Singletary says vick is a possiblity in San fran

[MadHatter]

Just curious...what if you did something illegal, then showed remorse, did the same thing again, showed more remorse.........

Got a problem with that too.

When I say show remorse....it means man-up for what you did and change your actions. Not just say I am sorry over and over and over again....while continuing to be a scumbag.

[VA Panther Fan]

Got a problem with that too.

When I say show remorse....it means man-up for what you did and change your actions. Not just say I am sorry over and over and over again....while continuing to be a scumbag.

I'll add - GENUINE remorse, not the ARod brand.

I don't care to see a guy cry to garner sympathy (or stay silent for 37 seconds), but if someone does something wrong and wants to "fess up", then it needs to be a total action. Answer all questions honestly with no stipulations. Talk open and candidly about all that happened and what impact that has had in their life.

[Falcons1stPanthers2nd]

Back off a little Junior. I am fine if you do not agree with me...as this is merely my opinion.

What he did is unforgivable in my book. He is a complete POS (my opinion of him) and that has nothing to do with the team he played for. Again, this is my opinion and I know some agree with me and some don't.

So, you don't be a douche.

There's a lot of things you might find unforgivable.

Assault with a deadly weapon

Possession of an assault rifle

Minor possession of a gun

illicit intent to sell firearms

linked to several other crimes

Then again.....I would say i'm smarter than Vick. I was stupid, not dumb.

[Epistaxis]

There's a point everybody keeps missing in this discussion.

Everyone is concentrating on the dogfighting and/or the other issues. There's also some discussion of his worth as a QB (good runner/lousy passer/getting older) which is valid. The PR issues are, of course, a very big deal to organizations that are as image conscious as the NFL and its teams.

Still, there's a related issue left undiscussed.

See, the dogfighting wasn't just done to see dogs tear each other apart. It was at the heart of a gambling operation.

You can expect the league to take that fact into account when they look at whether to reinstate him or not. Outside issues are one thing, but if they see the potential for an "integrity of the game" question, they're going to be extremely careful. Teams will be too (especially given how much money he's lost in this whole mess) if he is indeed reinstated.

Good points.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that given the NFL's interest in public opinion, as well as the willingness to re-instate multitime "losers" like Pacman Jones, I'm going to say that they will re-instate Mr. Vick.

If the gambling thing is such a big deal, get rid of the injury report.

Never happen.

The NFL and all sports in general have a tacit interest in gambling, they just have to PRETEND it isn't there.

And Vick isn't Pete Rose, he didn't bet on football, so I'm going to guess this offense isn't much bigger than assault, battery, accesory to murder, and myriad other offenses committed by other active members of the NFL.

So I guess what I'm saying here is, Vick will have a tough PR road ahead, and any team is going to have to be very careful how they handle the situation.

But if they make an effort to be out front about it.....

maybe have him make very public statements about his mistake, agree to do volunteer/facetime for local animal shelters etc. they COULD MAYBE turn a nightmare in to an image reclamation project.

[Falcons1stPanthers2nd]

after the Falcons cut him he won't make that much money for an NFL player. so to me low risk high reward.

[L.A. Fanatic]

PETA freaks are crazy, anyone who thinks he is worth the distraction and hassle of having them constantly harassing their team is kidding themselves

besides, he wasnt that good before he went to the clink. there is no chance he is a better QB now

[dimbee]

besides, he wasnt that good before he went to the clink. there is no chance he is a better QB now

He may not have been the greatest throwing quarterback, but he was still one of the most dangerous players in the NFL

[Matt Foley]

There's a huge difference between giving Pacman Jones a second chance and giving one to Michael Vick.

There isn't a team out there that will touch him. If Vick wants to make money in a public domain, it would have to be in Asia.

[L.A. Fanatic]

He may not have been the greatest throwing quarterback, but he was still one of the most dangerous players in the NFL

yep. and he went to the place where dangerous men go

[King Taharqa]

Vick is a good QB. Better than alot of current starters. Any QB that can beat my Panthers 6 out of the 9 times he played them (including 5 in a row) is worth a look. I'm pulling for the guy to turn his life around and to get back out their on the field. When he does come back, it will be one of the biggest sports stories of the year. ESPN is gonna love covering him again.

[Skew]

But if they make an effort to be out front about it.....

maybe have him make very public statements about his mistake, agree to do volunteer/facetime for local animal shelters etc. they COULD MAYBE turn a nightmare in to an image reclamation project.

I agree. I was the one screaming the loadest for vick to be hung, but if the guy shows ACTUAL remorse, does some public service announce for PETA and volunteers for work in shelters, I'd have no problem with him coming back.

I just don't think he has any actual remorse.

[thefuzz]

Vick is a good QB. Better than alot of current starters. Any QB that can beat my Panthers 6 out of the 9 times he played them (including 5 in a row) is worth a look. I'm pulling for the guy to turn his life around and to get back out their on the field. When he does come back, it will be one of the biggest sports stories of the year. ESPN is gonna love covering him again.

I disagree I think that Vick was a superior athlete that the league took a while longer to figure out than most QB's.

Did he make plays.....hell yea.

But was he a good QB, I don't think so. But then again, I like pocket passers, not scramble first QB's.

He was a game changer, no doubt, and I respect his ability, just not his QBing.

[Mr. Scot]

I disagree I think that Vick was a superior athlete that the league took a while longer to figure out than most QB's.

Did he make plays.....hell yea.

But was he a good QB, I don't think so. But then again, I like pocket passers, not scramble first QB's.

He was a game changer, no doubt, and I respect his ability, just not his QBing.

He took a while for us to figure out. Monte Kiffin owned him from early on.

(we had Trgovac)

[Mr. Scot]

Good points.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that given the NFL's interest in public opinion, as well as the willingness to re-instate multitime "losers" like Pacman Jones, I'm going to say that they will re-instate Mr. Vick.

If the gambling thing is such a big deal, get rid of the injury report.

Never happen.

The NFL and all sports in general have a tacit interest in gambling, they just have to PRETEND it isn't there.

And Vick isn't Pete Rose, he didn't bet on football, so I'm going to guess this offense isn't much bigger than assault, battery, accesory to murder, and myriad other offenses committed by other active members of the NFL.

So I guess what I'm saying here is, Vick will have a tough PR road ahead, and any team is going to have to be very careful how they handle the situation.

But if they make an effort to be out front about it.....

maybe have him make very public statements about his mistake, agree to do volunteer/facetime for local animal shelters etc. they COULD MAYBE turn a nightmare in to an image reclamation project.

There's a big difference between a fan gambling and the risk of a player gambling. There are no real or perceived 'integrity of the game' issues when it's just a fan.

Yes, they gave Pac Man multiple chances, and he blew 'em. I think that makes it less likely they'll give others as many chances.

PR wise, right now, the fact that teams who could actually use a QB are saying a preemptive "no" isn't a good sign for him.

Given that the league is indeed image conscious, and the fact that - fair or not - Vick could be a PR nightmare, I don't think it's a lock that Goodell reinstates him.