fitnbills Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/747016.html You can count out the Buffalo Bills as a potential suitor for Michael Vick. Russ Brandon, the team's chief operating officer/general manager, told The Buffalo News today that the Bills aren't interested in bringing in the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback. "We wouldn't have any interest at this time," Brandon said. "We're comfortable with our roster as it stands right now." Third-year quarterback Trent Edwards is the Bills' starter and he's backed up by fourth-year quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick and Gibran Hamdan, a third-year player from Indiana. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reinstated Vick on Monday, with conditions. Free after serving 18 months in prison for running a dog-fighting ring, Vick could participate in regular-season games as early as October. Vick can immediately take part in preseason practices, workouts and meetings and can play in the final two preseason games, if a team is willing. Once the season begins, Vick may participate in all team activities except games, and Goodell, a native of Jamestown, said he would consider Vick for full reinstatement by Week Six. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This is big news, I wish someone had started a new thread about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 [This is an automated response] Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This is big news, I wish someone had started a new thread about it. Who is this Mike Vick you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitta Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 "at this time" and "as it stands right now" kind of stick out to me. I personally could care less either way, but i don't think this statement really rules out anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Who is this Mike Vick you speak of? Dude, you gotta check out this Hitler/Owens video on YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitta Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 All these guys ranging from Dungy to TO are saying that Vick should get re-instated, that he served his time, paid his debt, and he has a right to make a living. Lets not forget that he was convicted of illegal gambling first and foremost. So lets say I am an accountant, lawyer, doctor, public official of any sort, and job where integrity matters and I have a responsibility to maintain an ethical standard or positively represent an organization. Now I get convicted of illegal gambling and spend two years in prison. If I am a CPA, I may lose my license and never get a job as an accountant again. If I am a Lawyer, I may get disbarred and never work as a lawyer again. I still have a right to make a living and can probably get work in any number of lower level positions, but I don't have a right (legally or morally) to necessarily work in the same profession again. The employers have rights too and can choose to not hire me as it could be a risk (of further bad activity on my part) or a public relations challenge they do not wish to deal with. So I don't see why Vick should get re-instated at all? The NFL does not owe him a living, and he is a PR nightmare just waiting to happen. He is heavily in debt and has a history of lying and consorting with illegal gamblers. He is a risk the NFL should not take, and they are not obligated to take. He evidently has found productive work as a construction worker. Let him work there and live a life as most of us live. He has no right to regain his status as a multi-millionaire football player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The Bills weren't interested in getting a starter to replace Keith Ellison, and waited four years to obtain a decent DT, so where's the surprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The Bills weren't interested in getting a starter to replace Keith Ellison, and waited four years to obtain a decent DT, so where's the surprise? The strange thing is, they clearly were interested in getting a starter to replace Keith Ellison. Look at the parade of OLBs they brought in during the offseason. They just couldn't sign any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 [This is an automated response] This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. Please consider using the "search" function before starting new topics. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts