12/21/24
November 16, 2010
Michael Vick Lights Up Washington for 6 TDs, 413 Yards: Michael Vick's numbers in Philadelphia's 59-28 win over Washington last night: 20-for-28 passing with 333 yards and four touchdowns, 8 carries for 80 yards rushing and two touchdowns and a 150.7 quarterback rating. Hall of Famer Steve Young called Vick's performance the "full fruition of the position." More importantly, his 49 fantasy points are ESPN's third-best since 2000. "If Donovan McNabb is worthy of a five-year, $78 million deal that reportedly included significant guaranteed money, what is Vick, who is three years younger, worth?" asks Ashley Fox.
Vick may be the best left handed bargain in professional sports since Vida Blue earned $13,000 in his rookie season.
posted by beaverboard at 12:19 PM on November 16, 2010
Per ESPN, McNabb's contract is not as ridiculous as previously thought.
posted by 86 at 12:33 PM on November 16, 2010
I couldn't believe that game. That was the best blowout I have ever seen. Vick was magnificent. The Eagles as a whole were terrific. The Washington team was awful. I don't think you can really blame McNabb for that game. McNabb was not brought to Washington to score more than 60 points. They put up 28 points, which is decent. The real travesty was the Washington defense. They were not ready for anything that the Eagles were going to do.
posted by bperk at 02:09 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick is three years younger?
How much is that in dog (killing) years?
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:31 PM on November 16, 2010
I'm surprised Mike had such a good game, what with the spectacular effort put in by a certain Mr Haynesworth.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 02:51 PM on November 16, 2010
I've fallen and I can't get up.
posted by graymatters at 02:55 PM on November 16, 2010
In his defense, he was searching for his and his team's dignity.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:03 PM on November 16, 2010
I think they were down by more than 45 points at that point in the game. Haynesworth has to be thinking "I told you we don't have the personnel for the 3-4." Shanahan and co. took a top 10 defense and gave the viewing audience this debacle.
posted by bperk at 03:05 PM on November 16, 2010
"I told you we don't have the personnel for the 2-4."
Fixed it for you, at least when Haynesworth is in.
posted by graymatters at 03:14 PM on November 16, 2010
Did McNabb change is number to 92?
posted by dyams at 03:39 PM on November 16, 2010
What makes the Haynesworth lay down that much more egregious is that this blocker, by virtue of not being engaged, has the freedom to then block the defensive lineman (no. 99) who actually got past his man before that lineman can get to Vick.
posted by holden at 04:47 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick is three years younger?
How much is that in dog (killing) years
You've made it obvious on many occasions that you don't believe in second chances. But it would be nice to have at least one thread on this incredible comeback where you didn't pop in just to remind everyone that Michael Vick killed dogs. Unlike you, I think many of us would rather focus on the positive.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:54 PM on November 16, 2010
Thank you YYM! I couldn't agree more. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion but geez! Get a new horse to beat. Vick paid for his crime financially and physically, give the man a break. And I wish the guys commentating the game would STFU about it too.
posted by steelergirl at 06:11 PM on November 16, 2010
And I hope he plays like this for the rest of the season.
posted by steelergirl at 06:12 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick was awesome. That first quarter was like watching Madden, except one of the players didn't know how to play.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:49 PM on November 16, 2010
Upon review, yes, josher71, that wasn't the best phrase. Apologies.
posted by steelergirl at 08:27 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick paid for his crime financially and physically
The name Michael Vick at this time is synonymous with killing dogs. To some, it will not matter how many yards he rushes/passes or how many PETA meetings he attends. The reality is that he killed dogs, went to prison, and is a convicted felon.
I think many of us would rather focus on the positive.
To simply not mention this aspect of Vick's background, either on Spofi or elsewhere, will not make it go away. When someone mentions Vick's name, whether he had a great game or whatever the reason, the dog-killing aspect will surface, even if it is only a thought in the back of the brain, and not written on some thread or in a news story.
This earlier aspect of Vick's life, his time away from the NFL, and the type of person he was back in his dog-killing days, make his comeback now all the more noteworthy.
And I hope he plays like this for the rest of the season.
Perhaps he will. But denying what he did, refusing to talk about it, or berating others who choose to bring the subject up will not help Michael Vick. Only Michael Vick and time can do that.
posted by roberts at 08:39 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick paid for his crime financially and physically, give the man a break. And I wish the guys commentating the game would STFU about it too.
Yeah, my respect for him dropped a few notches. (re: Steve Nash)
So, being involved not just in dog-fighting, but hanging, drowning, electrocuting and shooting dogs is forgivable and we should just get over it, but the details of Nash's personal life and the dissolution of his marriage with no idea of circumstance is cause for moral consternation? Interesting.
posted by Ufez Jones at 08:49 PM on November 16, 2010
He did his time and absolutely deserves his second chance in the game. I am 100% behind it, just as I support the ability for any convicted felon to be released and find employment.
But we're entitled to hate him for what he did. He hasn't shown an ounce of genuine remorse for it. He's a psychopath who tortured and killed innocent companion animals for fun. He has admitted that he'd still be doing it if he hadn't gotten caught.
So excuse me (and WFrazer and many others) for not letting it die. I don't care that he did his time. He's still an evil person that I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire. (I'd happily piss on him if he wasn't, though.) He had a game for the ages last night, full of excellent throws, good decisions, and well-timed runs, and I support his right to do that and earn his free agent check. But fuck him.
posted by Bernreuther at 09:02 PM on November 16, 2010
If there was a favorite button here I'd favorite the above by Bernreuther.
posted by josher71 at 09:35 PM on November 16, 2010
Vick is one of the few athletes that I will completely stop what I'm doing to watch. That was an amazing performance last night and I'm anxious to see if he can keep up just a portion of that level of competition. Vick has been know to throw a few games together where you think he has turned the corner to absolute greatness, so we will see. As long as he doesn't have another road block to end it all and have us wondering "what if", it should be fun.
posted by sgtcookzane at 09:49 PM on November 16, 2010
But we're entitled to hate him for what he did. He hasn't shown an ounce of genuine remorse for it. He's a psychopath who tortured and killed innocent companion animals for fun. He has admitted that he'd still be doing it if he hadn't gotten caught.
Fine, hate him. Wallow in it. No one cares, but when can we stop hearing about it? Can we talk football ever without the amateur psychology rants? It's getting old. That was an absolutely amazing MNF game, and the thread has been ruined by those nursing grievances.
posted by bperk at 10:04 PM on November 16, 2010
Growing up in their footprint, one thing I have learned to appreciate with regards to the Washington Redskins-when they are good, they are a solid if usually not flashy team.
But when they are bad, they are an entertaining mess, always finding new and exceptional ways to fail.
posted by Bonkers at 10:19 PM on November 16, 2010
But it would be nice to have at least one thread on this incredible comeback where you didn't pop in just to remind everyone that Michael Vick killed dogs.
And I'll keep doing it until either a) Vick actually shows some remorse or b) people realize they're rooting for one sick, unrepentant bastard. If you can pull for this guy to succeed enough to overlook his crimes, I don't think you're the kind of person to be much bothered by me bringing them up, are you?
No one cares, but when can we stop hearing about it?
First, you're wrong. Second, when either a or b above becomes true.
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:28 PM on November 16, 2010
What exactly does he need to do to show you remorse? If the conversation of football pertaining to Vick bothers you enough to get yourself upset just move on to the next post. He screwed up was punished publicly, embarrassed and now he has another shot at life and he apparently trying to make the best of his situation. I don't care if he succeeds or fails. Quite frankly, being a Dallas fan, its in my best personal interest if he fails at least twice a year.
posted by sgtcookzane at 10:41 PM on November 16, 2010
You know who has killed a lot more dogs than Vick and his cohorts and with just as little cause? SWAT teams. And you know what they get for that? Widespread consternation and derision? No. A medal. What's my point? Not sure. (Think about the children?)
When I think of Michael Vick, dog killer is rarely in my mind. Maybe like fourth or fifth in the progression, but I rarely get that far before fleeing the pocket. I watch sports to be entertained, and can appreciate a Michael Vick or a Ray Lewis (who was at least peripherally involved in a murder! -- but how often do you think about that?) for what they do on the field, in the same way I appreciate Sean Penn's acting notwithstanding the fact that he is an apologist for Castro and Chavez. Of course my perception (both conscious and subconscious) of certain players is colored by public opinion, but perhaps I have an easier time than many in divorcing what is on the field and what is off, particularly where the legal system was allowed to mete out appropriate punishment under the law and where the sentence has hopefully met its objectives (punishment and, hopefully, rehabilitation). Perhaps I am depraved, perhaps I am just not a dog person, perhaps I have lost my moral compass, but I just do not have a hard time getting over/forgetting Michael Vick's transgressions.
posted by holden at 10:49 PM on November 16, 2010
Fine, hate him. Wallow in it. No one cares, but when can we stop hearing about it? Can we talk football ever without the amateur psychology rants? It's getting old. That was an absolutely amazing MNF game, and the thread has been ruined by those nursing grievances.
When the rest of the world stops treating him like the second coming and hyping his little 5-6 game resurgence as postively MVP-like, I'll stop countering with the opposite.
Yes, his game last night was great. The end. It's not some amazing redemption story. If anything, it's a damn shame he never worked that hard when he was first in the league, and it's a damn shame he wasted his talent then and while in jail.
What exactly does he need to do to show you remorse?
Maybe say he's sorry?
To my knowledge, he has only read from a script (or recited finely coached words) to say he's sorry that he let people down, sorry to the fans, that he's learned a lot in jail, etc. He hasn't said a word about the whole psychopath animal torture bit, other than to admit that he'd still be doing it if he hadn't been caught.
SWAT teams.
Yeah. And murderers kill people. (Actually, PETA has argued for mass euthanization of pits too, which makes them just as bad, and kind of funny that his little pro-animal publicity stunt was to be with them.)
The difference, in my mind, is that he was doing this for fun. Torturing and killing. For fun. Because it made him laugh. I agree that the sentence for such a thing (though he never even got tried for any actual animal cruelty related crimes) shouldn't match the penalty for killing humans - I'm not one who goes that overboard with the animal rights crusading - but the fact that it was habitual, and the fact that his eyes tell me things that contradict his words, means I still don't think there's anything redeeming about him except for his athletic ability.
Holden, I think we're all smart enough to divorce on-field from off-field. But so much of the hype before and after last night doesn't do that. That's my problem. They're celebrating him again. Football-wise, at least this time it's deserved (though I still expect some sub-50% passing games once he starts playing good teams... maybe I'll be wrong). But it still bothers me that people are going out in droves to buy his jersey again. And it bothers me that this is regarded as a great story of redemption rather than a sad story about what a waste it was that he wasn't playing at this level before, and that he engaged in such awful behavior for so long.
posted by Bernreuther at 11:33 PM on November 16, 2010
Hey, if people are still free to make Bengals/criminal cracks around these parts for a bunch of bonehead arrests three or four years ago, I say Vick/dog jokes, based on comparative severity, are fair game for at least ten or so more years. And they still make me laugh, which, of course, is the most important function of SpoFi.
No, not to make everyone laugh. To make ME laugh
posted by tahoemoj at 12:20 AM on November 17, 2010
Yes, his game last night was great. The end. It's not some amazing redemption story. If anything, it's a damn shame he never worked that hard when he was first in the league, and it's a damn shame he wasted his talent then and while in jail.
It'd be more of a damn shame if he never came to realize his talent.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:24 AM on November 17, 2010
McNabb has thrown as many or more picks than TD's in every game except one this year. His QB rating is terrible. I get the whole "he has no help" argument (neither does Sam Bradford by the way), but when can analysts entertain the possibility that McNabb is just bad now?
posted by brainofdtrain at 12:58 AM on November 17, 2010
I was blown away when the the story broke on Vick. I was appalled. And he might be the worst son-of-a-bitch in the world. But bperk said it best: when can we stop hearing about it? Can we talk football ever without the amateur psychology rants? It's getting old.
I am more than aware of what he did, I don't feel the need to gas about it all the time. That is all.
And my Nash comment, I would say the same thing if Peyton Manning would have made the announcement he was leaving his wife the day after his child was born.
posted by steelergirl at 01:12 AM on November 17, 2010
Yeah. And murderers kill people. (Actually, PETA has argued for mass euthanization of pits too, which makes them just as bad, and kind of funny that his little pro-animal publicity stunt was to be with them.) Actually, Burnreuther, Vick advocates for the Humane Society, not PETA, and the president of the Humane Society has repeatedly said that Vick has lived up to every promise he made them. I live in Atlanta where the we get all the buzz on Vick, good or bad.
posted by outonleave at 06:14 AM on November 17, 2010
And I'll keep doing it until either a) Vick actually shows some remorse or b) people realize they're rooting for one sick, unrepentant bastard. If you can pull for this guy to succeed enough to overlook his crimes, I don't think you're the kind of person to be much bothered by me bringing them up, are you?
Everyone who has met Vick, including the people at the Humane Society, think he has shown remorse. He did the Michael Vick Project where he talked about what he has done, took responsibility, and he and his family described what it did to all of them (missed the first two years of his kids life and his grandmother's funeral, child always asking "where's daddy?"). He has done multiple interviews where he has taken complete responsibility and said how terrible his actions were. No one but him knows what is in his heart, but I can't imagine what more he could have done to exhibit remorse. But, if you still don't believe it's enough, it's because you don't want to so you will never, ever will. So, if the Eagles are very successful and go to the playoffs or the Super Bowl, each of these threads have to be derailed by these comments. And, according to you, that is necessary until we all agree with your opinion on him. How is that reasonable? I don't think it is too much to ask that those of us who have never killed any dogs still get to talk about football. When the rest of the world stops treating him like the second coming and hyping his little 5-6 game resurgence as postively MVP-like, I'll stop countering with the opposite.
It's sports. His play has been something we have never seen before. A proper counter to hype is bringing in Phillip Rivers or talking about other brief stints of great play Vick has had, not trying to derail all football talk altogether because it is complimentary to Vick. If anyone on this thread had started talking about what a great person he was, then please add some perspective. But, can't we enjoy a football discussion?
posted by bperk at 06:49 AM on November 17, 2010
people realize they're rooting for one sick, unrepentant bastard.
People know what he did. It was the most widely covered athletic criminal transgression since O.J. murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. Recognizing what he's doing on the field is not necessarily the same thing as rooting for him.
I have a pretty healthy dislike for Vick, but that doesn't blind me to the fact he played a game for the ages on Monday night.
posted by rcade at 06:53 AM on November 17, 2010
I have to agree with Bernreuther and fraze here. Not so much because I have it in for Vick (I'm more of a "Meh" at this point), but because this is no longer a redemption story, it's a celebration. Sportscenter ran one of their fantastically scientific polls asking how "the nation"* feels about Vick and it was overwhelmingly positive. Funny that, given the question came after 55 minutes of Vick highlights and smiling interviews. We've gone from "No second chances in American life" up until the 80s to a culture where it doesn't matter what you do as long as you're famous before you do it, e.g., Charlie Sheen imprisoning a prostitute against her will and people laughing it off as "Oh, Charlie!". If you don't have a long memory for misdeeds and a mucraking press with an even longer memory, we'll wind up with a political system that gets away with whatever it wants. Oh, wait.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a chance for redemption. What I am suggesting is it shouldn't come after 1.5 seasons of sport just because someone has a good goddamn game. And opinion on the matter should not be led by a "news" organization with a vested interest in you watching the games.
It'd be more of a damn shame if he never came to realize his talent.
So if OJ still had some gas in the tank, you'd vote for him getting out of jail?
And my Nash comment, I would say the same thing if Peyton Manning would have made the announcement he was leaving his wife the day after his child was born.
Erm, nice straw man. Ufez's point was that demonizing Nash for the failure of a relationship we know nothing about and then turning around and celebrating a dog killer throwing for 4 touchdowns seems morally inconsistent.
*ESPN reminds you The ESPN Nation consists of alcoholics, the terminally unemployed and male college students who have given up ever finding a date. Opions may not reflect society as a whole. Margin of error is +/- 75% depending on which intern runs the database query.
posted by yerfatma at 07:53 AM on November 17, 2010
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a chance for redemption. What I am suggesting is it shouldn't come after 1.5 seasons of sport just because someone has a good goddamn game.
But is anyone, anywhere, saying that Michael Vick's performance on the field is what can redeem his earlier behavior off the field? Is anyone saying or suggesting that one great game (or any number of great games) makes the dog thing all right? To my mind, the two things (playing football and making things right for a crime off the field) have nothing to do with one another, and I'm not seeing anyone argue that doing well in one area cancels out the evil in the other area.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:19 AM on November 17, 2010
Greg Maddux killed one prostitute (to start), and that came up every time he won a Cy Young.
With regards to comments about dog killing, I think they should be ignored (by those who want to ignore them) rather than suppressed.
posted by Aardhart at 09:27 AM on November 17, 2010
What lbb said.
Vick's redemption comes if he lives his life that way he ought to and is a good human being/father/husband/citizen. But, I don't see why we can't appreciate the show he is putting on. I wouldn't have wanted to hang out with Van Gogh, but I can still admire his work.
posted by bperk at 09:33 AM on November 17, 2010
So if OJ still had some gas in the tank, you'd vote for him getting out of jail?
Not at all. But it makes little sense to waste breath on how Michael Vick was wasting all of his talent before jail instead of focusing on the talent he is using now.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:43 AM on November 17, 2010
To my mind, the two things (playing football and making things right for a crime off the field) have nothing to do with one another, and I'm not seeing anyone argue that doing well in one area cancels out the evil in the other area.
Thank you.
Just because I can appreciate the athletic performance of Vick doesn't mean I accept what he has done in the past with regards to his behavior. But at this point, it's in the past. There isn't anyone, hardly, that will forget, and just because ESPN drools all over the guy doesn't change the fact (ESPN is basically a bunch of clowns out to promote themselves and make bags of cash).
As a side issue, I am tired of the pitbull "epidemic" in many parts of the country. I work at a school in a small city where, in a park across the street at the end of every day, I have to constantly be concerned with jackasses leading their pitbulls around by chains. These are generally individuals who are the epitome of playing the part of someone attempting to look bad-ass because of the animal they're leading around. The dogs are basically uncontrollable and often face off with other pitbulls, bark and show their teeth to anyone who walks in the vicinity. The police generally have to be on hand to disperse these people and their canines. While nobody likes the idea of animals being treated cruelly, the dogs Vick was involved with and raised were not your average pet shop pooches. They were, and are, bred to be vicious and aggressive. It's a growing problem that reaches far beyond Michael Vick.
posted by dyams at 10:25 AM on November 17, 2010
Ok, so one small joke leads to 40 comments discussing whether or not we should joke about or acknowledge that Vick has killed dogs in the past. I vote joke and/or acknowledge.
Can we talk football ever without the amateur psychology rants?
The "rants" weren't in direct response to Vick killing dogs, they were in response to everyone trying to ignore the past seemingly because Vick has been playing well. I think I'm more willing than most to seperate the on and off field actions of players but the idea that we shouldn't even speak of Vick's past rubbed me the wrong way.
posted by tron7 at 10:36 AM on November 17, 2010
To my mind, the two things (playing football and making things right for a crime off the field) have nothing to do with one another
I find this a curious argument. At what level of heinous deed do we stop separating the man from his work like you're suggesting we do with Vick? OJ wasn't even convicted of the crime everyone hates him for, yet no one wants him to make Naked Gun 4 (and don't try to tell me you haven't been missing it). The evidence for Pete Rose having personally bet on baseball is spotty at best; it basically comes down to a circular argument about whether you trust Rose or not. Many people are insistent he be kept out of the Hall of Fame.
Just because I can appreciate the athletic performance of Vick doesn't mean I accept what he has done in the past with regards to his behavior. But at this point, it's in the past
So will I be seeing you at the screening of Roman Polanski's next movie? The man is/ was a great artist. Why can't we just enjoy his movies without worrying about him banging underage girls?
As a side issue, I am tired of the pitbull "epidemic" in many parts of the country
That's not a side issue, it's a straw man. It's also arguing from the specific (your area) to the general (asserting it's an epidemic throughout the nation). And it suggests you don't know a hell of a lot about pit bulls if you think they're inherently dangerous.
While nobody likes the idea of animals being treated cruelly, the dogs Vick was involved with and raised were not your average pet shop pooches. They were, and are, bred to be vicious and aggressive.
I'm going to check out on this thread, as best I can, and let you all throw Vick a party, but I have to say I find that statement disgusting. It's bad enough people have to keep bringing up unrelated topics to try to offset the fact Vick killed dogs, but to suggest these dogs were somehow asking for it or less deserving of humane treatment is completely gross and I'd suggest merits a re-examination of your thought process on the topic. Does this also apply to women in short skirts who get raped or illegal immigrants who are killed? They were asking for it/ less deserving of justice?
posted by yerfatma at 10:43 AM on November 17, 2010
Ok, so one small joke
That was a joke? Really?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:44 AM on November 17, 2010
yerfatma:
I find this a curious argument. At what level of heinous deed do we stop separating the man from his work like you're suggesting we do with Vick?
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. Nothing done on the football field, at any level, can in any way mitigate what is done off it, and I don't see anyone arguing that it does. You said that"[redemption] shouldn't come after 1.5 seasons of sport just because someone has a good goddamn game", which struck me as just weird -- as in, ok, how many seasons/games would be enough? To my mind, no number of good games, large or small, has anything at all to do with Michael Vick's redemption as an animal abuser. That redemption can only come through actions that have nothing to do with football. Does that make sense now?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:51 AM on November 17, 2010
yerfatma, this thread was hijacked a long time ago, in case you didn't notice. I made a comment, which is my prerogative, but, of course, my right to give that opinion is questioned by you because it doesn't meet with your beliefs or opinions.
I said this problem is present in PARTS of the nation, and yes, where I live, it's a problem. If you can refute this is a problem not only where I reside, but in other PARTS of the country, please help me out. When you are walking with small children and a few pitbulls come by, do you walk right past? If there are a couple of stray poodles in your yard, do you act the same as if there were two stray pitbulls in your yard? I'm assuming you do, because of this comment: it suggests you don't know a hell of a lot about pit bulls if you think they're inherently dangerous.
let you all throw Vick a party
That's what people who said he played a good game are doing? Wow.
posted by dyams at 11:11 AM on November 17, 2010
Ok, so one small joke leads to 40 comments discussing whether or not we should joke about or acknowledge that Vick has killed dogs in the past. I vote joke and/or acknowledge.
I see your point, but it was more than one small joke. I think the problem here is that some people hold some sports figures to high standards of behavior while giving others a free pass.
There is broad agreement that what Vick did was heinous, and some people want to continue to remind us of this fact. The problem is that many, many sports figures have done things that are heinous, or at least morally questionable, in the past. Some have been charged, some have been found guilty, some have been given a free pass. Imagine if the constant reminders of bad behavior were consistently applied. Every thread about Ben Roethlisberger would refer to the fact that he is a serial rapist. Every thread about Tiger Woods would refer to the fact that he is an adulterer. Every thread about Sean Payton would refer to the fact that he is an accused thief. Every thread about Brett Favre would refer to the fact that he was a Vicodin addict and is a serial sexual harasser. And so on and son on, ad nauseum .
I'm no fan of what Vick did, but I also recognize that in forums such as this there is a tacit agreement that, in general, we don't derail threads to talk about the perceived lack of repentance of famous sports figures who have done bad things. You may think that Vick's past behavior should always be on our minds, but not care so much about Roethlisberger; I may think that Roethlisberger's past behavior should always be on our minds, but think that Vick has served his sentence and paid his debt to society. The way we get along is to agree to refrain from shoving our opinions down each others' throats every time the subject of Vick or Roethlisberger comes up. It may not be a perfect system, but its the only way to prevent almost every thread from being derailed by the moralizing of a few commenters.
posted by googly at 11:12 AM on November 17, 2010
Imagine if the constant reminders of bad behavior were consistently applied. Every thread about Ben Roethlisberger would refer to the fact that he is a serial rapist. Every thread about Tiger Woods would refer to the fact that he is an adulterer. Every thread about Sean Payton would refer to the fact that he is an accused thief. Every thread about Brett Favre would refer to the fact that he was a Vicodin addict and is a serial sexual harasser. And so on and son on, ad nauseum .
Have you read a thread about Ben Roethlisberger, Tiger Woods or Brett Favre recently? (I'll admit that I don't know anything about Sean Payton's accused thievery, but 3 out of 4 ain't bad.)
Philadelphia knew what they were in for when they signed him, and there was a healthy debate about it. These results on the field were what they were hoping for, but that doesn't mean that everyone was going to forgive and forget the dog-killing.
posted by bender at 11:27 AM on November 17, 2010
That was a joke? Really?
"What's that in dog years" is almost always a joke. I thought it was kinda funny in this instance.
posted by Aardhart at 11:40 AM on November 17, 2010
Why can't we just enjoy his movies without worrying about him banging underage girls?
Plenty of people do enjoy the work of artists they find contemptible. I don't in Polanski's case, but I cheered Michael Irvin's return to the Dallas Cowboys after his coke arrest louder than anybody. I did not attend games to see feats of excellent citizenship.
posted by rcade at 11:51 AM on November 17, 2010
That's what people who said he played a good game are doing? Wow.
There are many people who are treating it as more than a good game. I believe at one point while watching ESPN I heard player of the decade mentioned. Granted, ESPN latches on to these things like a leech, but their level of adoration for him is a bit ridiculous. That said, Vick had one of the best games by a quarterback in a long time.
"What's that in dog years" is almost always a joke.
But note how you conveniently left out the most important word in Fraze's "joke".
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:06 PM on November 17, 2010
Plenty of people do enjoy the work of artists they find contemptible. I don't in Polanski's case, but I cheered Michael Irvin's return to the Dallas Cowboys after his coke arrest louder than anybody.
Sure, some fans would cheer on a star no matter what they did, make excuses, or just accept that it's entertainment and not care about the athletes private life. We see it all the time on sportsfilter. I understand that, though I don't share the feeling. For me it's a fine line. I have less trouble rooting for someone that hurts themselves. Michael Irvin doing cocaine? Hurting himself. Polanski liquoring up a young girl to have sex with her? That's different, and I don't find the two comparable.
I don't like Clemens, or Favre, or lebron james, but I'd root for them long before I would vick. I can't root for Vick. I love my dogs too much. And i realize the whole hypocrisy of loving dogs but but killing pigs because my god does bacon taste yummy. And I accept that. Doesn't change my dislike for Vick.
And this also wasn't a one time thing. This wasn't a bad decision by Vick. It wasn't a case of someone saying 'it was a mistake, that's not who I am'. That is who Vick was, and I have a hard time believing that he's a different person. I simply believe he has too much to lose (millions) to be that person any longer.
posted by justgary at 01:32 PM on November 17, 2010
I can't root for Vick.
I couldn't root for Vick even if the Cowboys signed him. But I can appreciate on-field greatness when I see it.
posted by rcade at 01:40 PM on November 17, 2010
I can 'appreciate' it, and recognize it. I can't 'enjoy' it. Using my handy dandy mac dictionary:
appreciate: recognize the full worth of.
enjoy: take delight or pleasure in.
For me, the former, yes, the latter, nope.
posted by justgary at 01:48 PM on November 17, 2010
I like to watch Michael Vick play because it is exciting and he is a phenom of an athlete. That said, I have rescued a pit bull and it is a great family pet, my second. It always amazes me how little people who make comments about them, really know about Pit Bulls, dog fighting, or dogs in general. I would like to say I like Pit Bulls and still can find Vicks athletic performances entertaining. I also defend his right to work.
He committed a crime, paid his debt to society, and is successfully trying to reestablish his career. I support a second chance for him. So far he has stayed out of trouble and is working very hard at his job. What more can someone really do. I don't have to like him as a person to appreciate him as an athlete. Only time will tell if he is a changed man but separating the man from the football player is what I choose to do.
What a performance although I am not sure how much of it was due to a defense that didn't prepare or show up.
posted by Atheist at 01:49 PM on November 17, 2010
DeSean Jackson describing Eagles preparation before MNF thumping Washington : "We were like Pit Bulls."
DeSean might need five minutes of media training this week.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 03:00 PM on November 17, 2010
Only time will tell if he is a changed man but separating the man from the football player is what I choose to do.
And that's great. I don't think most people would begrudge you that enjoyment. Those among us, however, who think he's a dirtbag and always will be, regardless of recent model citizenry, also have the right to feel that way and express their opinions. And those of us who are really indifferent toward him, but think it's fun to make jokes at his expense because he did something inhumane and stupid also have that right. Being tired of the jokes is fine, but admonishing someone else who feels differently is a different story. My earlier attempt was to say the same thing in a light-hearted manner, but the bottom line is that the statute of limitations on Vick/dog jokes has far from run its course.
posted by tahoemoj at 03:04 PM on November 17, 2010
Being tired of the jokes is fine, but admonishing someone else who feels differently is a different story.
It isn't really that much to ask to allow people who wish to discuss football to actually do so.
posted by bperk at 04:04 PM on November 17, 2010
Personally, a human being trumps any number of animals every time.
Donte Stallworth got a 30 day jail sentence on a DUI manslaughter charge for hitting and killing a pedestrian. He didn't lose his job. He didn't lose his home. He didn't lose all of his savings, investments, or endorsements. He did sign a check for the victim's family, but I don't know if a serving of remorse went with it. He did get suspended for one season, but is now playing for the Ravens.
Vick has incurred financial losses of $142 million, including $71 million in Falcons salary, $50 million in endorsement income and nearly $20 million in previously paid bonuses. He also received a higher sentence than anyone else involved in the dog fighting operation.
So I'm curious. What more remorse or payment is required of Vick? Here in the United States a person who serves their sentence is considered to have paid their debt to society. I'd say that Vick more than paid his debt compared to other people charged with dog fighting. If the state of Georgia and federal authorities are satisfied, why do people continue to seek further punishment?
I'll repeat a question asked above and never answered- what more does Vick have to do to satisfy your demands for remorse and recompense?
posted by irunfromclones at 04:13 PM on November 17, 2010
why do people continue to seek further punishment?
I'll repeat a question asked above and never answered- what more does Vick have to do to satisfy your demands for remorse and recompense?
I don't think most people could answer your question because it doesn't apply to them. I think Vick should get every opportunity to make a living and succeed. He's paid the price that he was instructed to pay.
What would it take for me to like Vick or root for him? I can't think of a single thing he could do to make that happen. And there's nothing wrong with that. I choose, in most cases, to root for athletes that I respect. Not all fans feel that way. I'm okay with that too.
posted by justgary at 04:51 PM on November 17, 2010
It isn't really that much to ask to allow people who wish to discuss football to actually do so.
Well then, perhaps the difference is only that of scope. I think discussing football players is within the scope of discussing football. You may feel otherwise.
posted by tahoemoj at 05:03 PM on November 17, 2010
What is this "paid his debt to society" excuse? That only explains why he's no longer in prison - it has nothing to do with moral judgement. Vick may never commit another crime ever again in his life, and he might even never sin again, but he still killed dogs.
And he didn't just kill them - he tortured them to death in a variety of ways. If that doesn't bother you, that's fine. He did "pay his debt," and I don't think he should have had a longer prison sentence, but Vick cannot ever change what he did in the past, and lots of people will always remember him as a dog killer.
He played one hell of a game though.
posted by thewittyname at 05:25 PM on November 17, 2010
It isn't really that much to ask to allow people who wish to discuss football to actually do so.
It wasn't the joke that derailed this thread. It was the admonishing.
Look at the first 12 posts of this thread. Number 5 was the "dog (killing) years" joke. The next seven posts were about the football game, and not about dog fighting, Vick's connection to it, and related issues about forgiveness, crime, and punishments. After the admonishment, those issues were almost all that were addressed in the posts.
posted by Aardhart at 06:00 PM on November 17, 2010
Sometimes I think lurkers who just read this site think we're all crazy and take sports wayyyyyy too seriously.
In this case, they're right.
Wait - there's hypocracy in American sports?!? I have fainted from surprise.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:25 PM on November 17, 2010
What is this "paid his debt to society" excuse? That only explains why he's no longer in prison - it has nothing to do with moral judgement. Vick may never commit another crime ever again in his life, and he might even never sin again, but he still killed dogs.
So, if you make one mistake in your life witty, we never have to let you forget it even after you have satisfied all of the legal requirements. We still get to see you as guilty the rest of your life according to our own moral judgment standards.
Its pretty clear that no one on this thread approves of dog killing, so I would appreciate it if you don't infer that again. This thread was about an awesome performance by an athlete. The I hate Vick thread is over on yahoo.
posted by irunfromclones at 08:36 PM on November 17, 2010
So, if you make one mistake in your life witty, we never have to let you forget it even after you have satisfied all of the legal requirements. We still get to see you as guilty the rest of your life according to our own moral judgment standards.
Apples and oranges. Court of Law and Court of Public Opinion.
posted by roberts at 10:09 PM on November 17, 2010
posted by tahoemoj at 02:17 AM on November 18, 2010
So, if you make one mistake in your life witty, we never have to let you forget it even after you have satisfied all of the legal requirements. We still get to see you as guilty the rest of your life according to our own moral judgment standards.
Uh, yeah, people can have different opinions as to whether they will forgive and/or forget the sins of a person accused of terrible crimes. People get to judge others based on their own moral code, and the person judged really can't do much about it. Is this really controversial?
And, I'm not implying that others condone dog killing - I am implying that some can look past it while others won't when judging Michael Vick as an athlete.
posted by thewittyname at 10:47 AM on November 18, 2010
Look at the first 12 posts of this thread. Number 5 was the "dog (killing) years" joke. The next seven posts were about the football game, and not about dog fighting, Vick's connection to it, and related issues about forgiveness, crime, and punishments. After the admonishment, those issues were almost all that were addressed in the posts.
Judging by the heat of the comments, this discussion about Vick's past was imminent. People had shit to say. Anyway, it's probably a more interesting topic than the game thread would have been.
posted by tron7 at 11:13 AM on November 18, 2010
it's probably a more interesting topic than the game thread would have been.
You're right. You can only say so much about a big game. If Vick has a terrible game vs. the Giants this weekend, the Redskins game will be forgotten.
I will never condone what Vick and others involved in this dogfighting ring did. I'm a dog (and animal) lover. My comments about pitbulls, however, has to do with a problems of breeding and raising dogs as (basically) killing beasts. If this breed of dog is bred in controlled conditions, with dogs that have been raised (as have their ancestors) in good, loving environments, that's one thing. It's when all the other pitbulls that are raised as fighters, or in aggressive environments, where problems arise. So many of the stories about people getting horribly injured, or worse, contain the comments like, "I never had a problem with (him) before, so I don't know what could have happened." These loving pets all of a sudden attack and are capable of tremendous carnage.
My point is I really don't waste a great deal of emotion regarding these particular animals, such as what Vick was involved with, knowing they were raised to be, for lack of a better word, killers. Do I wish this type of thing didn't exist? Of course. I'm hoping Vick has changed (though I'm unsure if total change is possible. He may only change to the extent he knows he has to in order to start making piles of cash again).
I apologize for taking the conversation in that direction, and I realize yerfatma wasn't pleased, but it's something that comes to my mind when deciding just how harsh I need to be when choosing to judge Michael Vick.
posted by dyams at 11:35 AM on November 18, 2010
I really don't waste a great deal of emotion regarding these particular animals, such as what Vick was involved with, knowing they were raised to be, for lack of a better word, killers.
That kind of circular reasoning will please every dictatorship where your clothes and electronics are made.
posted by yerfatma at 01:03 PM on November 18, 2010
A bit overdramatic, but OK.
posted by dyams at 02:33 PM on November 18, 2010
Kind of ironic how, on the same day McNabb signs (what appears to be) a ridiculous contract, Michael Vick leads the Eagles in a historic dismantling of his (McNabbs) former team.