Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

13 Aug 2009

Vick Signs Two-Year Contract With Eagles

... the Philadelphia Eagles. Broken by Chris Mortensen during the Steelers-Cardinals game on ESPN. Ironically, the last Vick story that Mort reported was that Vick would not be indicted for dog fighting. We'll see if this story is more accurate.

Posted by: Vincent Verhei on 13 Aug 2009

141 comments, Last at 18 Aug 2009, 10:13pm by Loomis


by Derek (Brooklyn) (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:45pm

As an Eagles fan, I don't like this move.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:46pm

Let the histrionics begin!

by noahpoah :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:45pm

Shut up, you.

by CathyW :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:52pm

Unfortunately I think it is true...am watching Eagles game and they announced it a few minutes ago. If so, I have serious, serious doubts about the Eagles FO. WTF?!?!?!?!

by MR_TIGGUMS (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:53pm

I guess that, with the loss of Jim Johnson and Stewart Bradley, along with the possible suspension of Trent Cole, they needed another offensive "weapon" to help win shootouts. I see him being used in the backfield with McNabb on the field, rather than just a Wildcat threat.

by Key19 :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:54pm

May this go as well as Pacman and Tank went for us.


Every Cowboys Fan in the World

by Marko :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 8:59pm

Andy Reid should be a positive influence on Michael Vick. After all, look at how good of a job he did raising his kids.

Vick is in! Let the protests begin!

by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:05pm

McNabb, Vick and Westbrook in the same backfield could cause a few headaches. He's also capable of replicating some of McNabb's skillset as a qb.

Will this upset the Eagles' fanbase? I dunno, most of them seem like dog-botherers in the first place;-)

Not a bad new home for Vick, he was always going to need a team with an establised qb this year as he can't possibly be ready to play at a high level this season.

by CathyW :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:25pm

I have to tell you that as an Eagles fan, my cell is blowing up with texts from all my Eagles fan friends and relatives, all of whom are like "WTF?"

So no, we are not dog-botherers.

by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:46pm

I hoped that putting the little winking emoticon would have made it clear that that comment was entirely in jest. It could be a transatlantic difference in meanings. Over here a dog-botherer is like a 'worrier of livestock' if you see what I mean (without being far too graphic). I didn't mean to cause serious insult, my apologies if I did, it does look a little flippant in retrospect.

Personally, I haven't been able to make my mind up over whether he should be allowed back into the game. I can understand the arguments that he has paid as big a cost for his crime as anyone will ever for perpetrating a similar crime and he has several creditors to whom he owes large sums of money that will only be repaid if he is in the NFL. He also has the chance to influence many young people away from dog fighting.

However, I can also see that the NFL is a privilege and his readmission should not have been automatic. I can understand his excuse that it was common in his area of society growing up; I do believe that we all define our morality through the parameters of behaviour that we observe around us. What I can't understand is how he could possibly have believed that the way he was killing the dogs was possibly anything less than cruel.

I can't make my mind up, I just hope he shows remorse in his words and actions from now on.

by Dick (not verified) :: Mon, 08/17/2009 - 4:05am

He commited a ill crime,paid what he owed to society.Why cant he go back to his occupation.Martha s.,crooked bankers,steroid users,I can go on and on.All these other offenses have been commited by other folk,we let continue after they pay their debt................WHY NOT VICK?

by bill (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:25pm

McNabb, Vick and Westbrook in the same backfield could cause a few headaches.

... which one picks up the blitz?

He's also capable of replicating some of McNabb's skillset as a qb.

While in his youth DM had great athleticism, it is his decision-making that makes that offense run. And then there is Mr. Vick...

I believe this proves what many of us supected about Philly's long-term plans:
1) Sell all-out to win this year. Any means necc. DM's last hoorah as an Eagle.
2) In uncapped year dump DM and salary and put some money in the bank as insurance against stoppage and / or simple profits, starting Kolb as part of that process.
3) Re-tool in 2011 including a long-term Kolb deal or a new young QB, behind one of the few places they have invested money, the OL, to give him half a chance...

by Jimmy :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:08pm

This was a bit of a suprise. I guess Vick will only play for franchises named after birds of prey.

by MJK :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:21pm

So that means that if he washes out on the Eagles, the only team that would pick him up would be...the Seattle Seahawks? Maybe they could try converting him to a WR...

(Unless you consider a raven to be a bird of prey... or the new, "meaner-looking" cardinal)

by T. Diddy :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:08pm

Makes sense - with Kolb potentially injured, the Eagles needed somebody who could credibly undermine McNabb's confidence this year.

by doctorjorts :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:17pm

I laughed out loud at this. T. Diddy ftw.

by Scott C :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:20pm

On the other hand, maybe Goodell had a hand in this.

Philly fans are the best shot at booing Vick out of the league forever. ;)

by pouringlizards (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:23am

T.Diddy, you win the thread.

by Chris 1 (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:14pm

I was bashed over and over for my "hatred" of Vick at this site for years. I had non public info from people at VT and I couldn't possibly convey how bad of a human being he was. Not only that, he was the most overrated QB of all-time and I was screaming to deaf ears for a long long time until people realized he was average at best. Once a fan thinks a player is good... it is very difficult to shake that perception.... Vick didn't suck because he sucks... Vick sucked because his receivers like Roddy White and Alge Crumpler sucked! It gets old after a while but at least a bunch of the educated fans here saw it.

Well, Chris isn't so crazy anymore is he?

Thoughts on Philly? It was one of the few places he could actually go but the Eagles "west coast" offense is very different than that joke misdirection offense Greg Knapp custom created for him in Atlanta. If Vick ever wants to do anything, he'll have to put down the joint, grow up and try and study football for once in his life.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:28pm

We've disagreed a few times. Maybe even more then a few. But I lived in VA for 10 years, and knew (presumably) some of the same things that you knew. I always had your back on this one.

I feel absolutely humiliated that the team I followed for over a quarter century would do this.

My only saving grace is that the guy just isn't a very good quarterback, and the chances are fairly decent that he doesn't survive final cut down day.

by Chris 1 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:14am


Most people just saw the dog fighting thing and act like ( Vick made 1 mistake) now he needs a 2nd chance. In reality, this was more like his 1,000th mistake, only this time got caught and wasn't able to lie his way out of it.

The media kept the drugs, the ron mexico, the canceling on charity and many other things on the hush hush when Vick was still some what popular. By the time he was seen flicking off fans he had already wore out his welcome mat.

Also, to have that much money and end up Bankrupt is the definition of an idiot.

by TruFalcons (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:19pm

No one ever said that Alge Crumpler sucked. Though since Vick left his numbers have fallen off a cliff.....

by TruFalcons (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:23pm

The West Coast offense is the same base offense Vick ran with the Falcons as well. Just because Knapp installed a zone read play doesn't mean it was tailored to his talents. It's a pretty bad fit IMO, hopefully we'll get to see the Eagles with some Wildcat and shotgun spread formations so Vick can actually use his athleticism. Andy Reid is far and away a better playcaller than Knapp is.

by Chris 1 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:17am

You see that's not true.

Just because the media called it a West Coast offense, doesn't mean it was a West Coast offense. Vick taking shotgun snaps and running option keepers and misdirection looked more like a pro style wing T.

Vick has a severe lack of intelligence and the drive of a homeless man. Greg Knapp tried to make it as uncomplicated as possible and it still didn't work.

by Karl Cuba :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:27am

Knapp is a terrible coordinator. I'm not trying to suggest that Vick is a good passer but I've not rated Knapp since his time in San Francisco. That he is palling around with Mora instead of being able to find a job elsewhere speaks volumes. As a niners fan I'm glad he's in charge of the Seahawks offense, I can't believe that more pundits aren't making more of the Holmgren-to-Knapp downgrade in offensive playcalling.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:25pm

I have said all along that I would not support whatever team he signed with. I never in a million years thought that MY Iggles would be dumb enough to do it.

From this moment forward, as long as the dog killer is on the roster, I am no longer an Eagles fan. I will not watch them. I will not read about them. I will not cheer for them. I will not support them in any way. If Eagles highlights are on, I will watch commercials on a competitors station or I will turn it off.

I swore I would not support whatever team he signed with. In order for me to be able to look at myself in the mirror with any semblance of self-respect, that has to apply to all 32 teams; not just 31.

Go, uh, ???.

by AnonymousA (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:38pm

Falcons, obviously.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:53pm

I don't think I could do that. Never much cared for them. On the other hand, I have been a Matt Ryan fan since his high school days. He and I played on the same Pee Wee football team (but about 15 years apart).

I'm still just numb. Mulling over which word is more appropriate - betrayal or humiliation. I'm not sure I could blow off the entire league, but it's one option.

by DavidL :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:04pm

I'm considering going over to the Packers, myself.

by thestar5 :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:29pm

"I swore I would not support whatever team he signed with. In order for me to be able to look at myself in the mirror with any semblance of self-respect, that has to apply to all 32 teams; not just 31."

Maybe taking things just a bit too far??? I don't think you have to stop rooting for your team becasue they sign a player you don't like. Most teams have some bad dudes on them. In fact any time you take a random group of 50-60 guys you are bound to have some bad characters.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:01pm

I'll consider the source. I wouldn't expect a fan of "thestar" to know anything about self respect or integrity.

by Temo :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:03am

You know, he could have just made fun of you and your team, made some of the same tired jokes about Philly fans and all that stuff. But instead he tried to talk you off the ledge, told you that it's really not that bad, that's it ok to still root for your team.

But thankfully, I'm not constrained by such:

LOL. You got screwed here big time, and I couldn't be happier that the Iggles signed him. I'm sure there are quite a few Eagles fans who could relate to his criminality, he'll fit right back in. Clearly, replacing the likes of community leaders like Brian Dawkins with Mike Vick was the way to go.

On the bright side, I suppose Joe Banner can go on extolling his roster and preparing his excuses for how the best team never wins the Superbowl. Because hey, when you can acquire a washed up talent like Mike Vick, you have to do it, right?

by BucNasty :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:08am

You can root for the Ravens, another bird-themed team with Philly hometown hero Joe Flacco at the helm. Plus, it'll give you a chance to root for L.J. Smith some more.

by Dales :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 7:41am

This is a perfectly good time to come on over and become a Giants fan. Hell, we might even get into a situation where Winston Justice gets to block for Vick against Osi. That might cheer you up.

by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:47am

I've always thought that fans should pick one or two secondary adoptive teams in case of emergencies like "My team just signed Michael Vick!" or, in my case several years ago, "My team just signed Jake Plummer!" Just make sure one of them is an organization you definitely respect and then you're safer for these kinds of situations. I've never had to worry about losing my Denver allegiance because I long ago adopted Carolina and wherever-Bill-Parcells-is as secondary teams (even when he was with Dallas, ashamed though I am to admit it).

I also remember hearing years ago about a guy who as a baseball fan sent letters to every MLB team asking them why he should support them because his home team had done something that upset him to the same point you are. You could try that. However, I always thought the guy got shafted because he somehow ended up with the Pirates.

However, I'm not sure you have to ignore highlights or not read about them. Not cheer for or support yes but those seem a bit overboard.

I'm still trying to figure out why on earth the Eagles even signed him.

by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:49am

I've always thought that fans should pick one or two secondary adoptive teams in case of emergencies like "My team just signed Michael Vick!" or, in my case several years ago, "My team just signed Jake Plummer!" Just make sure one of them is an organization you definitely respect and then you're safer for these kinds of situations. I've never had to worry about losing my Denver allegiance because I long ago adopted Carolina and wherever-Bill-Parcells-is as secondary teams (even when he was with Dallas, ashamed though I am to admit it).

I also remember hearing years ago about a guy who as a baseball fan sent letters to every MLB team asking them why he should support them because his home team had done something that upset him to the same point you are. You could try that. However, I always thought the guy got shafted because he somehow ended up with the Pirates.

However, I'm not sure you have to ignore highlights or not read about them. Not cheer for or support yes but those seem a bit overboard.

I'm still trying to figure out why on earth the Eagles even signed him.

by Jerry :: Sun, 08/16/2009 - 4:32am

However, I always thought the guy got shafted because he somehow ended up with the Pirates.

Did they make him general manager?


by Wanker79 :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:11pm

I'm right there with you, Dean. Personally, I'm following Buddy's kid up the turnpike. The Jets have always been my #2 team but as long as the Eagles choose to be business with that despicable excuse of a man, I'm a Jets fans first and a fan of every team on the Eagles' schedule second (even the stinking Cowboys).

Second chances are for people who make a mistake. They are not for people who repeatedly perform vicious acts of cruelty over several years.

by Dice :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:30pm

Dean, I feel genuinely bad for you. Here's hoping you can find a team or two you can stand to follow closely during the season.

by Marko :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:57pm

I also feel bad for Dean and other Eagles fans with similar sentiments. I would have been furious if the Bears had signed Vick, but I was confident that the Bears' front office wasn't interested in him and that even if they were, Virginia McCaskey never would have approved a deal with Vick.

On another note: How much of a circus will there be in Atlanta when the Eagles visit on December 6? I presume NBC will try to get that game under the flex schedule, but Fox won't want to give it up. Maybe the NFL will intervene and give Fox something in return for not blocking the move.

by Sifter :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:06am

Well I don't feel bad for you Dean. Tough luck. You made a stupid deal with yourself assuming your beloved Eagles would have the moral backbone not to sign Vick and that some other sucker team would. But someone's eating humble pie now...

What now Dean? Are you going to run your high horse ruler over the 31 other teams to see if you can stomach the players on their roster?

Harsh I suppose, but you are happy to throw away your years of loyalty for one man who has payed in time and money for his crimes. Do you leave the country when the man you DIDN'T want as President gets voted in? I think you're overreacting but that's just my small opinion.

BTW, I'm an Eagles fan and I don't particularly like Vick.

by Temo :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:29am

Indeed. I have to invoke Harris' admonition for Tanier last year when Mike said he had conflicted rooting interests due to hometown-hero Flacco playing for the Ravens:

You don't go against the family, Dean. Not even if they hired a dog torturer.

by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:11pm

How many of these types of guys do Eagles need? Maclin Mccoy, Jackson, Westbrook, Vick all like the same type of runner-reiciever hyprid althought of course Vick only one with mental probelm. Question of the night is how do people like dogs in Pheiladelphia area? Is that a good dog city or in general do people not relaly like dogs there? This could be key. If people like dogs in Phi as much as people like dogs in NY and Cali then lots of Philadeplhia people especiall non football fans might protest team and stuff like that.

by lobolafcadio :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:35am

They don't like hot dogs, they prefer philly cheese steak...

by Brocephus (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 9:49pm

Eagles now have not one but *two* of the lowest Wonderlic scorers among QBs in the league.

by John (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:03pm

Well, I always said that if Vick was back in the league, I was done as an NFL fan.

As a Colts fan accustomed to having my heart broken in the playoffs, I guess I'll just be saving myself some misery.

Although this year looks awfully good, if they can sort out the O-line.

by Kevin 11 (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:55pm

"Well, I always said that if Vick was back in the league, I was done as an NFL fan."

I'm genuinely surprised to read this. I mean, you HAD to know that Vick would be reinstated at some point.

by Scott C :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:12pm

Well, my team is the Chargers and it was never a remote possibility. But each year I usually pick a NFC team to root for, and it has often been the Eagles.

It definitely will be some other team this year.... Even with how much I like some of the guys on the Eagles.

On the other hand, maybe this will make most Eagle fans actually root for McNabb for once.

by Jay (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:15pm

Will people stop watching the Browns if/when Stallworth comes back in two years? Dean, would you stop watching the Eagles if they resigned him instead of Vick? I'm not trying to pick on people - I'm legitimately curious.

by Brian :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:30pm

Well, in Stallworth's case, it was an accident. Stupid, yes, but nonetheless accidental. He didn't mean to hurt anybody.

Vick's crime was deliberate. That's what may dictate a difference in how fans might receive Vick compared how they might receive Stallworth.

Then again, they could both be reviled.

by Dean :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:49pm

It’s a valid question. And I’m sure that there will be a wide range of opinions on it. Eh, who am I kidding? How many people really give a shit about what I think of Dontae Stallworth? That’s the height of hubris. But since you asked, that makes at least one. (Caution - I have a bad habit of making a short story long.)

The answer is that I would not give up on my team over Stallworth.

In Stallworth’s case, he F’d up, big time, and he’s paying a heavy price. But two things stand out. First - intent. Stallworth didn’t wake up one morning and decide he felt like killing a man. That’s cold comfort to the victims family, but it’s also true. It doesn’t mean he should somehow not be held responsible for his actions. But there was no malice. The second point is remorse. Maybe I’m a tool, but I actually believe Stallworth when he says he’s haunted by this and will be for the rest of his life. Actions speak louder then words, and Stallworth’s actions immediately after were to accept responsibility - while he was still at the scene. He didn’t have to ask his agent first. He didn’t lie about it. He didn’t try to sweep it under the rug. He manned up and accepted responsibility. Again, cold comfort for the Reyes family, but insightful as to Stallworth himself.

Vick, on the other hand, knew what he was doing was illegal, even if he lacked the fiber to understand that it is morally reprehensible. He put the compound out in the middle of nowhere and painted it black for a reason. For six years, he woke up every day knowing that he’s a criminal and chose not to do anything about it. The litany of abuses has been sufficiently well documented that I don’t need to rehash it here. But I will also point out that the man already had a history of being a complete douche bag already. The stolen Rolex. The Ron Mexico herpes incident. Flipping off the fans. And that‘s just what made the newspapers. The pattern was there. He was a thug the whole time - he just hadn’t gotten caught before in anything of this magnitude.

The second point was remorse. Do I sense it in Vick? The answer is no. It’s entirely possible that I’m so poisoned against the man that I wouldn’t be able to see it no matter what. I’ll entertain that possibility. But if so, I’m comfortable in my own skin. And I don’t see remorse. I still see a man making excuses. A man blaming others - his upbringing, etc. I don’t see a man who has accepted responsibility for his actions. I see a man who is upset that he got caught and upset that his money is gone. I see a man who, if you give him wealth again, will make similar bad decisions again. I genuinely do not believe he has learned his lesson.

Those are my reasons. Could I accept Stallworth? Yes. I’d rather not, but I could. Will I ever accept Vick? No.

On a side note… Purely from a risk-management standpoint, it’s GALACTICALLY STUPID of the Eagles (I can’t even spell it with an I anymore) to invest their time and money on a man who is broke and just got out of prison for an interstate gambling ring.

by Chris 1 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:25am


And you are correct, those are the only things Vick was caught for. He's been a thug and had no regard for humanity for years and I don't believe has any remorse. Blame it on everyone but himself.

by DoubleB :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:53pm

Great question. Are there are any Rams fans who've stopped following the Rams after the Leonard Little KILLED a woman with his car and then proceeded to get drunk and drive again? Did Jerramy Stevens consistent run-ins with the law (including sexual assault) turn off any Seahawk fans or, more recently, Buc fans after he was signed by them?

Mike Vick did a terrible thing. According to a few above, Mike Vick is just a bad person and I have no reason to think differently. That being said, is it worse than what Little did or what Stevens probably did (with regards to the assault/rape)? Would their signings by your team cause you to rethink your support for that organization? I certainly don't remember any of the hand-wringing over it as there is for Vick's current signing.

by BigCheese :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:27am

Let's forget fans of teams. I want to know where these outraged fans of other teams that are quitting the NFL were when Little, Stevens and, let's not forget, Ray Lewis, who will get into the HoF on his frist year, returned to play.

Of course, they only killed/raped humans, so they're ok to have in the league, right?

I find what Vick did despicable. I wish he'd been signed by a team I hate rather than one I actually like quite a bit. I'm most certainly not going to stop following my favorite sport because of it. And I wouldn't really fault anyone whose moral compass told him that they can't support an organization who takes him back.

I AM however sickened to my stomach by the people who decry Vick as an offense to humanity so great they can't watch anything associated with him, while not giving a suit about Little, Lewis and specially Stevens, being able to play.

- Alvaro

by lobolafcadio :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:41am

I agree. It's quite hyppocrit to decry Vick, to say you won't support your team because of him being on the roster but to forgive to people who killed/rapped/sold drugs ?
Is the publicity around Vick's case to blame or what ?

by BucNasty :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:28am

Leave Shaq alone. Just because his album was terrible doesn't make him a bad person.

by Eddo :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 12:29pm

Well played, sir. Well played.

by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:16am

For the record, Ray Lewis did not kill anyone. He was never accused of murder, and his conviction was for obstruction of justice. His friends were accused of murder, but they were eventually acquitted. So he does not belong on the list with these other guys.

by Loomis (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:57pm

He was accused of murder; he was indicted for it by a Georgia grand jury, in fact. He then plea-bargained down to Obstruction of Justice on the condition that he'd testify against the other two guys. The other two guys were acquitted, and the Atlanta police haven't looked for anyone else since. (Hmm . . . who did it?)

Lewis also settled civil suits with the decedents' families for undisclosed amounts.

Irrelevant to the Vick situation and the comment to which I'm replying, I've long been stunned that someone who plea bargained out of a murder (!) charge embodies all that is good in football, but Chad Johnson dancing will destroy the spirit of the game.

by TomKelso :: Mon, 08/17/2009 - 12:55pm

You neglected to mention, Loomis, that the murder charges against Lewis were about to be summarily dismissed by the judge as the prosecution closed its case -- reported by Sal Paolantonio among others. Why would prosecutors accept an agreement from a person they were certain had committed murder -- DURING the trial? Because they had a very flimsy case -- but this was a famous athlete, and DA's have to run for re-election.

On a related note, prosecutors are almost wired to insist that they have the right guy, even if it's not. You have to have an amazing amount of certainty and flat-out ego to do that job. It can sometimes lead you into major embarrassments, like the Duke rape case, or worse -- Illinois shut down its Death Row when it DNA tests exonerated over half the people on it.

Lewis DID obstruct justice, though -- by refusing to co-operate with investigators. For that, he was convicted, sentenced and then punished by the league. His behavior and record since have been nothing short of exemplary. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share with us. From the evidence on hand, though, it does seem like Ray Lewis is a person who has made the MOST of his chance at redemption.

Civil suits get settled all the time to make them go away -- if I was trying to rebuild my life, and it took a pile of money that I had to free me to do that -- well it's only money. That's why civil settlements ALWAYS include language noting that this does not acknowledge and admission on the part of either party. A civil settlement such as this merely states that both parties will no longer pursue it -- and sets the price to be paid to the claimant.

I'm still flabbergasted that Dean thinks that Stallworth is paying a heavy penalty while Vick has not apparently paid enough. Drunk driving is not an accident -- and a human life is not diminished simply because the person who took it was too inebriated to give a good goddamn. So Stallworth doesn't get paid by the Cleveland Browns for a year -- there's nothing to preclude him from earning a living by other means -- unlike, you know, if he was still INCARCERATED, and then had to wait for the Grand High Inquisitor Gooddell to hand down his judgment.

by Loomis (not verified) :: Tue, 08/18/2009 - 10:13pm

I only pointed out that he WAS accused of murder, contra the post to which I replied, although I'd guess that it was liability based on Lewis being an "accomplice-after-the-fact." Hence, the obstruction of justice plea (if they had the facts for obstruction of justice, they probably had the facts for an accomplice-after-the-fact indictment, if not conviction).

I can see that my "Hmm . . . who did it?" may have appeared unclear -- I meant to suggest that Lewis's two friends killed the victims, not Lewis himself. My thoughts have always been that the prosecutors indicted Lewis on some accessory theory because he was high profile and they could easily flip him (he had a lot to lose) to get him to testify against his friends. And, like you pointed out, to bring notoriety to the prosecutor.

But he WAS accused of murder.

by tuluse :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:12pm

Well I didn't feel the need to make a public announcement, but I feel Stevens is the most despicable person in the NFL, and I will root against any team, coach, and GM that decides to sign him.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:30pm

I'm a Bucs fan and have remained one, but I actively cheer on every play for Jerramy Stevens to receive a horrible, career-ending injury.

by Theo :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:56pm

Neh. I look at what the convicts did. It's got little to do with the league. And nothing to do with the sport.

by JMO (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:26pm

But Jay, don't you understand..Stallworth only killed a human. Now if he had hit a pooch, string him up.

I love dogs, my grandad trains them (collies) so Ive been around them all my life. However this 'I'll never watch again/stop supporting the eagles' thing is nonsense. He went to jail and did his time. Time to let it go.

by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:35pm

If come back in Week 6, Vick going to get rude awakiening against Raiders. Raiders team and Raiders fans (Black Hole) goign to teach Vick a lesson. Dont be surprised if fans throw dog viscuits on field and fake dog poop (or maybe some real too) at Eagles bench and players.
Also good game to look forward to is week 13 game when eagles have to play at Arlanta.

by t.d. :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:37pm

I root for the Jags. MJD is a pretty despicable human being. You really do root for the laundry.

by glengarry :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:59pm

MJD? did i miss something? irony?

by t.d. :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:06pm

Jones Drew and Daniel Manning and a couple of other guys beat up some kid outside a Denny's shortly after they were drafted for 'acting like a faggot'.

by Marko :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:22pm

Wrong Manning. It was Ricky Manning Jr., not "Daniel" (or Danieal) Manning. And it wasn't shortly after Manning was drafted; it was shortly after he signed as a restricted free agent with the Bears.

I don't think MJD was charged in the incident, although Manning was.

by andrew :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:39pm

rundown of thoughts

1 - thank god it wasn't my team (vikings). Don't care how bad they needed a qb. Better Favre than Vick. Better T-Jack at his worst. Better Spergon Wynn.

2 - football-wise, does it even make sense? Vick, a west coast QB? Or Vick, the wildcart west QB? I don't doubt Reid can find ways to make it work. I do doubt whether what he does with him will be any better than they were with McNabb normally, which was pretty damn good.

4 - If Childress doesn't get canned, McNabb is the Vikings starting QB in 2010.

5 - I'm going to hate seeing green #7 jerseys everywhere this year. I predict it will be a top 5 selling jersey. Wonder how much that played into the eagles decision.

6 - "everyone deserves a second chance", "he paid his debt", "he learned his lesson". I keep hearing these things. He learned that if he does that, he will get smacked down and lose millions of dollars and go to jail. That is not the same thing as knowing it was the wrong thing to do. There are people in this world who only abide the law for fear of the repercussions if they don't. If law broke down they'd no trouble bashing someone's brains out because they were i their way or annoying them or whatever, for no reason. These people abide the law, but I cannot equate them with people who do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. I remain unconvinced Vick is in the latter group. I'm sure he won't do this again, because he learned of the consequences. I remain unconvinced he now has a moral compass independent of fear of consequences. FWIW, He's hardly the only one.

by John (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 10:41pm

It's funny how taking a principled stand is denigrated as "nonsense." Henry David Thoreau, where are you?

Vick built an enterprise on maiming and killing a species whose existence is tied to us, creatures with intelligence, with emotions, who have saved countless lives, who depend on us to protect them.

You're free to equate that (or not) with any of the other crimes committed around the league, and I'm not going to demand anyone else follow my lead, but I for one will make a simple statement: I'm not going to give the NFL my money or my attention while he's playing.

by Benjamin Light (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:47pm

Oh whatever, they shoot horses, don't they?

people swat insects, set mousetraps, kill gophers, fish in stocked lakes, hunt dear for sport, eat chicken raised in tiny cages, shoot birds for target practice and entertain themselves by watching grown men bare-handedly beat the shit out of each other until one of them passes out; but go ahead, take your "principled" stand on this.

by Sifter :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:10am

On a similar theme, you want to know someone else who wakes up every morning with the intent to kill animals?

Your local slaughterhouse employee...

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:07am

YOur local slaughterhouse employee kills animals as quickly as possible, for efficiency and humane reasons. Michael Vick tortured the animals. Theres a big difference there.

by Sifter :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:33pm

Yes humane reasons like...eating them for pleasure.

I think that if say 90% of the population were vegetarian and only 10% meat eaters there would be massive public outcry and wringing of hands over the lack of respect for animals by the meat eating faction of society.

But no one cares because the majority of people eat animals. I'm not trying to say anything about Vick through this, I'm just sayin' to get it off my chest.

by tuluse :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 3:28am

Congratulations, you've discovered that cultural norms are determined by the majority.

As a public figure it is Vick's responsibility to adhere to those norms. He only makes money because people are willing to pay money to watch him perform. If people are no longer willing to pay, he is out of a job. Thus, he needs to not do things that piss people off.

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:08am

YOur local slaughterhouse employee kills animals as quickly as possible, for efficiency and humane reasons. Michael Vick tortured the animals. Theres a big difference there.

by billsfan :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:21am

Pit bulls are generally regarded as a menace to society, useful for little more than attacking one's neighbor's children--it's not like Vick was killing West Highland Terriers or Border Collies, or any other "cute" or "useful" dog breed. Indeed, our local news in Boston ran a story about a pit bull attacking children immediately before the story on Vick signing with the Eagles.

That Vick was killing dogs is irrelevant. What matters is that he was knowingly engaged in criminal activity for an extended period of time. Many of the other NFL players with extra-curricular activities were one-time incidents.

My main criticism, though, is that he's just not that good of a QB, and the Eagles kind of already have a guy at that position. Although if Vick could gain some weight and help out on the OL...

(I also like the Eagles, although I may be on the lookout for a new NFC team...)

by Ben Rapelesberger (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 7:20pm

Theres nothing wrong with Pitbulls, other than that they don't back down at all when other dogs are involved.

The big problem with pitbulls is that exactly the wrong sort of people own them: people who want a dog that makes them look tough. Pitts don't play well with other dogs, and most of the pitt incidents are when people try to break up a fight between a pitt and some other dog.

Plenty of people own perfectly loving pittbulls, and plenty of people own very dangerous labs, collies, etc.

by MJK :: Sun, 08/16/2009 - 1:47am

There was a dog behaviorial study not too long ago that proved that pitt bulls were no more likely to be aggressive or hostile than any other breed of dogs...and less likely to be hostile than some breeds (I think chihuahuas and terriers and German Shepherds were the most likely to be hostile and aggressive...and greyhounds the least, although I could be remembering that wrong).

But the problem with pitt bulls (in addition to what the poster above notes...that there is a higher correlation between being a pit bull owner and being a bad dog owner), is that when they ARE hostile, they have the potential to do quite a bit more damage than most dogs. An aggressive terrier might break the skin, and an aggressive chihuahua might be the sugject of ridicule, but an aggressive pit bull can kill someone.

by billsfan :: Mon, 08/17/2009 - 10:56am

Since statistical analysis is the coin of the realm around here:


Dog bite deaths and maimings US and Canada (1982-2007)
By compiling US and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2007, Animal People News determined the types of breeds most responsible for death and serious injury.
The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers and wolf hybrids:

* 77% of attacks that induce bodily harm
* 73% of attacks to children
* 83% of attack to adults
* 70% of attacks that result in fatalities
* 77% that result in maiming

It's possible that the sensationalist media, uh, sensationalizes attacks by these breeds, but:

Dog bite fatalites in the US (1979-1998)
Researchers reviewed a 20-year period from 1979 to 1998 to determine the types of breeds most responsible for US dog bite fatalities.

* At least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during this time span. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997[sic]-1998, over 60%.
* Researchers note that it is extremely unlikely that pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 60% of dogs in US households during this period thus, there appeared to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

Regardless, the combination of powerful dog and owner likely to be negligent is a dangerous combination. They aren't all Spuds MacKenzie.

(I also like the Eagles)

by Ed Werder (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:24pm

Damn. I wanted to see Michael Vick with the Cleveland Browns.

Imagine a "Vick Goes To The Dog Pound" headline.

by panthersnbraves :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:56am

That was funnier than hell!

If he signed with the Panthers, Bengals, Lions, or Jags, would it have been "Vick welcomed at Cat House"?

by Herbert Kornfeld (not verified) :: Thu, 08/13/2009 - 11:49pm

I've been a Redskins fan all my life, and like many Redskins fans I've always rooted for whoever's playing Dallas with equal fervor. Last year's laughable 44-6 regular season finale was an unbridled spectacle of joy for me and my family, believe me. Using "hate" in a fan sense, I have hated the blue star on the silver background as purely as it can be hated for over thirty years.

This year, I hope Dallas absolutely crucifies the Eagles twice. If it's 55-7 in the fourth quarter, bombs away, I'm rooting for it to be 62 and then 69. Even if it means that Dallas gets in the playoffs and my beloved Redskins don't. When the Cowboys play the Eagles, I will root for the Cowboys so hard that people will wonder whether Jerry Jones is sleeping with me. I will wear silver and blue on those two days. I will spend the morning meditating on and telling others about the true greatness of every member of the Cowboys' Ring of Honor. I will eat pancakes in the shape of a star. I will pray, facing the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, specifically for the health and good mental state of every Dallas player five times a day for the preceding week. If requested, I will take an entire day in the week before the Cowboys play the Eagles just to shine the shoes of the Dallas coaching staff. Not just the game-day shoes, ALL of them. If Dallas should lose the game I will cover myself in sackcloth and ashes and mourn inconsolably for the entire week following, if necessary using all remaining vacation and personal days to so do. My heart would be gladder to see Dallas go 16-0 and win the Super Bowl than it would be to see the Eagles win the opening coin toss in a preseason game.

I'm not kidding, actually.

by 3.14159265 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:42am

Herbert Kornfeld,

I like your passion Kornfeld. I, too, abhor the Cowboys. You can root against them the other fourteen games, though.

I think the Eagles fan who decided to stop watching is perfectly valid. Why should he give his free time and money to a team who does something he doesn't like? Who is anybody else to tell him because he was once a fan of the Eagles he must remain a fan no matter what. That is nonsense, not the other way around.

Well, Vick now has his second chance. Will he do anything with it? I am surprised though that the NFL let him back, not because of the dog fighting, but because of the interstate gambling operation, especially as the NFL goes to court in Delaware to get an injunction against sports betting.

by Ghost of Wes Hopkins (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:02am

@ Herbert-
you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but why, I wonder, is it so harsh? Are the Eagles an evil franchise for employing Vick? Perhaps your vitriol should be directed against the NFL for allowing Vick back into the league. Would you suggest teams collude to keep him out of the league after Goodell's ruling, rather than compete within the confines the league erects? Why must the teams, rather than the league itself, dole out the moral judgments? I'm just not understanding why your venom is directed at the team that employed him rather than the league that made it possible; surely one can't fault the Eagles for operating as a NFL franchise rather than an arbiter of virtue.

by panthersnbraves :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:00am

At least the other 31 teams' fans can breathe easier knowing that he won't be showing up on their roster.

by Snowglare :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:43pm


by c_f (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:02am

Wow, as if McNabb didn't already have half of Philadelphia constantly calling for his head.

Food for thought:

Leonard Little killed a person in 1999 (involuntary vehicular manslaughter -> 90 days). Is no one allowed to root for the Rams, or has he now "learned his lesson"?

What about Chris Henry of the Bengals?

What about Jerramy Stevens (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270....) who avoided rape charges despite vast circumstantial evidence and witness accounts? (plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerramy_Stevens#Legal_troubles assault and hit-and-run) Are people allowed to be Buccaneer fans?

by 3.14159265 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:15am

People can root for whatever team they want. People can also stop rooting for whatever team they want for any reason they want. One guy expressed his opinion that he was no longer an Eagles fan because of this. Another guy who only rooted for the Eagles to beat the Cowboys expressed his opinion that he would root the other way because of this. It is their free time, and their money, so why should they have to keep spending it on the Eagles who apparently have done something those fans don't like? Because they were once fans, they have to fans for life? My team, right or wrong?

The Eagles had to know that they would alienate a certain percentage of their fan base by signing Vick. Those fans are now free to do whatever they want with that free time and money they spent on the Eagles. Who knows maybe they will become Flyers fans now, though I wouldn't recommend it. People vote with their time and wallets, that is the free market at work.

by BigCheese :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:32am

Again, I have no problem with people choosing to no longer support their team.

What I want to know is where the people who are quitting the NFL were when the other players were signed or reinstated?

Is the Redskins fan rooting for the Cowboys everytime they play the Rams, Bucaneers or Ravens?

Those are the people that care more about dofs than other people, and that I simply can not get behind.

- Alvaro

by 3.14159265 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:23am

Maybe they weren't fans then. How do you know that nobody stopped rooting for the Rams after Little's second DUI? I don't particularly care to go through every Rams message board, or the letters to the editors in every newspaper in Rams country to find out. I would lay a few dollars on the bet that there were a few MADD's who were also Rams fans that stopped rooting for the Rams after Little's first DUI, let alone the second. Hell, e-mail your questions to ESPN and maybe they will put in one of those sports nation polls, or send it to Mike and Mike in the morning and they may pose it on the air, hell knows they always need more material.

Hell, here is another thought. Maybe Vick was the straw that broke the camels back as far as various reinstatement went.

by MJK :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:29pm

Wait, you mean that people actually root for the Rams?

by Whatev (not verified) :: Sun, 08/16/2009 - 2:07am

People root for the lions, so there must be somebody for the Rams.

by TomKelso :: Mon, 08/17/2009 - 1:14pm

Hey, pi, I wonder how many of those fans came back when the "second DUI" was thrown out of court -- because the officer administering the tests had a history of faking test results?

Nothing is ever as simple as it looks -- but as politicians learned a long time ago, repeating a lie over and over can sometimes make people think it's a fact.

by Mr Shush :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:25am

I fully take the point - and if Vick had signed with the Texans, I wouldn't have liked it but I wouldn't have stopped supporting them either - but Stevens was not convicted. I think he probably is a rapist, and that is certainly worse than being a dog killer, but it is plausible that he's innocent. However much distaste I have for the man, I could not condone any person being excluded from living as he otherwise would merely on grounds of strong suspicion. That way lies a society I have no desire to be a part of - and one which we're veering dangerously towards, on my side of the Pond at least.

by c_f (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:04am

Wow, as if McNabb didn't already have half of Philadelphia constantly calling for his head.

Food for thought:

Leonard Little killed a person in 1999 (involuntary vehicular manslaughter -> 90 days). Is no one allowed to root for the Rams, or has he now "learned his lesson"?

What about Chris Henry of the Bengals?

What about Jerramy Stevens (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270....) who avoided rape charges despite vast circumstantial evidence and witness accounts? (plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerramy_Stevens#Legal_troubles assault and hit-and-run) Are people allowed to be Buccaneer fans?

by bingo762 :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:20am

Boo-hoo. Stop crying. He served his time. Let's get on with it.

by SethD (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 1:30am

As someone who's worked in a legal aid clinic, gotta say this news makes me happy. This does set an example: if you complete your legal punishment, you can pursue the best career possible. That's a message everyone should take to heart. I've worked with people who were guilty-guilty as sin- but who had cleaned up, flown straight for a decade, and still couldn't get a job. That's not right. For my money, punishment should end when the law says it does, like it did here. For those who say there's a double standard, that's true, but it's not the NFL or Eagles in the wrong, it's the rest of the country.

Also, I don't buy the "demonstrated immorality" argument some people have advanced. We judge people for their acts, not what's inside. Vick was punished for his acts. The road of "well he's thinking. . ." ends at the Ministry of Truth. The point about recidivism when he gets rich again, however, is well-taken.

All that said, as an Eagles fan, not really sure what they'll do with the man. But, I, at least will be eager to find out. (Though I don't mind people giving up their tickets. If demand plummets I might be able to afford a seat.)

by ashok (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:25am

You seem to be the only person here that understands that populist rage, no matter how justified, represents the gravest threat possible to the rights of individuals - our fellow citizens, no matter how despicable - and the rule of law.

Thank you.

by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:24am

Good point, but I think a lot of people get that. It's just that the outraged populists are noisy and they post a lot on message boards.

At least, I hope that is the case. The good thing about populist rage is that it never lasts. Once the new scandal comes along, the old one is quickly forgotten.

by Charlie (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 6:29am


by Agamemnon :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:29am

Yet I don't think that Vick's situation will change the double standard that the rich can carry on with their normal lives and jobs while everyone else below them has to mark 'yes' on employment applications about whether they've been convicted of a felony.

by kamchatka (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:19am

Yes, thank you, Seth. No one benefits from making sure Vick remains unemployed.

Working in the NFL is indeed a privilege, and it is reasonable to be disturbed by the capriciousness with which it exercises its right to suspend its employees. But the moral indignation and schadenfreude are just downright silly. I love dogs as much as the next guy.

I wonder why people expect Goodell to act as a surrogate judicial system when we have the real thing for that. The judge who sentenced Vick would have been within his rights to dictate the terms of Vick's release, and apparently felt that two years' time was enough. If you disagree, take it up with your legislator.

by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:05am

"This does set an example: if you complete your legal punishment, you can pursue the best career possible. ... I've worked with people who were guilty-guilty as sin- but who had cleaned up, flown straight for a decade, and still couldn't get a job. That's not right."

I don't see this as an example of that at all. I see this as just another example that professional athletes/movie stars/ etc, don't have to live by the rules that the rest of the world does.

I'm a big proponent of the idea that if you're going to say justice system is about rehabbing criminals, then they should be allowed fully back into society, but that doesn't happen, except in the case of famous people.

by Eddo :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 12:38pm

Rich, you have a point; Vick likely wouldn't have been able to resume his career so promptly if he was an accountant or a software developer or a ad executive.

However, I think one could make an argument that Vick's punishment for his crime was actually harsher than anyone with said professions would have received, as his case was very, very high-profile and he was used to "set an example".

by Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:56am

Call me crazy, but from the standpoint of winning games, it doesn't seem like it is such a bad idea for the Eagles to sign Vick. They aren't tying up much money in him this year, and in the role of a qb coming in mid-game in relief of a McNabb who has gotten dinged, when the opposing d-coordinator hasn't spent scheming for Vick, I could see Vick winning a game or two for the Eagles. That is worth a million in a half. The second year of the deal seems structured for Vick to be released, absent a McNabb injury followwed by multi-game heroics by Vick. It makes sense, footbal-wise.

From the PR standpoint, it's a disaster, of course, but the Eagles aren't seeking stadium subsidies, like, for instance, the Vikings, so the Eagles don't have to be as sensitive regarding energetic opposition to their busieness.

by 3.14159265 (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:31am

Will Allen (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 2:56am


From the PR standpoint, it's a disaster, of course, but the Eagles aren't seeking stadium subsidies, like, for instance, the Vikings, so the Eagles don't have to be as sensitive regarding energetic opposition to their busieness.

I am not sure it will really be that big of a disaster. The Eagles probably have a ton of demographic info about their fans, did the cost benefit analysis, and decided it was a wash, or that the Eagles organization might come out on top in the end. As you said in the earlier part of your post they hedged their bet pretty well on his contract. I wonder what the numbers really will be on the side of P.R. hit and lost fans, lost revenues vs. remaining fans, and any new fans Vick brings. I am sure there are many other variables that I have not included, but it could be interesting to know the true cost of giving Vick a job.

captcha: krakatoa 4.5-million
Maybe this captcha is trying to tell me something!

by lobolafcadio :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:51am

Even from a PR stand point it can be a good thing.
If Vick is a model citizen, the Eagles were right.
If Vick is an awful citizen, the Eagles gave him a chance but he didn't take him, not the Eagles' fault.

Well played, it can be a win-win for the Eagles.

by qed :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:14am

I don't think Michael Vick (2005 version) would have been very successful in the Eagles' base offense. I'm pretty sure the 2009 version won't be any better. Maybe if he had a full offseason and training camp to learn the offense he'd have a shot, but as it is I'm not even sure if the Eagles will list him as a QB.

I think his ceiling at this point is an elite punt returner who can run 5-10 option plays a game. If he can be successful doing that then the Eagles will have made a good football decision. As raiderjoe pointed out they've already got several small, speedy open-field guys, I really don't think Vick adds that much.

by bubqr :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 4:09am

I find it quite funny that people will stop rooting for the Eagles / stop watching the NFL if Vick plays again.

You know what ? I think that if you really want to make sense, leave your country, leave the US, because if for you what Vick did was that awful, it's the justice system that you should blame. I've just read 50 comments about the Eagles FO being evil for signing Vick, but nothing about the Justice system that allowed him to be free.

And yeah, I do think that he deserves a second chance.

I despise more people driving drunk multiple times (especially the ones who just killed someone before, see Little, Leonard) than Vick.
For having seen the kind of damages drunk drivers can do, if they can play in the NFL, some with no suspension, a man that did his time in jail and is on probation can. If you disagree, blame the US Justice system first, before blaming the NFL and the Eagles.

by CornerBlitz :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:01am

Wow...'histrionics' is certainly an appropriate term.

I'm not going to tell anyone that they should/shouldn't back away from the ledge or cite examples of other NFLons (en-eff-elons) who are/aren't as bad/worse than Vick, and should/shouldn't have subsequently served their time and be accepted/should be doomed forever/are part of the apocalypse.

I will say that I wish everybody would hold themselves to the same standard that they hold Mike Vick. And I wish on Mike

"Jay Cutler - he saves lives." Jerry Angelo, 2009

by CornerBlitz :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:04am

oops...the same I wish for myself: the best. Not in football, but in life.

"Jay Cutler - he saves lives." Jerry Angelo, 2009

by Bernard Bernoulli (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:39am

I'm fed up with all the "Vick should never be allowed to play again" comments, and with all the people saying they will never watch the Eagles again. Did he do a bad thing? Yes. Was he punished for it? Yes. If you don't think the punishment was enough, stiff shit. The NFL isn't a justice system, they only have a right to punish players insofar as they do things which are detrimental to the league. Roger Goodell doesn't stand as judge, jury and executioner over Vick's character: His job is to determine how much he's harmed the NFL and punish accordingly.

As for the "stallworth is better than Vick" arguments: Somebody is dead because Stallworth was too arrogant or stupid to get a taxi. No amount of remorse can alter that fact. If I were the guy's family I don't think I could stand to watch the guilty party running around catching passes in a year's time.

by houle (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:42am

Vick's career rushing average is 7.3 yards per attempt. The NFL salary cap is something like 128 million this year, with teams needing to spend a minimum of 108 million. For a 54 man roster that's a minimum average of 2 million per player. Signing Vick as a 3rd QB/ 3rd RB for 1.6 million is an absolute steal. The 5 million option ensures that, if he's any good at all, the Eagles will either keep him or be able to trade him for a few draft picks. I'm extremely dissappointed that the Patriot's didn't find a way to sign him. This really could be one of the better signings of all time, given the microscopic risk of that contract.

by GBS :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 8:51am

Seen on another message board:

Vick is a perfect fit for the Eagles.

If there is anybody that can dodge a snowball packed with batteries... it is Vick.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:55am

This thread is utterly hilarious. How to make it better . . . I suppose speculating whether Peyton Manning or Tom Brady would run a better dogfighting ring would be over the top?

by billsfan :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:47am

Well, Manning's dogs put up better numbers, but if you had to pick a dog to win a tournament...

(I also like the Eagles)

by Karl Cuba :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:19am

That's a shortsighted way of looking at it. Brady's dogs might win more tournaments but generally have had better support around them. The one time Manning's dogs had a similar set up they proved that they could win. . .

by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:51pm

It all boils down to the fact that Belichick kept sending cute little dogs over to distract the opponent. Poodlegate completely taints all of Brady's championships! He couldn't have done it on the basis of his own kibble!

by Karl Cuba :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:13pm

There's no evidence that Belichick's spying on Manning's type of leash gave LaBradoodle any real advantage.

LaBradoodle has also been successfully put out to stud several times with high rates of success following his tournament wins so that should be taken into account.

by Jimmy :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:11pm

What really bugs me is that Roger Goodog destroyed all the poodle pictures and tapes leaving fans like me wondering why he took the unprecendented step of fining Belichick $500000 and taking away their first pick of the litter.

Without those poodles Brady wouldn't have been fit to hold Manning's rape stand.

by billsfan :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:06am

Well, Manning's dogs put up better numbers, but if you had to pick a dog to win a tournament...

(I also like the Eagles)

by CuseFanInSoCal :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 9:59am

This strikes me as kind of silly move. Vick's not enough younger than McNabb to be the QB of the future, and McNabb's way too good for anyone other than McNabb to be the QB of right now (not to mention that it's basically giving up on Kevin Kolb). And there are tons of spread option running QBs out there if you want to bring someone in for wildcat formation stuff; there's no need to bring in Vick.

by Boston Dan :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:06am

Ok so I was wrong about Vick being signed.

Maybe it's my anti-mainstream media backlash. Watching ESPN and the NFL network, the talking heads make Vick out to be a 5 tool player. If it's so easy to catch the ball, how come defensive backs drop so many would be interceptions?

Can't say I won't be interested to see how or if at all the Eagles use him on the field though.

by ChiJeff (not verified) :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 11:19am

Well I for one will be very interested in seeing how Mike Vick will mesh with the Eagles. Alot of the sucess will be determined if Vick can humble himself and dedicate himself to making a contribution to the Eagels regardless of which position he plays. If he has a sense of entitlement he and the Eagles will be sunk. But the man's athletic abilities are very intriguing for the right team.

As far as the " moral " issues surrounding the signing, he has paid his debt for the crime committed. For those Eagles fans who will in essence " boycott " the Eagles and the NFL, to you I say kudos. For those of us who will continue to watch and support the NFL, well let's enjoy what I think will be one of the more exciting seasons in recent history.

by vesini :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 12:48pm

I don't know if this has been covered, but ...


When the Eagles signed Terrell Owens, they didn't have to provide the Niners any compensation ... but, to make peace in the NFL, they traded Brandon Whiting and a 5th rounder to the Niners ... so, there has been a tradition of the Eagles making deals with the NFL regarding star players who have bad reputations.

I think this is a good signing, from the perspective of the Eagles needs (backup QB & offensive enigma) and Vick (strong team, chance to rehabilitate his career) ...

And to all those who oppose him being reinstated, may I offer two examples: Leonard Little and Donte Stallworth. Little killed a woman with his car and played for several years after this happened - and may still be playing? - and Stallworth was suspended for the year by Goddell for exactly the same crime.

So, before Goddell, if you were an NFL player and you killed someone, you kept playing NFL football.

After Goddell, if you killed a dog, you got suspended and were given a chance to redeem yourself. If you killed a HUMAN, you got suspended and - well, we'll have to see with Stallworth ... Maybe, just maybe, a human's life should be valued a little bit higher than a dog's.

vesini, who did not use the proper stats, and is dead.

by 3.141592653 not... :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:21pm

Grow a brain.

Donte' Stallworth is suspended for this season.

by Ben Stuplisberger :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:27pm

Can we not punish Vick forever for the dog fighting? If he ran a bull fighting ring in Spain nobody would care. Just admit you're culturally biased and move on.

For the record: I am a dog owner, and I would never do what he did to the dogs or to any other animal.

I agree with Vesini, it should be obvious that killing a human is worse than an animal. And to those that say Stallworth made one mistake, think about this: How many people do you know that drink and drive and only did it once? Drinking and driving is accepted among some members of the population, more than most will admit. I find controlling a dangerous two ton weapon while drunk to be more reprehensible than anything Vick did.

That being said, they're football players, I don't care about what they do off the field. I don't have to like them to be a fan. I'm not inviting them to my home, I don't consider them to be heroic or great people, they are my entertainment. I don't mind rooting for the laundry!

by 3.141592653 not... :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:49pm

Ben Stuplisberger,

'Are you not entertained?' -Maximus

Holy Christ, your chosen handle 'Stuplisberger' suits you. Nobody is debating the worth of a human life vs. an animal's life. Nobody is debating wether drinking and driving is more or less reprehensible than fighting dogs and gambling upon the outcome.

Here is an idea for you; read the entire thread.

Holy Christ!

by Ben Stuplisberger :: Sun, 08/16/2009 - 4:32pm

You obviously didn't read my post, judging by your failure to address the main issue.

by 3.141592653 not... :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 3:56pm

Holy Christ!

by Theo :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:10pm

That's short sighted.
Yes driving while being drunk is like gambling with other peoples lives. It's like shooting a gun into a street at random.
Yes killing dogs is bad.
But to say that I don't care, because they're football players... I can't root for a thug. Vick will have to re-win the public opinion.
And with a little help of ESPN and its retarded clone at National Football Post, he will do fine.

by MJK :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 5:47pm

Maybe someone could explain to me why the mainstream media keeps saying over and over again that Vick's skills are well suited to the West Coast Offense. From what I understand, Bill Walsh invented the WCO (or, what we call the WCO today...I don't want to get into the debate about the "real" WCO) specifically because franchise QB's with both good passing skills and amazing physical skills came along so rarely, and he wanted to invent a system that could play to strengths that were more easily found. That he found Joe Montanna was luck, but the whole point of the WCO is that the QB doesn't need to be amazingly athletic...he just has to be smart and excellent at running a very precisely timed offense the subsists on short quick throws to specific locations on the field chosen by how the defense orients itself.

It seems to me like Vick is a very poor fit for this system. His strengths are that he combines amazing athleticism with passable, but not great, passing ability, and often is held back by very poor decision making (which seems common to most scrambling QB's). So he has exactly the skills that the WCO tries to make unnecessary, while lacks the skills that the WCO requires. In Atlanta, I always thought the coaching staff was stupid for trying to make Vick run a WCO...it seemed round peg-square hole. But now I hear commentators talking about how the Eagles run a WCO (which I don't really think is true...but I don't watch enough Eagles to be certain) and so that will be perfect for Vick.

It almost seems like he might be better suited to a shotgun spread type offense (like the Patriots often run), or an option-heavy single-wing Wildcat type thing.

by Karl Cuba :: Fri, 08/14/2009 - 10:39pm

I agree that Vick is a poor fit for Walsh's offense. It required a qb that had very precise footwork so that his feet are matched with the receiver's routes. Vick has awful footwork. Quarterbacks with good footwork tend to have put the necessary work in, as opposed to running dog-fighting rings.

I always felt he was at his best at the start of his career when Dan Reeves was running a very simple scheme where he had to make one or two reads and then run.

by BDAABAT (not verified) :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 8:49am


I wonder... how will folks react... the one's who have been so vocal in their distaste for all things Vick-tainted... so called long time die hard Iggles fans... how will they react IF their once beloved Iggles do well this year? Or, heaven forbid, they actually WIN a Superbowl?


by JMM :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 9:28am

Vick, after serving his time for running an illegal gambling operation, chose to go to the team closest to where he could soon place a legal bet on games (30 min drive to Delaware,) and play other games of chance legally (90 min drive to Atlantic City.)

Third and ten in the fourth quarter with Vick on the field will be interesting this year.

by Xeynon (not verified) :: Sat, 08/15/2009 - 10:57am

As an Eagles fan, I've got extremely mixed feelings on this. From a moral standpoint, I'm extremely unhappy. I think Michael Vick is a thug, I abhor what he did, and the thought of rooting for him to succeed makes me queasy.

That said, I think it's a bit much to pretend that as football players go he's a uniquely awful human being and that other NFL players haven't done things just as awful or worse. Leonard Little killed someone driving drunk. So did Daunte Stallworth. Ray Lewis at the very least was intimately involved in a murder case. Jamal Lewis sold loads of cocaine, which means he indirectly contributed to the killing of all those policemen and civilians by Mexican drug cartels. Jerramy Stevens is a rapist. So, it's likely, was Mark Chmura, and in his case, of an underaged girl. Vick is not the first crummy human being to play in the NFL - it's likely that no matter what NFL team you root for, you've rooted for some bad people, so please, enough with the sanctimony.

On the other hand, I completely and utterly disagree that this was a bad football move, and I think the Eagles could quite possibly introduce revolutionary wrinkles into NFL offense this season. Those pointing out that the Eagles already have a quarterback are missing the point that Vick was not signed to back up or supplant McNabb - he was signed as a multipurpose weapon that will be featured in the dozens of new plays Reid is likely already drawing up. I suspect the Eagles will take the Wildcat to a new level this season. But they'll go beyond that. Imagine, if you will, a "double barrelled shotgun" formation with McNabb and Vick lined up side by side in the shotgun, and Westbrook, Jackson, Maclin, and Curtis spread across the formation as receivers. How do you defend that? Spy the quarterback and play man? You don't even know which quarterback is getting the ball, and literally every single one of the skill players is capable of going all the way if you blow a coverage. Blitz? Blitz who? If you blitz McNabb and Vick gets the ball, you're screwed. Even if your blitz is targeted at the correct side, a simple audible could flip the play and put the ball in the hands of the other quarterback. Drop back in a deep zone? Might prevent the big play, but with not one but two guys who are threats to both run and throw the ball, you'll be conceding 5+ yards on every play.

Andy Reid did not suddenly go crazy, at least not as a football coach. He obviously signed Vick with a plan in mind, and I think it would be rather foolish to underestimate him - he is one of the best coaches in the NFL at creating mismatches. Vick, particularly if he is not the primary quarterback, is a walking mismatch every time he steps on the field. The Eagles' offense just got a LOT harder to defend.

by 3.141592653 not... :: Sun, 08/16/2009 - 5:28am

I think Vick will be lucky to see the field this season. How good could he be after all the time he has missed, and living on jail house food?

by Jets fan (not verified) :: Mon, 08/17/2009 - 2:39pm

call me crazy ...
but I just might drive drunk.

However, I think I am too sane of a person to beat a dog to death by smashing it in the head with a hammer. Seems to me, you have to be a wack-job..-certifiably crazy to beat a dog to death with a hammer. So seems to me, the issue shouldn't be about Vick playing football again, and making a couple million dollars next year. The question to me is -- how in the heck does a person that is this friggin crazy walk the streets again? He never should have been in jail... He's insane ! This should never have been a legal issue -it's a medical issue ... This dude is too crazy to be walking the streets!