Quote:
Originally Posted by See Red
I also disagree. I feel I'm right for all the reasons I mentioned.
The whole Michael Vick thing will cool off... until an NFL team decides to take a shot on him, and then the protests will begin again. Like I said, it's a Public Relations Nightmare. He has a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to reshape his image. It's do-able to an extent, but certainly not entirely. Unless a team was damn near guaranteed to make the Super Bowl as a result of signing him, they're not going to think he's worth it. He could be out until 2010, at the earliest. He could be permanently banned from the League. Odell Thurman failed the substance policy, had managed to, for the most part, avoid trouble (aside from one incident that nothing stemmed from) and his bid for reinstatement got rejected. Vick is pleading guilty to a Federal Crime -- and that's before you take the gambling into account, which, for the record, I don't think should be that big of a deal.
|
Do you think a football-starved city will choose sound morals and values over a dynamic Pro-Bowl quarterback? I sure don't. This just in...being a good person is not something the NFL values all that much. It's a good thing, because if so Chad Johnson and Carson Palmer would be the only members of the Bengals and the Vikings would have to look for work in some Red Light District somewhere instead of on the football field.
All I'm saying is, if Vick is available to play football...he will play football. As in, if he doesn't receive a lifetime ban from the NFL, he'll have no problem at all finding a team that'll bring him aboard. Yea, it'd be a public relations nightmare for a while, you're right. Sure, the team might lose some fans because of it, but not enough to make it not worthwhile to bring about a superstar quarterback on the cheap. If Vick signs on with some team and brings them a Superbowl, he'll be regarded as a hero and will walk on water in that city. It's pathetic, but it's the way fans are.