. On the contrary: excessive leniency towards bad behavior can and should be considered immoral.

 

I have no objection to Michael Vick seeking gainful employment. What I do object to is his being given the opportunity to make millions of dollars a year in a very glamorous occupation solely because he happened to get lucky by inheriting good physical traits. If his sprinting speed was a little slower, if his arm strength wasn't as good, where would he be with his life right now?

[todd]

Crusade much, tenny?

[tennesseeboy]

Crusade much, tenny?

Me crusading? I'm not saying who meets "moral" standards to play in the NFL. Would I like people to be nicer or better? sure...

 

Crusading for the bills? yup...guilty as charged. Been a fan since they came to town in 1959-60...its a shame to see what levels they have sunk to this year.

[TheChimp]

Me crusading? I'm not saying who meets "moral" standards to play in the NFL. Would I like people to be nicer or better? sure...

 

Crusading for the bills? yup...guilty as charged. Been a fan since they came to town in 1959-60...its a shame to see what levels they have sunk to this year.

Bigger shame is the levels some are willing to sink to to see them succeed. Faustus much?

[Another Point of View]

Just don't let it happen again

[Wagon Circler]

Mike Vick is useless now and should be put down in the exact manner his dogs were when they got injured and couldn't perform. And anyone who defends him and degrades the integrity of those of us who want to live in a world devoid of wanton torture needs to be put down right there with Vick. !@#$ing !@#$.

Maybe T-Boy would like to have his head smashed against a tree.

Oh, snd I love trees too and Barack Obama and socialist France and Alec Baldwin.

And my dad was the last registered Liberal in Buffalo, New York.

[CodeMonkey]

You seem to be conflating two very separate concepts.

 

Concept 1: After a criminal has been punished, his legal rights are restored. (With the exception of pedophiles, obviously.)

 

Concept 2: Private sector employers can and do use information about a person's past history to make hiring decisions. There is no expiration date on that information. That information can include good things "Mr. X graduated from Harvard 40 years ago," or bad things, "Mr. Y raped a woman 40 years ago."

 

A convicted felon who's served his time has the legal right to seek gainful employment. But private sector employers aren't required to hire him. If a man was convicted of stealing money, and if I'm a private sector employer, I'm not going to hire him for a position that requires him to handle money. If a man was convicted of raping a woman, I'm not going to hire him to be a women's counselor.

 

There is nothing immoral about the idea that certain bad actions should be associated with permanent consequences. On the contrary: excessive leniency towards bad behavior can and should be considered immoral.

 

I have no objection to Michael Vick seeking gainful employment. What I do object to is his being given the opportunity to make millions of dollars a year in a very glamorous occupation solely because he happened to get lucky by inheriting good physical traits. If his sprinting speed was a little slower, if his arm strength wasn't as good, where would he be with his life right now?

I understand completely what you are saying.

But what is it about football that makes you think it should be put up on a pedestal? Is it the fact that they make a buttload of money? Is it the fact that you find what Vick in particular did repugnant?

 

You are correct in that no NFL owner would have to hire him, any more than they have to hire an old out of shape person like me. But if one did (and one did, actually) why should King Roger not allow it?

 

What is it about the NFL that you think that as an organization they should ban a person from playing even if a team wants him, because he committed a crime in his past? It is a form of entertainment that people enjoy watching. It has no more inherent value than that and it should be treated a such. Convicted felons are allowed to make movies, sell audio CDs, etc. etc. Why not play a sport, even a sacred one like American Football?

 

In fact I believe it is you who is conflating two very separate concepts.

I never said the NFL should be forced to hire Vick or anyone else. I just make the case that if a team did wish to hire him after knowing of his criminal past, they should be able to. Simple as that.

 

[Hmmm. How did we manage to hijack a thread titled "I apologize again" into another should Vick be allowed to play? ]

Edited October 11, 2010 by CodeMonkey

[Orton's Arm]

I understand completely what you are saying.

But what is it about football that makes you think it should be put up on a pedestal? Is it the fact that they make a buttload of money? Is it the fact that you find what Vick in particular did repugnant?

 

You are correct in that no NFL owner would have to hire him, any more than they have to hire an old out of shape person like me. But if one did (and one did, actually) why should King Roger not allow it?

 

What is it about the NFL that you think that as an organization they should ban a person from playing even if a team wants him, because he committed a crime in his past? It is a form of entertainment that people enjoy watching. It has no more inherent value than that and it should be treated a such. Convicted felons are allowed to make movies, sell audio CDs, etc. etc. Why not play a sport, even a sacred one like American Football?

 

In fact I believe it is you who is conflating two very separate concepts.

I never said the NFL should be forced to hire Vick or anyone else. I just make the case that if a team did wish to hire him after knowing of his criminal past, they should be able to. Simple as that.

 

[Hmmm. How did we manage to hijack a thread titled "I apologize again" into another should Vick be allowed to play? ]

You've made some good points, and have expressed yourself well. I'll address most of the issues you've raised.

 

1) Should it be up to the NFL as a whole, or up to the 32 team owners individually, to decide if Vick plays? That is a thorny question, and could be approached from a lot of different angles. The only observation I have here is that if it is considered undesirable for Vick to play (either for moral reasons or to protect the image of the league), having the NFL as a whole block him from playing would be a lot more effective than hoping all 32 team owners each individually decide not to sign him. The NFL already has the power to suspend players; so it is not as though permanently barring Vick from playing would radically alter the fundamental calculus of league versus owners.

 

2) Assuming, however, that team owners are given the option of signing Vick, at least one of them will presumably exercise that option unless a) it become clear Vick has lost his touch, or b) the fans choose to exert business pressure on the owner to prevent the signing. In the absence of that fan pressure, there will always be at least a few owners willing to give "another chance" to any given player no matter what he's done off the field.

 

3) Should the fans exert financial pressure on team owners to discourage them from signing players like Vick? Like you pointed out in your post, football is about entertainment. I personally find it more entertaining to root for a team when I like and can relate to the players. If an owner gathered up 52 thugs, I could still root for the laundry I suppose. But rooting for the laundry plus the players is a more powerful emotion than rooting for laundry alone.

 

There is also the principle involved. Players' paychecks ultimately come from the fans: from the expensive tickets, even more expensive personal seating licenses, concessions that make movie theater concessions seem like a thrifty, low-budget alternative in comparison, sales of jerseys and other NFL gear, and a host of other sources. Those other sources even include taxpayer dollars for new stadiums and renovations to existing stadiums. As fans, we have to ask ourselves, "Do we want to spend our hard-earned money to make Michael Vick a millionaire?" For me the answer is clear--I'd rather burn the money in question than have it go into Michael Vick's pocket.

[tennesseeboy]

Bigger shame is the levels some are willing to sink to to see them succeed. Faustus much?

I don't see anything Faustian about Vick playing football in Buffalo. He committed a crime, owned up to it, served his time, has been, as far as I know a good member of the Eagles. I come from a religious background that does in fact push redemption over eternal damnation (and in my religion God makes those decisions...I don't).

 

Faustian is more for those of us who eat meat chicken and eggs. Read Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals and you will see that we (I eat meat chicken and eggs) actually pay money to people to engage in brutality and torture far worse than anything Michael Vick was ever accused of in the chicken, beef and pork industry. And we pay good money for the various practices to continue. Now THAT is a deal with the devil.

 

I'm not saying I'm better than anyone, but I'm not going to cry tears over criticisms of the guy by a tree hugging dog loving hypocrite....now maybe if you're a tree hugging dog loving vegan?

[Nervous Guy]

Me crusading?

Crusading for the bills? yup...guilty as charged.

FYI...HARD RULES of TBD: Personal "crusades" (posting the same information/opinion in an excessively repetitive manner. We want posters to share opinions not bludgeon others to death with them.)

 

guilty as charged....seriously I have to read a lot of stuff as a moderator, unfortunately, I can't put posters on ignore.

[CodeMonkey]

You've made some good points, and have expressed yourself well. I'll address most of the issues you've raised.

 

1) Should it be up to the NFL as a whole, or up to the 32 team owners individually, to decide if Vick plays? That is a thorny question, and could be approached from a lot of different angles. The only observation I have here is that if it is considered undesirable for Vick to play (either for moral reasons or to protect the image of the league), having the NFL as a whole block him from playing would be a lot more effective than hoping all 32 team owners each individually decide not to sign him. The NFL already has the power to suspend players; so it is not as though permanently barring Vick from playing would radically alter the fundamental calculus of league versus owners.

 

2) Assuming, however, that team owners are given the option of signing Vick, at least one of them will presumably exercise that option unless a) it become clear Vick has lost his touch, or b) the fans choose to exert business pressure on the owner to prevent the signing. In the absence of that fan pressure, there will always be at least a few owners willing to give "another chance" to any given player no matter what he's done off the field.

 

3) Should the fans exert financial pressure on team owners to discourage them from signing players like Vick? Like you pointed out in your post, football is about entertainment. I personally find it more entertaining to root for a team when I like and can relate to the players. If an owner gathered up 52 thugs, I could still root for the laundry I suppose. But rooting for the laundry plus the players is a more powerful emotion than rooting for laundry alone.

 

There is also the principle involved. Players' paychecks ultimately come from the fans: from the expensive tickets, even more expensive personal seating licenses, concessions that make movie theater concessions seem like a thrifty, low-budget alternative in comparison, sales of jerseys and other NFL gear, and a host of other sources. Those other sources even include taxpayer dollars for new stadiums and renovations to existing stadiums. As fans, we have to ask ourselves, "Do we want to spend our hard-earned money to make Michael Vick a millionaire?" For me the answer is clear--I'd rather burn the money in question than have it go into Michael Vick's pocket.

You also have made good points and express yourself well. And your main point is where we happen to disagree.

 

The whole "image of the league" thing trumping the concept of a free market economy is what I have a problem with. I agree with your points 2 and 3 above and feel that's how it should work. If a particular owner/GM feels a felon (or any other player) is a good enough player to bring them on board, then they should have that right. If a fan or group of fans for that team objects, then try and "change the teams mind" in whatever way they choose. Including like you mentioned the one that carries the most weight, in their wallets.

 

Most fans have short memories. The people of Philly for example may detest what Vick did as well as the man himself. But if he took them to the superbowl most would forgive and forget. The same is true for Buffalo and all other sports towns. Not all fans mind you, but most. At the end of the day It's all about winning.

[Orton's Arm]

You also have made good points and express yourself well. And your main point is where we happen to disagree.

 

The whole "image of the league" thing trumping the concept of a free market economy is what I have a problem with. I agree with your points 2 and 3 above and feel that's how it should work. If a particular owner/GM feels a felon (or any other player) is a good enough player to bring them on board, then they should have that right. If a fan or group of fans for that team objects, then try and "change the teams mind" in whatever way they choose. Including like you mentioned the one that carries the most weight, in their wallets.

 

Most fans have short memories. The people of Philly for example may detest what Vick did as well as the man himself. But if he took them to the superbowl most would forgive and forget. The same is true for Buffalo and all other sports towns. Not all fans mind you, but most. At the end of the day It's all about winning.

Your post brings up some interesting questions. To what extent do the actions of the NFL's 32 teams resemble a free market? To what extent should the NFL's individual teams resemble individual participants in a free market?

 

If the individual teams within the NFL truly acted like participants in a free market, there would be no salary cap and no players' union. Whenever two teams played, the teams would negotiate which rules set to use. Should they use college rules, NFL rules, Arena Football rules, etc.? The two teams would also negotiate how to divvy up the revenue from the ticket sales and concessions, etc.

 

For better or worse, it was decided that allowing that much variation would detract from the fan experience. As a fan, I know that if two NFL teams play each other, they'll use the NFL rules set; and will abide by other restrictions the NFL has created. (No steroid use, for example; as well as bans on other performance-enhancing substances.) I also know that both teams will (presumably) compete to win, instead of having one team simply bribe the owner of the other team to throw the game. (As could easily happen under a pure free market.) Individual NFL owners surrendered a portion of the freedom because they knew that, only by empowering the NFL Commissioner to enforce certain basic standards, could the quality and integrity of the game be guaranteed.

 

Minimal player conduct policies are part of the standards the NFL tries to enforce. And rightly so. If OJ Simpson was thirty years younger, I wouldn't want him making millions off the NFL. Nor, I'm sure, would a lot of other fans. Players get suspended for things all the time--Lynch being a case in point.

 

Does Vick deserve a permanent suspension?

[CodeMonkey]

Does Vick deserve a permanent suspension?

That is ultimately the question isn't it.

 

I would not want him on "my" team, but I say no. He served out his punishment.

If someone wants to hire him to run around throwing a ball I say why not.

 

I must say it is nice to be able to disagree with someone and be able to discuss it without it degenerating to name calling. Thank you.

[JPCinSYR..NY]

testify Tennessee Boy - I am with you. The Bills are so perplexing - most any fan with some real football intellegence would have assembled a better roster...and I mean it. I would not have wasted a dime of Ralph's money on Aaron Maybin or Ryan Fitzpatrixck for that metter - I would have chased Vick, (to hell with the animal advocates out there - how about giving a guy a second chance?), would have taken Clay Matthews or Brian Orakpo instead of Maybin and would have drafted a big OT and DT on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rounds in each of the past 4 years...that is where the game is won - not on RB's in the 1st rounds in 2 of the past 4 drafts. Face it - a senile old man is playing out his years playing fantasy football at the pro level...

sure give vick a second chance..but he is still a murderer