Vick
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 13, 2009 8:11 PM CST
54 comments
There has been talk of Atlanta trying to trade Vick. The team being brought up most often in trade talks has been Minnesota. I don't know how I feel about him. He is one of the best athletes in NFL. He is a gamechanger. He has been in prison for a while now. There is no telling how he has held up in there. Would he still be a force in the league? Can he still play QB? Would he be better as a WR or return specialist?
On a personal note, I think what Vick did was wrong. But he served his time, took his punishment like a man, and I think he should get a second chance in the NFL. I don't think Childress would know what to do with him though! Chilly can't even use AD and CT together properly. What would he do with Vick? (Probably try to turn him into a pocket passer!)
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
1 recs |
54 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The only reason
that Minnesota is the main team being brought up is the same reason Minnesota is brought when ANY QB becomes or has the potential to become available. If Vinny Testeverde started talking about unretiring, people would say he should play for the Vikings. If Joe Namath said he still had some life in his arm, people would say he should play for the Vikings. Hell, didn’t Jeff George talk about coming back last year if the Vikings would take him? I think most people think the Vikings need a QB (they would be right), but they think anybody will do. That’s just not the case.
Besides that, the Vikings should be more conscience then ever over there image. They can’t give those who will use any excuse to show that the Vikings aren’t worthy of state money for a stadium any ammo and Vick would give them plenty. Its just an all around bad idea for the Vikings.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 13, 2009 9:33 PM CST reply actions
i agree
The Vikings are finally starting to repair their image. Bringing in Vick would do some damage to that. If Vick were to come in and get in any trouble at all, even a speeding ticket, everyone would immediately bring up the past. But, if Vick came in and stayed squeaky clean and ended up leading the Vikings to the superbowl, it would be a different situation. Either way, any team that signs Vick is going to have to deal with the media for a while. There is no denying that Vick would fill seats in the Metrodome though.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 13, 2009 10:07 PM CST up reply actions
Interesting point to raise
Sure Vick’s talent may be a steal due to his excess baggage, but would it be worth selling your soul to attain him. It is a possiblilty that the Vikings, or any other team out there, could gobble him up for a song. I am pretty sure that the Falcons are set on Ryan and would sell Vick for a a Mcdonalds mini meal. This provides the situation in which we could pick up a semi-proven QB for the price of a special teams player. But we have to use a balancing test to see if it would be the proper aquistion.
How good was Vick in terms of actual skill?
How good was Vick in terms of leadership?
How will this effect a chance at a Super Bowl?
vs.
How will his baggage effect his leadership ability?
How did his prison time effect physical ability?
How will this effect public opinion for a stadium?
How will this effect the image of the Vikings as a franchise?
How will this effect ticket sales?
How would Vikings fans react?
In the end the main question boils down to whether it is worth it to get Vick or whether the negatives would outweigh his benefits. I personally think the Vikings could get away with some type of PR spin stating that he has done his time and deserves a second chance. I also personally think that the negatives outweigh any positive Vick would bring, and I don’t feel Vick is sorry for his crime. I would not want to see the Vikings headed by such a person, nor the insinuation that the Vikings will do anything to win. There is winning and winning with dignity. Hopefully we can do it the right way.
Mr. Weatherstone
by Mr. Weatherstone on Feb 13, 2009 10:06 PM CST reply actions
He Never Really Could Play QB
He’s a careerr 53% completion guy whose thrown nearly as many INT’s as he has TD’s. It’s going to be a long off-season.
just to play Devil's Advocate...
Vick has 71 TD’s and 52 INT’s. Not exactly “nearly as many INT’s as he had TD’s.” And you have to add his 21 rushing TD’s, and 52.1 rushing yards per game. Not to mention 2006, where he threw 20 TD’s, 13 INT’s, and ran for 1039 yards!
There’s no denying his athleticism. But I don’t want him in Minnesota. I think T-Jack is very similar to Vick, and I don’t want another scrambling QB in MN.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 13, 2009 11:30 PM CST up reply actions
If the Vikes sign Vick
Wilf can forever kiss a stadium goodbye. One of the main reasons the Legislature rebuffed McCombs in good economic times was because the Vikings were not only bad on the field, but bad off. Minnesotans don’t do thuggery well, and if you bring in what many people consider to be the ultimate thug and then ask for over $700 million?
No and no. I mean, there’s Birkenstock and Granola crowds, and then there’s Minnesotans. Who would be asked to pony up serious coin for a team who’s franchise face is that of a doggie Mass murderer.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m digging the irony, but I want the Vikes to stay in the Land of Franken.
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
good point to consider
I don’t think a stadium is going to get built anyways, but with Vick there is almost no chance in he11. Unless he brings a superbowl ring or two. But that’s doubtful.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 13, 2009 11:52 PM CST up reply actions
An Excuse to Dump the Vikings
I think that’s what Vick would be used as if he came to the Vikings. An excuse to dump the team along with any stadium considerations. I know it’s been said that the hundreds of comments in the Trib aren’t reflective of Minnesotans at large, but it’s all we have to look at from the outside, and it looks like most people would rather see the Vikings leave, even if the stadium wasn’t at issue. The most visibly vocal segment of the “Land of Franken” doesn’t care for the Vikings, period. If they can use Vick as their poster-child to derail the stadium and support for the Vikes, I think they will, and they’ll applaud when the team is moved elswhere.
While I think that LA is a bad idea, I’m starting to warm up to the idea of the ‘Virginia Vikings’. At least here in the Old Dominion, we’d have a team of our own :)
On Vick himself though…. what happened to paying the price for your crime and getting another chance in society? My qualms with Vick center more on whether or not he’s really a upgrade over T-Jack, and whether or not his skills haven’t gone away after spending that time in jail. He’s too much of an unknown quantity, and if he was still any good, the Falcons would want to keep him.
Fan base
Well, my thought is, if there’s enough of a fan base to support the Ravens, despite Baltimore only being a 30-35 min drive from DC, then there’s enough to support a Virginia team on the other side. Leave the ’Skins to the people in the city.
Agree
I’d love for us to have the Vikes in Va. My only concern is that we once had a great pro basketball team in the old ABA ( Virginia Squires) with Bobby Dandridge and some unknown rookie named Julius Erving. The team had two homes to play in..The Richmond Coliseum and the Hampton Coliseum. The fans didn’t support the team and Erving was traded to the New Jersey (then the New York) Nets and the team folded along with the league when it merged with the NBA. The Redskin fanbase in the state is huge (and obnoxious) and I’d wonder if this state would support a team now.
Hey now...
I live less than a mile from the Metrodome. I kind of like where they are now thank you very much.
by Eric J. Thompson on Feb 19, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions
No Need To Get Excited
I like where the team is now too and have stated in past posts how it wouldn’t be the same if they moved. We’re just having fun.
Vick
People act like Vick killed a human being. Hell, I love animals, and I couldn’t see how anyone could get enjoyment out of torturing them. But….two years in prison? That, plus all the outrage that it’s caused. There would be less public anger if he actually did kill a person. It amazes me…
The public backlash it would cause is the biggest reason not to trade for him.
by PurplePeopleEaters on Feb 14, 2009 3:44 AM CST reply actions
Dogs are man's best friend
If it would have been some crazy cat fighting or squirel fighting ring I doubt people would have been as outraged, although it would still have been a lot. But people love dogs. Dogs are seen as lovable loyal companions, other animals are seen as arrogant (cats). People identify deeply with dogs and thus the outrage. On top of that his actions were so depraved that they actually gave PETA a shred of credibility.
Would people have been more outraged if he killed a person? Depends on how he killed the person. The outrage was not because he accidentally killed a dog, it was because he purposefully set the dogs up for destruction and received joy from it. The outrage was from the enjoyment of torture. If he had accidentally killed the dogs it would be excusable to most people. If Vick had killed a person in the same manner, or even negligently or recklessly, the outrage would have been 10 times more than what we saw with the dogs.
Vick got 2 years because of his enjoyment of the torture. That enjoyment signals that he has a mentality that is a danger to society. How long would it take to fix a mental state like that? 1 year . . . maybe, 2 years . . . maybe . . . 5 years is defintly within reason.
Mr. Weatherstone
by Mr. Weatherstone on Feb 14, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
I highly doubt he “enjoyed” it. He knew damn well what he was doing was cruel and inexcusable, but I just don’t see the guy laughing, smiling and having a good time as he killed the dogs. That’s just an assumption on your part, and it’s likely very much incorrect. It was probably just business to him. They “underperformed” and so he killed them, no regrets and no pleasure in it. Pure business.
I’m not trying to defend the guy and say what he did wasn’t wrong, because it was, but you can’t label him as being a danger to society because he killed a handful of dogs. It’s a despicable act, but if I had to be worried about a football player being a menace to society, I’d be more worried about Larry Johnson spitting drinks into women’s faces and then punching them than I would about Michael Vick.
All business?
Are you telling me that that the richest NFL player at one time needed to fight dogs for business and money making purposes? I doubt serial killers laugh and smile most of the time when they kill people but that doesn’t mean they don’t get some sort of sick enjoyment out of it. He fought and killed dogs for enjoyment, plain and simple.
It is not hunting and it is not business.
No, obviously he didn’t need the money. I don’t know if you purposefully misunderstood, but what I was trying to say was that he was trying to put the best product into his “matches.” The dogs underperformed, and so he terminated them. He probably did find some enjoyment out of watching them fight, but I don’t think he was too pleased when he decided he had to kill his own dogs. I can see him being angry, but I can’t see him enjoying it at all.
Vick was the Perfect Victim
The animal rights activists made an example out of Vick. He was a celebrity, he did something stupid and disgusting, he broke the law, he was a perfect victim for their political agenda. They made an example out of him to try and change social tolerance for killing animals, and they were successful in destroying one of the most promising careers in football.
I saw no signs that Vick “enjoyed” killing the dogs, and you go back a few decades and Vick’s actions wouldn’t been seen as even reprehensible. People have been fighting animals against one another for thousands of years, for public enjoyment. It’s politically incorrect (and illegal) to do that stuff now so Vick had to pay the price for being stupid enough to be involved with it. He owned up to it like a man, went to jail and paid the price, and STILL people want to ruin the man for it.
This is a football forum and probably the wrong place to pit moralities against one another, especially if I have to pull out a verbal gun and shoot the argument that loses the debate. :)
It does make it clear that there’s way too many people who’s delicate psyches are still traumatized by Vick’s crimes, for him to ever get a second chance in society, or pro football, no matter how many years he spends in jail.
Vick a victim?
Target of opportunity maybe, but hardly a victim.
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
Honestly, I think he was both. He did wrong, and he admitted it it. Pled guilty. Did the time. He should be done with it now. In theory, our society says that if you commit a crime, you pay the price, then you’re released to start fresh again (barring child molestation).
But that’s not the case with Vick… For many people, it’s not enough that he lost millions of dollars for killing a few dogs. It’s not enough that one of the most promising careers in pro football was derailed, quite possibly destroyed. It’s not enough for a man to admit his mistakes and pay the price and go through the counseling and humiliation and repentance.
No. They have to further spit on him, and do their best to deny him his former place in society.
So yes. Michael Vick has gone from being the victimizer, to the victim.
I think you are streching it a bit
I understand you want to defend your boy (being from Virgina, you probably have known about him since he was in high school up till now, at the very least since college), but you are marginalizing things to fit your arguement.
First, the theory is just that. No one can commit a crime and after serving jail time get to start fresh. Con artists aren’t given the benefit of the doubt once they leave jail, niether do any white collar criminals. Once you have committed a crime, just because you got caught doesn’t mean your sorry for what you’ve done or that you won’t do it again. Not saying that is the case with Vick, but no criminal gets the benefit of the doubt once they have been caught. They have to serve their time and earn the trust and respect of their family and peers back before they can get the “fresh start”
Secondly, you seem to imply that it is a conspiracy against Vick when you say “For many people, it’s not enough that he lost millions of dollars for killing a few dogs (is it not enough that Wall Street lost "a few billion dollars” or should we just get over that too?). It’s not enough that one of the most promising careers in pro football was derailed, quite possibly destroyed(he did this to himself. He knew what he was doing was illegal {guilty plea} and knew what he was risking to keep doing it. Just don’t feel sorry for him here). It’s not enough for a man to admit his mistakes and pay the price and go through the counseling and humiliation and repentance(Again going back to the theory, no one gets the benefit of the doubt and I am sure they have to go through counseling/humliation/etc. So no its not enough to just go to jail. Yo have to show people, and in Vick’s case that means the NFL viewing public, that you demonstate it when you say your sorry.) Its not a conspiracy. Vick was/is a public figure. When public figures break the law, they are disgraced and people lose respect for them, no matter what they do for a living.
“No. They have to further spit on him, and do their best to deny him his former place in society.” This one kills me because again, he knew what he was doing and that it was illegal. He knew the risks involved and he is being “denied” his former place because when he was there, he abused the power he had. If your boss abused his/her power and was fired, would you hire them back for the same job, or at all? I don’t think so.
Vick is a victim of his own doing and no one should feel sorry for him. He can earn his place back just like everyone else.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 19, 2009 9:34 PM CST up reply actions
On Target
Honestly, I never knew where Vick was from until after he was in the NFL; I don’t follow college football much.
Dogfighting and gambling and shooting dogs may be crimes, but in Vick’s case, they clearly were out to make an example out of him. The punishment was, IMO, excessive and didn’t fit the crimes. They were dogs, not humans. If I’m guilty of a bias, it’s that I’m sick and tired of pansy-ass political correctness controlling human lives, and I have no love whatsoever for PETA.
I can pull up a list longer than this blog entry has space for, of political figures and celebs who committed crimes and then were not required to even pay the same price that the average person would be liable for. Vick is the exception to the rule, not the common example.
Vick lost his own money, while Wall Street lost other people’s money. Not even remotely close to the same thing. Vick’s been hurt where it will cost him the most and where he’ll feel it forever. I’m not implying a conspiracy against Vick, I’m stating that watching this train wreck is like watching a mob with torches gathering momentum. Conspiracy requires intelligence, a mob does not.
In the end, it isn’t even an issue of feeling sorry for Vick. It’s just pure stomach-wrenching disgust at the injustice of the politically-correct mob that continues to howl for a man’s blood even after he’s paid the price.
Animal cruelty strikes a chord
in people. Child abuse does, too. We were talking about this at work the other day, and the reason folks get so fired up about animal and child cruelty is because of the general inability of both to be able to defend themselves. Adults, for the most part (and I understand that there are exceptions to every rule) can defend themselves, but animals and kids can’t, which is why people get so damn angry when something like this happens.
Money comes into play in this as well. Vick signed something like a $100 million dollar contract with close to $30 million guaranteed, and he was raising and training dogs to fight for money payouts in the thousands of dollars. So it wasn’t for the money, it was for the sick perversion of watching dogs maul each other to death. There’s something wrong with that. Seriously wrong.
It was the combination of cruelty and stupidity that caused all the outrage
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
Have you eaten Chicken, Beef, Pork, Fish, etc. etc. etc.
Wildlife (animals) gets no respect whatsoever.
Civilizations were built around far more perverse things that dog fighting.
That doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
by vikingfuture8816 on Feb 14, 2009 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
We Accept Arial Hunting of the Alaskan Wolf
That should make it more acceptable. Just noting the hypocrisy in allowing cruelty to animals while simultaneously prosecuting others for cruelty to animals.
Seriously, to have a United States Senator take the floor and shed tears over the matter whilst we’re at war in two countries is absurd.
high profile people
If Vick had not been a high profile athlete, no one would have known about this whole mess. But because he was well known, the judicial system had to set an example. And I’m sure there was a lot of pressure on them from PETA and other animal rights activist groups. It’s sad. I agree, that there was so much attention paid to this matter, while thousands of people are dying in Iraq. It’s absurd.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 14, 2009 3:44 PM CST up reply actions
Really?
That is quite a jump in logic. How hunting an animal can be compared to torture of an animal is beyond a reasonable stretch of the imagination. Hunting has a valid purpose for the survival of the human race, torture has no survival benefit, it is just the sick enjoyment of the pain of a lesser beast.
Mr. Weatherstone
by Mr. Weatherstone on Feb 14, 2009 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
It's not even a hop!
You chase an animal down with a helicopter and shoot it. Mame or kill, either is good enough, and leave the carcasses to rot. (TORTURE)
Suggesting it furthers the human race is laughable. Even if there is an over population, there has to be a less barbaric and/or traumatic (for the animals) ways of managing it.
Shooting animals from an Aerial vantage point is sick and those who would enjoy the stalking of a lesser beast for the sole purpose of killing it are sick.
And if there is a sporting consideration to be made, there is a historic one for animal combat as well.
Hunting is not Poaching
You need to be a bit more careful in selecting your words.
Mr. Weatherstone
by Mr. Weatherstone on Feb 14, 2009 7:10 PM CST up reply actions
Look, I didn't make it up.
It’s called “Aerial Hunting,” but you can call it whatever you like. It is gruesome and cruel and allowable in our society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr183lk-wQk
(haven’t figured out the link – hints anyone?)
Not Torture
Dead animals that are rotting, are not capable of being tortured. Maybe it’s torture for those who go near it and smell the stench, but in the wilderness there’s plenty of other animals that live on carrion and should make short work of the carcasses.
Shooting those animals from an aerial vantage is the only feasible option for a Dept of Fish and Game that isn’t hunting for sport, and has lots of other work to do other than keeping the wolf population from decimating the caribou and elk populations. They aren’t out there hunting for sport and enjoyment, it’s their job and they need to take care of it quickly and efficiently and get on to the next task. They’re professionals, not the sadists you imagine.
They are not professionals as you imagine, they’re average citizens hunting on a bounty.
I would argue being shot, not killed, but left for dead would be fairly agonizing and tantamount to torture. Excessively cruel at a minimum.
Gov't Officials
The footage I saw was the State of Alaska’s wildlife department (Fish and Game or some such), which is why Gov. Palin was being specifically targeted and blamed for the killings of the wolves.
The thing is, we’re talking Alaska, a huge territory, and much of it is inaccessible except by aircraft of some sort. How else are they expected to quickly get to the outback to cull the wolf population if not by air?
As for private citizens doing it, I have no knowledge of this and can’t say one way or the other. But if there’s an open season on wolves, as set by their F&G, wherein X-number can be killed, I don’t see where there’s a problem. We’re talking about culling the population of WOLVES, an apex-predator. If their numbers aren’t kept under control, they’ll devastate other animal populations, and if too close to rural and urban areas, people’s domestic stock and dogs are very much at risk, as well as children.
I agree that being shot, and not killed, is wrong. They should take the time to ensure the job is finished; that’s a moral issue that I totally agree with.
Hunting Wolf
Seriously, LoveHate, it comes down to a matter of choice. Either the Dept of Fish and Game in Alaska allows the wolves to shred the populations of caribou and elk, or they hunt the wolves to keep the wolf population check so that the caribou and elk can build up in numbers and thrive. It’s just some stupid ditz in Hollywood that was looking for any possible excuse to attack the Alaskan Gov that created a false issue out of this, DoFG’s in every state make the same choices every year. They set minimum fish sizes for catching so that the young have a chance to breed and renew the population, minimum sizes for deer and other game that’s allowed to be hunted. They need hunters to cull those game animals as well, so that they can ensure that the wildlife population doesn’t get out of hand and that every species has space to co-exist.
I would argue being shot, not killed, but left for dead would be fairly agonizing and tantamount to torture. Excessively cruel at a minimum.
I get management. I don’t buy that as a cause to promote unnecessary suffering of animals. Simply mandate the use of a rifle and verification of the animals death. Trap and euthanize the animals.
Either way, where is the outrage?
i agree lovehate
We here in America think it was horrible what he did. But in other countries, dog is a delicacy! I’m not saying what he did was right. In fact I think it was wrong. But he served his time. I also don’t think many of us can relate to Vick and what it was like for him growing up. Many inner-city kids grow up surrounded by violence. Dog fights are just a normal way of life for them. Not to mention there are a lot worse things than dog fighting going on around them as well. While it may not be right, and he knew that, if you ask someone who has grown up around it their whole lives if it was this big of a deal, most of them would say no.
by PurplePeopleEaters09 on Feb 14, 2009 2:12 PM CST up reply actions
You're comparing the killing of animals for food
to the torture of animals for some perverse pleasure? Really?
And the “well, other civilizations were built around worse stuff so it’s okay” argument is pretty hollow. Just because you eat dogs in Asia doesn’t mean it’s okay to torture them in this country.
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
No, I didn't say "other" civilizations!
This one! The one you’re currently enjoying has a deep history in animal and human combat for what you would call “perverse pleasure.” Really!
My point was: things that have been happening for centuries don’t die out the day you pass a law. Dog fighting is disturbing, no doubt. The outrage needs to be commensurate to the offense.
I bet you’re hypocritical enough to enjoy the rodeo too. Yeehaa!
Hmm, your plural use of the word
‘civilizations’ would seem to indicate you meant more than one, hence my assumption you meant ‘other’ civilizations besides this one.
And I think the outrage the public showed, and the sentence he received, was commensurate with the offense.
And way to throw in the little personal dig. Y’all…
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
Sorry If I've Offended You.
How could I have known you’re a cowboy?
I was trying to further make my point by illustrating another arena of animal cruelty that is often disregarded by our average Joe Citizen as standard and fair animal treatment. Rodeo = good fun entertainment!
The rodeo has a history in animal cruelty practices (some that are commonly practiced have been outlawed and yet are still known to happen).
Yeehaa = cowboy. Cowboy = rodeo. Rodeo = yeehaa. Nothing personal.
This is not a defense of Vick either. I have no issue with the law. It was the public reaction that staggered me.
No worries
I’m not a cowboy, BTW. Not even a rodeo fan, just didn’t appreciate the hypocrisy accusation when I’ve written nothing but consistent posts about this.
Public reaction, at least to me, didn’t seem out of whack with what he did. Like someone else said, in our culture the dog is man’s best friend, and his actions actually gave PETA some creditability, when in a lot of instances PETA is pretty extreme in their views. At least in the eyes of most Americans.
Butr PETA’s banned Super Bowl ad was hot.
Thoughts on the Vikings, Buckeyes, and Cardinals
www.purplebuckeye.blogspot.com
Wildlife
Nope, I’m a vegetarian :)
Still got no respect for chickens, cows, pigs or fish. They’re animals, they lack opposable thumbs.
I do, however, own a closet full of awesome leather jackets and coats, including a really cool gazelle hide jacket that I bought when deployed to Egypt. You know those cute, harmless, cuddley looking gazelles that run real fast? Nice supple leather. :)
Got no use for the meat tho, I’d just bury it after skinning the beast.
I know he'll get a shot somewhere
because guys who have done worse than him have been given multiple shots before. But I really doubt he ends up in Minnesota. Childress seems to be so dead set on the clean image (besides McKinnie) of the team that he likely wouldn’t touch him with a 10 ft cattle prod.
I certainly hope we’re not stupid enough to waste money on him.
Detroit doesn't even want him
If a team coming off the worst season in history and needs a QB doesn’t want him why should we even be discussing the possibility of him coming here? Sorry Vick have a nice life but not with the Vikes.
A Major Thing Overlooked by the media and football pundits
If you put all of Vick’s indiscretions aside. Goodell could keep him from taking another snap in the NFL. He has a valid reason to do that. Read a letter he wrote after the plea deal was reached.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2990157
" “Your plea agreement and the plea agreements of your co-defendants also demonstrate your significant involvement in illegal gambling. Even if you personally did not place bets, as you contend, your actions in funding the betting and your association with illegal gambling both violate the terms of your NFL Player Contract and expose you to corrupting influences in derogation of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of an NFL player.”
" “You have engaged in conduct detrimental to the welfare of the NFL and have violated the league’s Personal Conduct Policy.”
by ELO Vike Fan 1977 on Feb 19, 2009 7:50 AM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
