Employing Michael Vick

So, ESPN is reporting that talk shows in Philly is blasting the Eagles for employing ex-dog-fighting-financer Michael Vick. Meanwhile, the SportsNation survey says that 60% of people think it is a good move by the Eagles.

So, why the vast difference? I think it goes like this:
  1. Vick should still be a great quarterback
  2. Alas, Vick also has some serious moral problems
  3. I love my team; it should be a stand-up team that don't deal with immoral stuff
  4. My team should not employ Vick
  5. Other teams have lesser standards
  6. They can employ Vick
Personally, I think it's wrong for the NFL to further discipline Vick (potentially reinstated by week 6 if the commissioner so pleases) after the court systems already has. Man has wronged and was punished. Seriously punished. Give him a second chance so he can turn around his life. Would you rather see him end up like Maurice Clarett?

I'm excited for Vick and Philadelphia.

(Apparently, so is the president of some animal loving place: says it's a good thing that Vick is heading to Philadelphia because Philly is a city with a big dog-fighting problem. "it is a big boast for us" - I'm shaking my head)

No comments: