Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.20.2009 11:13 am

May 20: Michael Vick Won’t Be a St. Louis Ram

  • Email this
  • Print this

As the Michael Vick controversy begins to reignite and take off, let’s clear one thing up right away, and in no uncertain terms:

Vick will not be a St. Louis Ram.

Forget it, not going to happen, put it out of your mind.

If/when he’s reinstated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Vick won’t be welcomed back by the Atlanta Falcons. But the Falcons control the quarterback’s rights, and will try to trade those rights to another NFL team.

Multiple league sources tell me that the Falcons called the Rams twice to gauge their interest in Vick, and in both instances the Rams told the Falcons that they had no interest.

And a source with the Rams organization confirms that. Moreover, I am told that the Rams would not be interested in Vick as a free agent even if the Falcons release him.

Why?

Vick isn’t a West Coast offense QB.

The Rams don’t want the distractions.

They don’t think he’s worth the trouble.

The owner of the team, Chip Rosenbloom, is said to be emphatically opposed to the idea — not that anyone at Rams Park is pushing for Vick, because they are not. But anyone who has seen Rosenbloom’s excellent “Shiloh” trilogy would understand Chip’s feelings on Vick.

Meanwhile the debate continues on Vick.

My three quick comments on the Vick situation:

1. I don’t like Vick or what he did in funding a dog-fighting ring and engaging in despicable acts of animal cruelty, but he should be allowed to play football again, because that’s his profession. Vick spent 21 months in a federal prison and will spend the next two months in home confinement. He’s lost millions of dollars. His reputation is ruined. He paid a price for what he did, and wasn’t given any special treatment. When people get out of jail, they have the right to seek a job. Vick is no different. If someone wants to give him a football job, then so be it. That’s the way we do things in America.

2. I don’t think Vick is a very good quarterback. The Falcons were 9-15 in his last 24 games and fell apart down the stretch in 2006. His accuracy was erratic. His fundamentals as a QB were sloppy. He peaked in 2004, and never played at that level again. That was a long time ago. He can still run, and is probably still a top athlete. But he never developed into a smooth QB. Don’t see why he would do that now. And he wasn’t much of a leader or a teammate.

3. A team that signs Vick will also bring in a circus, and controversy, and it will be a mess. TV cameras all over the place. Questions and questions and questions being pitched to teammates concerning Vick’s past. Protests from animal-rights activists at the team facility and stadium. A potential loss of commercial sponsors for the franchise. Fans who will give up their tickets in protest. Distractions galore. A never-ending story about one guy … and that takes away from the team concept. How many teams will want to bring all of that into their house?

Vick should get another opportunity to be eligible to play.

But no team is under obligation to sign him.

And if Vick doesn’t get an opportunity with an NFL team, then that’s just the way it is. He put himself in this position.  

-Bernie

22 comments

Comments are closed.

Agree 100%. He should be allowed to pursue a job in the NFL. But no team is obligated to hire them, if it doesn’t make sense from a business standpoint.

— Iron Mike Ditka
11:27 am May 20th, 2009

I also agree that he should be afforded another opportunity to play in the NFL. Al Davis has historically given players a second chance.

— umbrella man
1:12 pm May 20th, 2009

umbrella man: If Al Davis signs Vick it will be one of the worst public relations nightmares in Raiders’ history. Think about this. Vick, dog abuser/killer, would be playing football in PETA’s backyard. Their offices are in downtown Oakland and they have a huge member base in the Bay Area. The fights/confrontations between members of the Black Hole and PETA protestors would be epic.

Now that I think about it, that sounds REALLY fun. Better than watching an actual Raiders’ game.

— ExistentialHumanist
1:23 pm May 20th, 2009

Oakland will take any criminal, Peta or no Peta.

And Al Davis loves speed above all else.

Ookie can’t throw, can’t run an offense and certainly isn’t a leader.

but he’s fast, and al davis will sign a speedy lowlife, before he sign a hall of fame winner.

— stonethrower
1:47 pm May 20th, 2009

Yet somehow it’s acceptable to support and cheer for a team who regularly runs an actual murderer out onto the field every Sunday (SEE LEONARD LITTLE) who has served no time in prison for the terrible crime he committed. If you’re going to blackball Michael Vick for running a dogfighting ring, then you sure as h*** better do it to someone who actually took a human life.

— VTIL
2:19 pm May 20th, 2009

You don’t think Vick is a very good quarterback, huh? Well do you think bulger is a very good quarterback? Isn’t bulger erratic, haven’t his fundamentals grown to be sloppy? Is bulger much a leader? Puh-leez. I’d rather have Vick join the team straight from the pentitentiary than bulger straight from his psychiatrist’s office.

— larams74
2:41 pm May 20th, 2009

I have to disagree with your #1 bullet Bernie. While everyone should get a second chance, it doesn’t mean he’s automatically entitled to it. If I were to commit a felony, go to prison, then get out, would I get my old job back? I think probably not. Has he paid his debt to society?? Absolutely!! Does that mean he should get back into the NFL to make millions??? I sure don’t think so.

— Sideways777
2:48 pm May 20th, 2009

Naaah! He hasn’t paid his debt back yet. Put him and his buddies in a 20 by 20 room with some angry pit bulls and FOX network, and lets all watch. Then maybe he can come back. If he survives.

— davegust@comcast.net
2:59 pm May 20th, 2009

Should Vick be allowed to play football again, should teams have the right to sign him? Yes, I agree that is the way we do things in America.

That said if the Rams chose to sign him, I also have the right to boycott the organization. I would not purchase a ticket, buy any paraphernalia, or even support the sponsors by watching a televised game while he was on the roster.

He paid “a price for what he did”, but in my opinion the time he served does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

— Madhatter
3:33 pm May 20th, 2009

Comments in response to comments:

* No, Bulger isn’t a good quarterback. That has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Vick, but I’ve written about Bulger at least a dozen times in recent months. Please try to pay closer attention. Much appreciated. To repeat: Vick won’t be a Ram. Zero chance.

* Depends on employers and their standards. If Sideways’ employer wouldn’t hire him as an ex-felon, that’s Sideways’ problem. Has nothing to do with NFL’s specific policy. If those who run Vick’s profession reinstate him, that’s their choice to do so. Each business can decide what its standards are. Period.

* Madhatter, not sure who you are arguing against. As I said in the blog, a team that signs Vick will hear from a lot of angry people and will probably lose business. We agree on that.

* Little was given a sentence and he abided by the sentence. He received no special treatment. His sentence was in line with other first-time offenders who did the same thing. This is about Michael Vick. Not Little.

Thanks.

— Bernie Miklasz
3:43 pm May 20th, 2009

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All