Michael Vick to the Eagles...

[Bandit]

Just heard this on the radio on the way home.  Blew me away.  I am a massive eagles fan (saw every offensive/defensive snap last year), and I didn't have this one on my radar at all.  Let the fucking media circus begin.  This will be such a distraction for a team that was a couple of plays away from the superbowl last year.  They don't resign Dawkins, but pick up Vick....bizarre move for the Eagles.  I thought they learned their lesson with T.O.

On the other hand, they have some pretty potent offensive weapons (Westbrook, McNabb, Jackson, Maclin) and I am curious how they plan to use Vick.  The Wildcat I guess is obvious.

[Trippy]

Hmm...

Edit: Peter King's opinion

[HaemishM]

I can't figure out why this is a good move for the Eagles. Sure, they can run the wildcat, but if you don't run Vick out there except on Wildcat plays, you will tip your hand. Unless they really expect to get rid of McNabb (whose new contract covers the same time period as Vick's), what's the purpose of bringing in a questionable QB with big time media distractions attached? But apparently, McNabb lobbied for it.

I don't understand, but at least he's not on my favorite team.

[Paelos]

Go figure he goes from my hometown to my Cowboys rival. He was on my shit list before, but barring the Redskins there isn't a team I hate more. As far as the move goes, yeah they want to see if he can replace McNabb. The fans have always been on McNabb, Vick's three years younger, and in a lot of ways he's a more dynamic QB.

[HaemishM]

Dynamic, unless you want your QB to, I don't know, complete more than 55% of his passes. Vick's got a great arm, but he sucks as a passer.

[IainC]

Calling it now. Career ending injury after a hard tackle from an animal loving defence at some point in the early season.

[HaemishM]

The only way that scenario could get better is if it's during a game with Buffalo and some shoots Terrell Owens in the same game for being a douchebag.

[WayAbvPar]

Hmm...

Edit: Peter King's opinion

I am amazed King took him mouth off of Tom Brady's cock long enough to notice. He has gone from interesting football writer to completely unreadable the past few years.

[Sauced]

It's unlikely he'll be in football shape anytime soon, and can't play til week 7 besides.

Wonder if the pa announcer in Philly has taken "Who let the dogs out" off of his iPod yet.  And how often it'll get played at road games.

[Bandit]

It's unlikely he'll be in football shape anytime soon, and can't play til week 7 besides.

Week 7 at the latest. There is a possible reinstatement before that point.

[ShenMolo]

I can't figure out why this is a good move for the Eagles. Sure, they can run the wildcat, but if you don't run Vick out there except on Wildcat plays, you will tip your hand. Unless they really expect to get rid of McNabb (whose new contract covers the same time period as Vick's), what's the purpose of bringing in a questionable QB with big time media distractions attached? But apparently, McNabb lobbied for it.

I don't understand, but at least he's not on my favorite team.

Sign him for $1.3m, rehabilitate him over the year, trade him for a first rounder next year if McNabb is still any good. Vick is still in the top 6 active QB's in winning %. If he can get his game back together he is THE starting QB for half the teams in the league next year. If he doesn't, you lose next to nothing. If McNabb stinks it up this year you have another option for late season or next year or trade for high pick.

Even if after this year he isn't ready to start, the bad PR will have blown over and someone will give you some good draft picks for him.

[HaemishM]

Thing is, he's past his prime and even when he was in his prime, he just wasn't that valuable as a passing QB. His winning percentage can be attributed to his legs (which are probably on the decline) and the system Jim Mora, Jr. ran which focused on a lot of running. I don't think for one moment he'll be as good after two years in prison as he was in his best years. Running QB's who throw lots of INT's and INC's don't start after age 30.

[Nebu]

I can't figure out why this is a good move for the Eagles.

Only logic I could muster on this was

a) it may help motivate McNabb.  Not that he needs it.

b) it has some investment potential.  Grab Vick cheap and bring him back to form and sell him off and a markup.   

[chargerrich]

The only way that scenario could get better is if it's during a game with Buffalo and some shoots Terrell Owens in the same game for being a douchebag.

Maybe well see Vick snap on a wildcat run and pull a "last boyscout" gun move... too bad T.O. and 1/2 the entire Bengals team cant be on the same at the same time 

[tazelbain]

b) it has some investment potential.  Grab Vick cheap and bring him back to form and sell him off and a markup.   

Flip This Quarterback, on TLC.

[Rasix]

Troubled star players are worth usually a 2nd to 4th round pick.  Troubled players with no defined position in the NFL are probably on the low end of that.  Add his age and his time away from the game and he's worth about as much as Sebastian Janakowski playing linebacker on the open market.  

There's no way they're paying his 2010 salary unless McNabb sprains his pinky (again) and Vick murders whoever's second on the depth chart and shows that he's learned how to pass to someone besides Alge Crumpler while in prison.

I'm a bit skeptical.

[Righ]

Football aside, this will do the Eagles no good at all. So they'd better hope that he suddenly becomes the best fucking QB that the game has ever seen.

[Paelos]

What did the Eagles have to lose? At worst they get a bust player who's a media magnet that they dump off. At best they get an outstanding QB to trade for some actual talent at the skill positions.

[Righ]

This is a guy who hung dogs from trees, beat them with sticks, electrocuted them by attaching jumper cables to their genitals, drowned them with his own hands. This is going to significantly tarnish the Eagles name and the value of their franchise. So that's what they have to lose. It may make no difference to your average meat-headed Eagles fan who won't think beyond the game, but it will make a difference to many - including a lot of families who support the Eagles and even some of their sponsors. He'd better be the best damned QB ever.

[Nebu]

If only he had done something more benign like attempted murder or spousal abuse... then he'd be squeaky clean by NFL standards.   

[Triforcer]

If only he had done something more benign like attempted murder or spousal abuse... then he'd be squeaky clean by NFL standards.  

I've been dying to let this rant out.  You know what Michael Vick's sin was?  It wasn't electrocuting, torturing, etc. animals.  It was electrocuting, torturing, etc. CUTE animals.

If he had beaten his wife/girlfriend, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now (if she was black).  If he had DUIed and killed someone, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. Hell, if he did what he did with roosters and had cockfights, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. People eat their sandwiches full of animals that were tortured their entire short miserable lives and spit on Michael Vick.  

The only difference between Vick and any factory farmer is that he did it in open, with animals that (unfortunately for him) are more photogenic than the ones we eat.

(to be clear, he broke the law and I support the criminal prosecution he received.  I'm just talking about the level of fan "hate" for him.)

[Brogarn]

I've been dying to let this rant out.  You know what Michael Vick's sin was?  It wasn't electrocuting, torturing, etc. animals.  It was electrocuting, torturing, etc. CUTE animals.

If he had beaten his wife/girlfriend, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now (if she was black).  If he had DUIed and killed someone, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. Hell, if he did what he did with roosters and had cockfights, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. People eat their sandwiches full of animals that were tortured their entire short miserable lives and spit on Michael Vick.  

The only difference between Vick and any factory farmer is that he did it in open, with animals that (unfortunately for him) are more photogenic than the ones we eat.

(to be clear, he broke the law and I support the criminal prosecution he received.  I'm just talking about the level of fan "hate" for him.)

No. People hate him for abusing an animal that has been at man's side and called his best friend since basically history was written. People hate him because at home they have Fido or Spike or whatever curled up by their feet or barking when a stranger approaches or just being a good play friend for the kids. Dogs are family members. Ask anyone that owns one.

I get your point, but it doesn't quite work in this situation. To dog owners, he didn't just abuse an animal. He betrayed their trust.

[HaemishM]

Not all animals are created equal. Some are tastier than others. 

[Signe]

I him to be torn apart by animals.  He's a psycho monster and has no place on the Eagles, which happen to be the team I've supported for a whole lot of years.  Well, the team I used to support.  It won't be good for us or anyone.  PA is big on fighting animal cruelty, too.  He tortured puppy dogs!  I hate Hate HATE him.  He needs to disappear forever!  Go Steelers.    

[Paelos]

This is a guy who hung dogs from trees, beat them with sticks, electrocuted them by attaching jumper cables to their genitals, drowned them with his own hands. This is going to significantly tarnish the Eagles name and the value of their franchise. So that's what they have to lose. It may make no difference to your average meat-headed Eagles fan who won't think beyond the game, but it will make a difference to many - including a lot of families who support the Eagles and even some of their sponsors. He'd better be the best damned QB ever.

As a Cowboys fan, I'm fine with the Eagles taking some tarnish. Their fans suck anyway. 

[Signe]

As a Cowboys fan, I'm fine with the Eagles taking some tarnish. Their fans suck anyway. 

[Chimpy]

Not all animals are created equal. Some are tastier than others. 

I knew a girl from Korea who said that dog meat was mighty tasty.

[Signe]

Those monkey brains in that Indiana Jones film looked pretty nice, too.

[Chimpy]

Those monkey brains in that Indiana Jones film looked pretty nice, too.

Why is it always the brains with you?

:)

[Triforcer]

I've been dying to let this rant out.  You know what Michael Vick's sin was?  It wasn't electrocuting, torturing, etc. animals.  It was electrocuting, torturing, etc. CUTE animals.

If he had beaten his wife/girlfriend, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now (if she was black).  If he had DUIed and killed someone, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. Hell, if he did what he did with roosters and had cockfights, he wouldn't be hated as much as he is now. People eat their sandwiches full of animals that were tortured their entire short miserable lives and spit on Michael Vick.  

The only difference between Vick and any factory farmer is that he did it in open, with animals that (unfortunately for him) are more photogenic than the ones we eat.

(to be clear, he broke the law and I support the criminal prosecution he received.  I'm just talking about the level of fan "hate" for him.)

No. People hate him for abusing an animal that has been at man's side and called his best friend since basically history was written. People hate him because at home they have Fido or Spike or whatever curled up by their feet or barking when a stranger approaches or just being a good play friend for the kids. Dogs are family members. Ask anyone that owns one.

I get your point, but it doesn't quite work in this situation. To dog owners, he didn't just abuse an animal. He betrayed their trust.

I agree with you as to "why" everyone hates Vick more than they would if he had killed other animals- you clearly stated that above.  I'm just saying that that reason is hypocritical.  

In Japan deers are considered sacred and venison generally isn't eaten- but whale, horse, and dolphin are eaten (I've had the first two- whale is ok, horse tastes pretty much like whatever sauce you dip it in).  That may horrify you, but that beef sandwich you just ate horrifies a billion people in India just as much (and the pork rinds horrify a billion Muslims and 15 million Jews just as much).  If I visited South Korea, I'd eat dog and rat too (only if it was legal- I don't know if it technically is anymore).  EDIT:  According to wikipedia, it is illegal. 

I do understand, somewhat, the distinction between killing animals for eating and killing them for sport- I guess you could argue the latter promotes violent tendencies in people or something.  But that is an argument based on the subsequent effect on humans- not an argument that torture for sport is empirically different than torture for consumption.  For all animals involved, pain is pain.  That's why this debate is so amusing.  We hate Michael Vick not for torturing animals, but for torturing animals THAT WE LOVE.  That's grounded in emotion, not logic.    

[IainC]

You're missing the point a little Tri. It's not so much that he killed fluffy animals, it's that he treated them with barbaric cruelty. Even people who love a good steak are generally anti stringing cows up with piano wire and beating them with a stick. To be sure there is some cruelty inherent in meat production and it's naive to ignore that however acceptable farming methods seek to reduce the distress of the animals as far as is practical. There are of course exceptions which is why I don't eat veal or foie gras or battery eggs and I'm not alone in that. The cuteness of the animal isn't really an issue except to the lowest common denominator of populist rage, unnecessary cruelty to animals is generally held as an unconscionable crime by people in the west regardless of the pet/food status of the creature in question.

[Triforcer]

Fair enough- it makes more sense to me viewed in that light. 

[Brogarn]

I agree with you as to "why" everyone hates Vick more than they would if he had killed other animals- you clearly stated that above.  I'm just saying that that reason is hypocritical.  

In Japan deers are considered sacred and venison generally isn't eaten- but whale, horse, and dolphin are eaten (I've had the first two- whale is ok, horse tastes pretty much like whatever sauce you dip it in).  That may horrify you, but that beef sandwich you just ate horrifies a billion people in India just as much (and the pork rinds horrify a billion Muslims and 15 million Jews just as much).  If I visited South Korea, I'd eat dog and rat too (only if it was legal- I don't know if it technically is anymore).  EDIT:  According to wikipedia, it is illegal. 

I do understand, somewhat, the distinction between killing animals for eating and killing them for sport- I guess you could argue the latter promotes violent tendencies in people or something.  But that is an argument based on the subsequent effect on humans- not an argument that torture for sport is empirically different than torture for consumption.  For all animals involved, pain is pain.  That's why this debate is so amusing.  We hate Michael Vick not for torturing animals, but for torturing animals THAT WE LOVE.  That's grounded in emotion, not logic.    

I still think there's a pretty big difference between a family pet and a "sacred animal". The latter is treated as separate and divine, while the former is treated as a part of the family. They both may bring about similar reactions depending on the culture, but the source of that reaction is completely different. In some people's mind, torturing a dog is like torturing a small child while eating a sacred animal is more like defiling a Bible.

Beyond that though, IainC presented the superior argument.

[K9]

You're missing the point a little Tri. It's not so much that he killed fluffy animals, it's that he treated them with barbaric cruelty. Even people who love a good steak are generally anti stringing cows up with piano wire and beating them with a stick. To be sure there is some cruelty inherent in meat production and it's naive to ignore that however acceptable farming methods seek to reduce the distress of the animals as far as is practical. There are of course exceptions which is why I don't eat veal or foie gras or battery eggs and I'm not alone in that. The cuteness of the animal isn't really an issue except to the lowest common denominator of populist rage, unnecessary cruelty to animals is generally held as an unconscionable crime by people in the west regardless of the pet/food status of the creature in question.

While I'd broadly agree with you, I think I also see Tri's point that people draw the line at different points. Members of the Jain faith often go as far as avoid killing anything, yet I expect most westerners would have few qualms about installing a bug zapper, or salting slugs. I think you are both right to an extent; people do generally abhor excess cruelty to animals, however the reaction increases with the proximity of the animal to people's emotion. Dogs, cats, horses and small mammals are right up there, but you would struggle to attract the same sentiment to the killing of spiders, rats, ants and the like.

[Signe]

I eat meat.  People in my family have raised animals for food, hunted and used animals for work.  Michael Vick didn't "just" use dogs for fighting as entertainment, he tortured dogs in horrible ways for his own pleasure.  He's a sicko and needs to go away.