Skip to main content

That was fast.

Michael Vick has plead guilty to a conspiracy charge (I think), and will be sentenced December 10. The prosecutors have recommended that Vick serve 12 to 18 months in prison, though the judge can sentence him for up to five years.

So, faster than anyone thought, it's just about all wrapped up. I, for one, am shocked. Who could have guessed that the people who found the "cute" in "electrocuting dogs" wouldn't always have Vick's back?

The question now is, where do we go for high-quality dogfighting? No, I mean, it's: will Vick play in the NFL again?

I don't think the answer is anywhere near a clear-cut "no", yet there are some reasons to think that he won't. For one, any team that signs a quarterback fresh out of prison is going to take a gigantic PR hit. And the offense is one that's surprisingly (to me, anyway) galvanizing. I mean, some people are losing their minds over this. Don't get me wrong. Torturing animals should offend anyone, but some athletes have been let off the hook for much more serious offenses. (Take Leonard Little, for instance.) I wonder, though. Are the people who would be completely turned off by Vick and swear off supporting a team forever the same people who love the NFL in the first place? I don't know. Any team that signs Vick will get negative press, but I'm not sure how bad their losses will really be at the box office.

Vick does have one factor going for him, and I think it's the deciding factor: his age. Though he's been a public figure for nearly a decade, Vick's only 27. If his sentence falls somewhere in the middle of the prosecutors' recommendation, he could come out of prison as a 29-year-old, free agent, proven-winner NFL quarterback. Yes, he'll have had a couple years away from the game, but Vick was never what you'd call "heady" to begin with. And he'll have had two years away from the wear-and-tear of the NFL. Don't you think someone would find a place for him?

I think he'll probably only get offers from teams like the Lions or Browns, though. I mean, some awful team, whoever that is in a couple years, will roll the dice. (Who knows what the Lions and Browns will be like in two years? Well, I do. They'll suck. But they won't get Vick.)

In other words...how can I put this...in 2009 or 2010, Broncos fans can expect to start seeing Michael Vick twice a season.

Comments

John said…
I actually was not surprised that Vick pled out to these charges, what with 7 cooperating witnesses ready to testify against him and a trail of physical evidence all the way up and down the East Coast. Plus, pleading now saves him the most amount of money (in legal fees), gives him the best chance to play football again (by cutting the process off as short as possible), and helps him enter a path to "redemption."

I agree that the uproar over dogfighting is a little strange. I mean, what about what Ray Lewis did?

I do think Vick will play again - he is young enough, will probably be allowed back into the league by 2010, and will have time not only away from the punishment of the NFL but to lift weights at taxpayer expense.

I originally thought he might have to go to Canada or the Arena League at first, but your prediction about the Raiders is spot-on. He will fit in perfectly with Al Davis's penchant for washed-up has beens with nothing left in the tank. And I don't think the PR hit will be as great as it would be if a team was letting him play now (especially for the Raiders) - by the time he gets out of prison, serves another year or so on league suspension, and does some PSA's about the evils of dog fighting, public sentiment may be that he has paid his debt to society. And we'll all be even more sick of PETA by then.

Where can we go for quality dogfighting? Just ask Deion Sanders.
Mike said…
I guess what I meant to say is that from the time the allegations first became public, everything moved really quickly. With everyone having rolled on him, though, at this point I'm also not surprised he didn't want to go to trial.

The other funny thing to me is how Vick's apology tried to frame his problems as an issue of maturity. Say what? I never went through a "make animals fight to the death" stage when I was younger, and I don't know anyone who did. I don't necessarily think Vick's mentally ill or anything like that, but I also never looked at this and thought: "Hmmm, why hasn't he grown out of this yet?"
John said…
That's a good point about maturity. I never went through a stage where I thought tormenting other living creatures was entertaining, but then again I never counted among the ranks of Trails West's BD program.

I think the real problem with Vick is that he has no real moral sense because no one has ever held him accountable before, so I guess that is a form of immaturity.

In any event, I can't believe anyone is feigning surprise that an alum of the Virginia Tech football program and the brother of Marcus Vick is a common street thug . . .
Mike said…
BD? You have to jog my memory on that.
John said…
BD = Behavior Development. Just think the Carwin family.

Popular posts from this blog

And now that it’s gone, it’s like it wasn’t there at all

I never thought this blog would last longer than Jay Cutler's career with the Denver Broncos. He was a talented young prospect so good that the Broncos, a powerhouse organization only one game removed from the Super Bowl the season before, traded up to get him—or, in other words, a player whose upside was so huge, the team sacrificed its present to get his future. And now? He's gone . How did it come to this? * * * Often I'll play devil's advocate with a move like this; you know, I'll try and explain how it makes sense from the other side of the table. Today, during the most disastrous Broncos offseason in memory—and the draft hasn't even happened yet, so settle in—I just don't have it in me. I don't think move is really defensible from a football standpoint. But what the heck: as the article above says, the Broncos are sending Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick this month to the Chicago Bears for quarterback Kyle Orton, Chicago's first-rounder in t...

Who cares?

So we finally got done with the NBA playoffs after nearly two months of stretched-out play, and tomorrow's the draft. I really couldn't care less. I'm so burned out on the sport. Sadly, there's nothing else going on worth mentioning, so we might as well get into it. (Yes, baseball, Pugs, but I haven't really started following that this year yet, sorry.) Would the NFL hold its draft five days after the Super Bowl? Of course not, and not just because the league doesn't want to distract from the highlight of its annual calendar, the Pro Bowl. Of course, the NBA's situation is a little different. College play ended two and a half months ago, and the teams want to get draftees ready for the all-important summer league play (because the kind of guys that need the summer league always end up players). Not that when college basketball is over is relevant, anyway-the league is overrun by a bunch of high school players "just months removed from their prom" (...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...