Skins considered Vick !

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:32 am

They shot Old Yeller.

Gibbs4Life · Post by **Gibbs4Life** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:10 am

Cerrato: "Yeah... I know... we could sign Vick and give Alpo or Snausages the naming rights to the stadium... right? No, Dan, not a good idea.

Snyder: "Yeah, you're right. Nevermind."

NJ-SKINS-FAN · Post by **NJ-SKINS-FAN** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:02 pm

OH NO THANKS

Gibbs4Life · Post by **Gibbs4Life** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:36 pm

What Vick did is disgustingly evil, thats man's best friend, now I have to go eat a cheeseburger pardon me.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:20 pm

Umm... if a team wanted to incorporate the WildCat into their offense and subsequently signed Michael Vick to run it... would they then have to call it the WildDog?

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:36 pm

SkinsFreak wrote::hmm: Umm... if a team wanted to incorporate the WildCat into their offense and subsequently signed Michael Vick to run it... would they then have to call it the WildDog?

Or the mad dog.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:55 pm

I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:45 am

I don't think it's the actual killing of a dog that ticks people off. It's the way the animal was killed. Had he simply shot a dog, there would have been backlash, but nothing like what we saw. He didn't do that. What he did is well-documented, as it the number of times he did it. He also lied about it, repeatedly.
Everybody up north here by me understands that there's a cultural aspect to dogfighting. Generations of families are active participants. Same with cockfighting. In Thailand, they pit mongoose versus cobra. Animal fighting goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Nobody disputes that. The problem was, as has always been, that dogs were hanged, pups thrown against walls, racks were constructed for husbandry that were given absurd names like 'rape stand', and he had marijuana in his posession. Then there's the lies: to the courts, his employers, the public. Mike was held to a standard that most of us wouldn't be, probably, due to his fame.
At any rate, he was tried, sentenced and imprisoned. He served his time, and deserves to find a job in his field of expertise. He can't vote, own a gun or probably a dog...but he should be allowed to throw a football to our cornerbacks.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:00 am

OK lets see what happens with Stallworth...I bet he gets less jail time than Vick and it will start a nationwide debate...

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:26 pm

DEHog wrote:OK lets see what happens with Stallworth...I bet he gets less jail time than Vick and it will start a nationwide debate...

30 days!!!

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:39 pm

DEHog wrote:
DEHog wrote:OK lets see what happens with Stallworth...I bet he gets less jail time than Vick and it will start a nationwide debate...

30 days!!!

I was just about to post that but you beat me to it. Further proof that the Vick thing was blown waaaaaaay out of proportion. Vick served almost two years in prison and Stallworth probably wont even do his full 30 days. Unreal.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:47 pm

Yes...but Stallworth didn't intentionally kill the man. He also did not lie about it; he called 911 immediately and waited for the police and ambulance.
Don't get me wrong, folks. In no way am I condoning a DUI. Anybody that "knows" me here knows damned well the price my family and I have paid for that very crime. What I mean to say by comparing the two is that you can't compare the two. Aside from both being crimes committed by active NFL players, there are no similarities. Had Vick struck a dog with his car while under the influence, the backlash would have been limited to the "under the influence" part. What Stallworth did was make reparations as best he could. He will serve his time, and has lost his job and income for now.
Still...thirty days? You get more time than that for much lesser crimes. If there's a really bad person in this situation, it's got to be the judge.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:06 pm

tcwest10 wrote:Yes...but Stallworth didn't intentionally kill the man. He also did not lie about it; he called 911 immediately and waited for the police and ambulance.
Don't get me wrong, folks. In no way am I condoning a DUI. Anybody that "knows" me here knows damned well the price my family and I have paid for that very crime. What I mean to say by comparing the two is that you can't compare the two. Aside from both being crimes committed by active NFL players, there are no similarities. Had Vick struck a dog with his car while under the influence, the backlash would have been limited to the "under the influence" part. What Stallworth did was make reparations as best he could. He will serve his time, and has lost his job and income for now.
Still...thirty days? You get more time than that for much lesser crimes. If there's a really bad person in this situation, it's got to be the judge.

I'm very surprized at the minimal sentence, as well, but consider that Stallworth also immediately took full responsibility, and didn't try to throw his cousins under the bus...

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:23 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:02 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:27 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Of course not Vet. I know. People tend to think all he did was fight dogs and there is much more to just this part of his deeds. They feed them gun powder (poison) and starve them for times, play mind games and build them up for destruction. What he did was wrong and I guess most of us can agree. Yes, he did pay his price. Is this the role model we want for our children? I don't. If my child looked up to him we would have words. He is a free man now and he does need a chance again but I think he blew it to be in the NFL. Just my opinion.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:53 pm

I know this is an exaggerated stretch but this is what I think of this behavior

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/dahmer.htm

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:38 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Of course not Vet. I know. People tend to think all he did was fight dogs and there is much more to just this part of his deeds. They feed them gun powder (poison) and starve them for times, play mind games and build them up for destruction. What he did was wrong and I guess most of us can agree. Yes, he did pay his price. Is this the role model we want for our children? I don't. If my child looked up to him we would have words. He is a free man now and he does need a chance again but I think he blew it to be in the NFL. Just my opinion.

I guess where I differ with a lot of people is the role model portion of the argument. If I see conditions of a situation where my son may get the wrong idea or impression, I make sure to explain the situation. If I allow my child to continue to look up to Vick after he's been convicted of what he's done, it's not Vick's failure, it's mine. It's MY responsibility to ensure that my child knows consequences of illegal activity. If my child sees Vick, the animal abuser, dog fighte, <insert other derogatroy label> and I don't show at least give him the information and guidance to know right from wrong, then it's not Vick to blame, but me.

As for role models for adults, it all comes from childhood as discussed above. I don't believe the 'role model' argument is as strong as some people try to make it.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:17 pm

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... &type=lgns

I say good. Just my opinion.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:12 pm

Kilmer72 wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-burressvick062909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I say good. Just my opinion.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Kilmer72 · Post by **Kilmer72** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:47 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-burressvick062909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I say good. Just my opinion.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Well, where do we draw the line? What constitutes the norm?

Wahoo McDaniels · Post by **Wahoo McDaniels** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:02 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Of course not Vet. I know. People tend to think all he did was fight dogs and there is much more to just this part of his deeds. They feed them gun powder (poison) and starve them for times, play mind games and build them up for destruction. What he did was wrong and I guess most of us can agree. Yes, he did pay his price. Is this the role model we want for our children? I don't. If my child looked up to him we would have words. He is a free man now and he does need a chance again but I think he blew it to be in the NFL. Just my opinion.

I guess where I differ with a lot of people is the role model portion of the argument. If I see conditions of a situation where my son may get the wrong idea or impression, I make sure to explain the situation. If I allow my child to continue to look up to Vick after he's been convicted of what he's done, it's not Vick's failure, it's mine. It's MY responsibility to ensure that my child knows consequences of illegal activity. If my child sees Vick, the animal abuser, dog fighte, <insert other derogatroy label> and I don't show at least give him the information and guidance to know right from wrong, then it's not Vick to blame, but me.

As for role models for adults, it all comes from childhood as discussed above. I don't believe the 'role model' argument is as strong as some people try to make it.

I couldn't agree more that what Vick did was reprehensible. But our judicial system is built on second chances once society has determined your punishment and you've served your time. Now that doesn't mean that you can't hate him, in fact I'd encourage it. But, he's done everything that has been asked of him and he deserves to play in the NFL.

My favorite example is Ray Lewis. The guy was present when two men died. He obstructed justice as the Atlanta Police Department bungled their worst case since the Millenium Plaza during the 96 Olympics. Two men died...no one went to jail. Now Ray's re-branded himself as "God's Linebacker". Only if God is dabbling in double homicides is this guy on his team. But, you know what? He went through the legal system and he plea bargained out of everything, and that's the process. I can hate him, but he deserves to play....and sell Vitamin Water.

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:12 am

Wahoo McDaniels wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Of course not Vet. I know. People tend to think all he did was fight dogs and there is much more to just this part of his deeds. They feed them gun powder (poison) and starve them for times, play mind games and build them up for destruction. What he did was wrong and I guess most of us can agree. Yes, he did pay his price. Is this the role model we want for our children? I don't. If my child looked up to him we would have words. He is a free man now and he does need a chance again but I think he blew it to be in the NFL. Just my opinion.

I guess where I differ with a lot of people is the role model portion of the argument. If I see conditions of a situation where my son may get the wrong idea or impression, I make sure to explain the situation. If I allow my child to continue to look up to Vick after he's been convicted of what he's done, it's not Vick's failure, it's mine. It's MY responsibility to ensure that my child knows consequences of illegal activity. If my child sees Vick, the animal abuser, dog fighte, <insert other derogatroy label> and I don't show at least give him the information and guidance to know right from wrong, then it's not Vick to blame, but me.

As for role models for adults, it all comes from childhood as discussed above. I don't believe the 'role model' argument is as strong as some people try to make it.

I couldn't agree more that what Vick did was reprehensible. But our judicial system is built on second chances once society has determined your punishment and you've served your time. Now that doesn't mean that you can't hate him, in fact I'd encourage it. But, he's done everything that has been asked of him and he deserves to play in the NFL.

My favorite example is Ray Lewis. The guy was present when two men died. He obstructed justice as the Atlanta Police Department bungled their worst case since the Millenium Plaza during the 96 Olympics. Two men died...no one went to jail. Now Ray's re-branded himself as "God's Linebacker". Only if God is dabbling in double homicides is this guy on his team. But, you know what? He went through the legal system and he plea bargained out of everything, and that's the process. I can hate him, but he deserves to play....and sell Vitamin Water.

Goodell has the authority to decide if he thinks that a particular player's behavior will hurt the league's reputation if he is allowed to play. Many players have been suspended for behavior that brought no criminal charges.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:33 am

yupchagee wrote:
Wahoo McDaniels wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
I have issues with rabid dog lovers that will protest his return after he's served his time.

Agreed. What Vick did was reprehensible, but it's absurd how much this has been blown out of proportion. Leonard Little killed a person and there wasn't this type of public outcry against him.

Well, I guess if people feel it is ok to fight dogs to the death then almost anything can go as long as it excludes humans. Where do you draw the line? If you really want to break things down...Think of the people that get 20 years or more for selling acid (usually some kid) and then think of the people that murder and get out in 10 years or less.

The whole thing really was sick if you really think about it. These dogs weren't born rabid. If you really knew about what it took to make these dogs fighting dogs (which I have seen) then you would understand. If you know and do not care then you are a supporter. I feel now as I always have about it. Its Sick !!!

I don't recall too many people saying what he did was okay. It is NOT, however, more serious than taking a human life.

Of course not Vet. I know. People tend to think all he did was fight dogs and there is much more to just this part of his deeds. They feed them gun powder (poison) and starve them for times, play mind games and build them up for destruction. What he did was wrong and I guess most of us can agree. Yes, he did pay his price. Is this the role model we want for our children? I don't. If my child looked up to him we would have words. He is a free man now and he does need a chance again but I think he blew it to be in the NFL. Just my opinion.

I guess where I differ with a lot of people is the role model portion of the argument. If I see conditions of a situation where my son may get the wrong idea or impression, I make sure to explain the situation. If I allow my child to continue to look up to Vick after he's been convicted of what he's done, it's not Vick's failure, it's mine. It's MY responsibility to ensure that my child knows consequences of illegal activity. If my child sees Vick, the animal abuser, dog fighte, <insert other derogatroy label> and I don't show at least give him the information and guidance to know right from wrong, then it's not Vick to blame, but me.

As for role models for adults, it all comes from childhood as discussed above. I don't believe the 'role model' argument is as strong as some people try to make it.

I couldn't agree more that what Vick did was reprehensible. But our judicial system is built on second chances once society has determined your punishment and you've served your time. Now that doesn't mean that you can't hate him, in fact I'd encourage it. But, he's done everything that has been asked of him and he deserves to play in the NFL.

My favorite example is Ray Lewis. The guy was present when two men died. He obstructed justice as the Atlanta Police Department bungled their worst case since the Millenium Plaza during the 96 Olympics. Two men died...no one went to jail. Now Ray's re-branded himself as "God's Linebacker". Only if God is dabbling in double homicides is this guy on his team. But, you know what? He went through the legal system and he plea bargained out of everything, and that's the process. I can hate him, but he deserves to play....and sell Vitamin Water.

Goodell has the authority to decide if he thinks that a particular player's behavior will hurt the league's reputation if he is allowed to play. Many players have been suspended for behavior that brought no criminal charges.

Goodell is taking this whole thing waaaaaaay too far. Leonard Little killed a person. Ray Lewis, as mentioned above, was involved in an incident that led to two people dieing. Both of them were allowed to play in the NFL and I don't think that that has hurt the league's reputation. Vick served more time for his crime than a normal citizen would have in that situation and he deserves to move forward with his life and resume his career. Suspending him for this upcoming season would be ridiculous and uncalled for on Goodell's part.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:36 am

While I agree with you Caane, I think the difference here is teh public's opinion of Vick and their reaction to possible reinstatement. The backlash that this event will have on the NFL is what I suspect Goodell is considering. That's the only consideration I see that could be detrimental to reinstating Vick.

I think that after he serves his sentence and if he were to stay out of trouble, that would be a great role model to have. A guy who made bad decisions, paid the price, and then can be a rehabilitated back in to a positive member of society. What better role model is that. An additional plus is perception that the legal system CAN still work...incarceration and rehabilitation.