bartshan-83 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 This is potentially huge. HUGE. Any commentary on Vick's popularity, transgressions, potential acceptance and/or success in Buffalo is irrelevant and actually detracts from the only point here -- that the league commissioner potentially steered a player away from/towards a particular franchise. The reasoning behind that may prove interesting (and ultimately important) but for now, the action itself is the only thing. I hope this story is able to pick up steam quickly before damage control/spin takes over. Vick, the Eagles and the NFL will try to get in front of this ASAP. Vick will retract/clarify, the Eagles will plead ignorance and the NFL will be dismissive. I think Vick slipped up here and I think it's a big, big deal. It's times like these that I have actually thought of Ralph Wilson as a great asset. He has never been shy to fire off at the commish with force and volume when he feels the franchise has been wronged. His rebuke to Tagliabue after the Patriots "Just Give It To 'Em" embarrassment was a thing of beauty. I just hope he still has the energy and clarity to make sure this doesn't get buried as a non-story.
todd Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 You must smoke crack. There's never been any indication that Ralph or the Bills organization is racist. You're just being a dick. Tried it once briefly 40 years ago. Nice argument.
JohnC Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) Vick did get the best advice to go to Philly. But Goodell or anyone in his inner circle should not have been a part of this advice giving process. It's unethical tampering plain and simple. I'm glad it came out so we are all more aware, informed and cautious. I suppose it's best to gather more info to confirm this incident. Many, including me on occassion jump on something too quickly without doing proper due diligence. But if this is all true then effin f#%k goodell for tampering. It's all about ethics. And doing what's right. Vick had a number of advisors, including Dungy. He also frequently spoke with Goodell prior to being re-instated. There is nothing wrong in giving advice to a player regarding what is the best approach to take when considering his various options. The Bills and Bengals are two of the most unstable and erratic franchises in the league. The owners for each of their respective franchises are without a doubt two of the worst and most lame owners in the league. There were even some reports that the Raiders were also interested in Vick. There would be nothing wrong with recommending to Vick not to work for such a wacky owner and chaotic organization. In hindsight, going to Philly has worked out marvelously for him. MV didn't start right away. He worked his way up and when his opportunity came he seized it. Vick is now playing on a winning team, a playoff team, has been coached up and now is back to being one of the marquee players in the league. The end result is that the advice that he was supposedly given was very wise. Don't be surprised that this current storyline of steering Vick to the Eagles is distorted and exaggerated. Goodell had numerous discussions with Vick going back to pre-jail, during his jail stint and when he was released. Vick not only consulted with Goodell but he did so with other people. Ultimately, it was Vick who had the ability to go where he wanted to. Not going to Buffalo or Cincinatti and probably starting right away might have been tempting but it would have been very short-sighted and not the best thing to do, especially for those pathetic franchises. Edited August 18, 2011 by JohnC
dollars 2 donuts Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Forget about the teams involved; I am just surprised that some people in here are not bothered by the fact that a league official made a judgment call about where a player should play, against the desires of two other franchises, before reinstating said player. ...I mean, seriously, that should bother everybody. It is not the job of the commissioner to decide that "Weak Franchise A" and "Weak Franchise B" are not suitable for a particular player, or the League.
BillsFanM.D. Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Vick had a number of advisors, including Dungy. He also frequently spoke with Goodell prior to being re-instated. There is nothing wrong in giving advice to a player regarding what is the best approach to take when considering his various options. There would be nothing wrong with recommending to Vick not to work for such a wacky owner and chaotic organization. Have to disagree. There is a big difference between Dungy mentoring him and Goodell being involved in specifics re: which team he 'should' go to. Goodell can offer all the generics he wants: "you might want to think about being a back up for one year..." kind of thing. He (and who knows if he did) cannot steer him to a particular franchise and/or away from others. To further the point, how objective is the commish if he is 'presenting' the Bills as having a 'wacky' owner and a 'chaotic' organization. No matter how comical (or true) those characterizations may be, Goodell has to remain objective.....it's his job. I said it earlier, but how is this not tampering at the highest level???
LabattBlue Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Forget about the teams involved; I am just surprised that some people in here are not bothered by the fact that a league official made a judgment call about where a player should play, against the desires of two other franchises, before reinstating said player. ...I mean, seriously, that should bother everybody. It is not the job of the commissioner to decide that "Weak Franchise A" and "Weak Franchise B" are not suitable for a particular player, or the League. ^^^ This.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 ...I mean, seriously, that should bother everybody. It is not the job of the commissioner to decide that "Weak Franchise A" and "Weak Franchise B" are not suitable for a particular player, or the League. If Andy Reid (or maybe even Chan Gailey) were the coach of the Bills at the time, and the Bills had Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb at QB here, Goodell would have very likely steered him away from Philly and toward Buffalo. Granted, you really don't want the league having that much say in where players play, but it had nothing to do with the franchises. It had to do with Vick not playing right away, and easing his way back in under the tutelage of a guy who would know how to handle him and the situation. I don't like it, but I also fully understand that the league has a right to protect its product and its product took an enormous hit with the Mike Vick scandal. No one knew it would turn out this way. It had nothing to do with hating Buffalo.
KD in CA Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 It is not the job of the commissioner to decide that "Weak Franchise A" and "Weak Franchise B" are not suitable for a particular player, or the League. No matter how comical (or true) those characterizations may be, Goodell has to remain objective.....it's his job. I said it earlier, but how is this not tampering at the highest level??? Says who? The commissioner's job is to promote the league and its players as a means to increase the league's revenue. I wish Buffalo wasn't part of the NFL underclass too, but that's the price of rooting for a team in a dying city with a cheap owner.
Punch Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 If Andy Reid (or maybe even Chan Gailey) were the coach of the Bills at the time, and the Bills had Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb at QB here, Goodell would have very likely steered him away from Philly and toward Buffalo. Granted, you really don't want the league having that much say in where players play, but it had nothing to do with the franchises. It had to do with Vick not playing right away, and easing his way back in under the tutelage of a guy who would know how to handle him and the situation. I don't like it, but I also fully understand that the league has a right to protect its product and its product took an enormous hit with the Mike Vick scandal. No one knew it would turn out this way. It had nothing to do with hating Buffalo. +1
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Forget about the teams involved; I am just surprised that some people in here are not bothered by the fact that a league official made a judgment call about where a player should play, against the desires of two other franchises, before reinstating said player. ...I mean, seriously, that should bother everybody. It is not the job of the commissioner to decide that "Weak Franchise A" and "Weak Franchise B" are not suitable for a particular player, or the League. It would be troubling, if it actually happened. On the other hand, given the partial, out of context quotes from one side only in the article, it's quite possible that isn't what happened at all.
BillsFanM.D. Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Says who? The commissioner's job is to promote the league and its players as a means to increase the league's revenue. I presumed a bit as well but I think you are moreso. Are you suggesting that the Commissioner is to promote the league and players 'at any cost and by any measure?' We all know there has to be some inherent objectivity and fairness on the part of the commisioner and if he was 'caught' favoring particular franchises (regardless of intent) there would be an outrage. He'd likely get canned/forced to resign. The hard part is always in finding the proof. He represents all the owners and I don't think many of those ego driven folks (again presuming) would take too kindly to being dissed by their own side. The issue here is did he truly direct a player to a franchise and away from others? If he did, I think it makes a mockery of his position.
dollars 2 donuts Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 It would be troubling, if it actually happened. On the other hand, given the partial, out of context quotes from one side only in the article, it's quite possible that isn't what happened at all. True, but we can only really go with the information that has been presented to this point. Who watches the watchmen? I love it, and considering the heat I gave you a few months ago for killing the Watchmen (OH NO, SPOILER!) you know I love it!
dave mcbride Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Not to justify this, buy my very, very strong recollection is that the vast majority of Bills fans wanted no part of Vick because of the dogfighting.
KD in CA Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 I presumed a bit as well but I think you are moreso. Are you suggesting that the Commissioner is to promote the league and players 'at any cost and by any measure?' We all know there has to be some inherent objectivity and fairness on the part of the commisioner and if he was 'caught' favoring particular franchises (regardless of intent) there would be an outrage. He'd likely get canned/forced to resign. The hard part is always in finding the proof. He represents all the owners and I don't think many of those ego driven folks (again presuming) would take too kindly to being dissed by their own side. The issue here is did he truly direct a player to a franchise and away from others? If he did, I think it makes a mockery of his position. No, 'not at any cost and by any measure'. But I'm guessing they didn't consider it a huge cost to steer a free agent who was both one of the most celebrated players to ever enter the league (and thus one of the most lucritive) AND one of the most vilified to ever play into a situation that eased the pressure on the league PR side (keeping him on the bench) and allowed Vick the best chance for long term success. Nothing in the story indictes Goodell 'directed' the player. My guess is he, Dungy, the agent, etc. all discussed the matter and agreed on the best situation for Vick and then convinced him to follow their suggestion.
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 He wasn't going to start right away in Buffalo or Cincinnati anyways.
KD in CA Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Not to justify this, buy my very, very strong recollection is that the vast majority of Bills fans wanted no part of Vick because of the dogfighting. There was certainly a lively debate! I was in the no-Vick camp.
pmacla Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 and dont forget Willie Totten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Totten
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Nothing in the story indictes Goodell 'directed' the player. My guess is he, Dungy, the agent, etc. all discussed the matter and agreed on the best situation for Vick and then convinced him to follow their suggestion. That's my guess, too. The quote from Vick is "They put me" but no quote from him mentions Goodell. The writer of the story was talking about Goodell and PR people. I'm certain that Dungy was a huge part of it. Vick had hired seven different PR people for himself at that point.
BillsFanM.D. Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) The issue here is did he truly direct a player to a franchise and away from others? If he did, I think it makes a mockery of his position. Nothing in the story indictes Goodell 'directed' the player. My guess is he, Dungy, the agent, etc. all discussed the matter and agreed on the best situation for Vick and then convinced him to follow their suggestion. And that's the main separating fact for me. IF Goodell did prop up one option and put others in a bad light I think he crossed the line of objectivity/fairness. He can counsel him all he wants with generalizations but if he said 'you shouldn't go to Buffalo' that's crossing the line. The bolded part above is where it gets messy. No problem with Dungy, Vick's agent advising him in that manner...but Goodell should be hands off in that conversation. Just my 2 pennies. ...and No I did not want Vick in Buffalo. Edited August 18, 2011 by BillsFanM.D.
Recommended Posts