Michael Vick Joins the Eagles - Did Anyone See That Coming?

I'm glad Vick is back in the NFL. That being said, I'm a little disappointed that he's with the Eagles. The first and foremost reason is because I'm a Cowboys fan. But that aside, there were other teams that could've really used a franchise talent QB (Minnesota for example).

The Eagles with a healthy McNabb and Westbrook and the threat of a fully re-acclimated Vick is a nightmare for coaches. From what I hear, DeSean Jackson is ready to have a break-out year. The Defense is usually a nightmare for coaches anyway. If this works out, Philly could go really far...this year.

I applaud Philly for being willing to take such a bold move. I never even figured them to be in the hunt for Vick's services. I would like to take the opportunity to boo the Washington Redskins for even considering it (c'mon, do they dislike Jason Campbell that much?) I would also like to boo the Carolina Panthers for not at least trying to do something...you're telling me its ok to backup a top caliber QB like McNabb but you don't need a backup to Delhomme? Finally, jeers and rotten tomatoes to the Minnesota Vikings. Not only could they have had Vick with AP, but they don't even have a starting caliber quarterback...Vick couldn't back up Rosenfels? (I'm assuming this means that they will be making another run at Favre before the end of the season)

With all the applause for Vick's signing this year comes this. I don't get a good feeling about what happens next year. If Vick is really good, do the Eagles end up trying to dump McNabb?...it's not like they really have been a pillar of support to him in recent years. If he's bad do they use him as a scapegoat for the team's failures?

Either way, this is a win-win for Vick. He's back in the NFL, playing for a playoff-caliber team, playing with one of the better quarterback's in the league, with minimal pressure. When I say minimal pressure I'm referring to the pressure of being expected to carry a team. He'll have plenty of pressure no matter where he plays but at least he doesn't have to be some team's savior. Still, this works out great for Vick. I get an uneasy feeling about what this could potentially mean for McNabb, even though Donovan seems to be the one who clamored for Vick's signing.

If Mike Vick can get himself back into NFL form, and learn from the McNabb and Andy Reid, he can easily be one of the best QB's in the game. Not to long ago he was the highest paid, most electrifying and most talented player in the NFL. Imagine if this year's mentoring and his life experiences shaped him into a better decision-maker and passer! Then the question would not be whether he would be a franchise QB again, it would be whether he would become Philly's franchise QB. For Vick's sake, I hope he is able to put the past behind him and truly live up to his off the charts potential. For Donovan's sake and the Cowboy's sake I hope he reaches that potential with some other team.

The Vick Verdict - Fair or Foul?

After serving an 18 month sentence for his role in operating a dog fighting ring, Michael Vick is free to play for another NFL team. On Monday, 7/27/09, Roger Goodell announced the terms of Vick's reinstatement. The terms are as follows: 1) Vick can immediately participate in preseason workouts, practices and meetings, 2) Vick can play in the final 2 preseason games, 3) Vick can participate in all regular season team activities EXCEPT games until he is fully reinstated, 4) Goodell will consider Vick for full reinstatement by week 6 at the latest. All of these terms come with the assumption that Vick will get picked up by a team, which so far is the pink elephant in the room that no NFL team really wants to talk about.

The question making its rounds through much of sports talk radio is whether this is a fair and just punishment or if it is simply "piling on" for someone who has already paid his debt to society. Lets examine this from both sides; why it was a fair ruling from Goodell but an unfair ruling for Michael Vick. As with most disputes, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Why is this a fair ruling from Mr. Goodell's viewpoint? A few reasons. First and foremost, he has made no secret of how intolerable he is of player misconduct. Misconduct off the field has consistently led to investigations and often to fines or suspensions. Yes, Vick has paid his debt to society, but playing football in the NFL is not a right it is a privilege. Second, besides all the negative publicity, besides the fact that he committed a heinous crime, he lied to Roger Goodell about it when given the opportunity to defend the allegations. Goodell seems to me to be one of those straight shooter types who can work with anything you give him as long as you don't lie to him (I can appreciate that since that is how I see myself). Third, let's be honest, there would definitely be a great deal of noise made by animal rights groups if he were reinstated with no additional penalty. As it is some of those group don't want him to play ever again. Fourth, I don't think Roger wants the biggest stories during week 1 and 2 to be about Michael Vick, and they certainly would be.

Why is this an unfair ruling from Michael Vick's standpoint? It's clear that he is being made an example of. First of all, Vick paid dearly for his crimes. To many, even his criminal sentencing was over the top and unfair. But that's neither here nor there and not the topic of this article. The fact is, he lost just about everything, including almost 2 years of his life. He took what the legal system meted out against him and conformed to everything asked of him, including devising ways of paying back debts though not having a job or confirmation that he would ever resume an NFL career that would allow him to pay those debts. This he does not complain about, nor should he. This was the retribution decided by our courts of law for unspeakable crimes against animals. (I could go into a rather lengthy explanation here of Vick's childhood and cultural influences regarding dog fighting and other things, but I deem it irrelevant since we are really discussing his future in football rather than his past with animals) After that heavy retribution, he now comes back hoping to get picked up by a team for a fraction of his former worth only to find out that he MIGHT be able to play week 6 or after? Vick just wants to continue his career and put this whole mess behind him. He's already spent 2 years away from football and now more time is being added to that.

Let's look at some middle ground here. I think Goodell is playing it pretty safe. Had he suspended him for the whole season or even half the season, the uproar from players and even many fans would have been loud. Had he not suspended him at all, PETA along with some private citizens would've been down his throat which could threaten some advertisers to pull out. So, he is allowing him to find work, play football during preseason and practice with a team. He remains purposely ambiguous about when Vick will be fully reinstated. I suspect that Vick will apply for full reinstatement as early as week 1 and I suspect that Goodell will grant full reinstatement between week 4 and 6. All this is assuming that Vick stays clean for that time period. I can't imagine him getting in trouble again, at least not for dog fighting. He's not known for off the field troubles. (Unless you count marijuana in airports...Vick - stay away from the dutchies!)

My initial reaction to this issue of fair or foul was to put myself in Vicks shoes. Let's say I get busted for a felony and go to jail. As a result I lose my job at Best Buy. 2 years later I'm released from prison. Best Buy doesn't want to re-hire me which is their right. I look elsewhere but am told by the BBB that I cannot work for any business for an additional 6 months. (BBB is the closest thing I could think of to a governing body on short notice and I realize that this is not the same thing since the NFL is like its own private industry in which Goodell does have the final say, unlike the BBB which has no real authority. But you get my point, I'm sure. Vick would get hired by an individual team, not by Goodell himself.) To me it seems a little excessive. I've never fully applied to the theory of "making an example of someone". I think by applying fair punishment you do make an example of someone. However, by common standards, when you make an example of someone today it usually means that you add a little extra to the punishment so that others get the idea. Once you cross that line it is no longer fair, it becomes purposely foul with the intent of stopping the behavior in the future. If I had to call fair or foul on this one I would lean towards foul.

In reality though, its both fair and foul. Fair for the NFL (to a degree) and foul for Michael Vick. The bottom line, though, is that Vick will have to make the best of it. He may not ever be the face of the league again like he once was. But I don't doubt for a moment that he can and will be the face of a franchise again. The verdict is still out on which franchise that will be and how long it will take.