With all the news surrounding Mike Vick and his possible re-instatement into the NFL, I started to think about whether or not this is a good thing for the game of football. My initial reaction was a simple "who cares?", because I really didn't.
The more I sit and think about this particular case, I find myself rooting for Vick to make a complete comeback. Why? I'm still sifting through those thoughts, but it seems like it always comes down to the fact that this is an underdog story, which always makes for a better story in sports.
When Vick was playing before his legal troubles, I couldn't care what he did on the field. Was he a freak of an athlete? Yes, of course he was. But, I didn't have any rooting interest in him at all, until now.
He has done his time in prison and "paid his debt to society", so why not allow him to play again? In a league with accused rapists, murderers, alcoholics, wife beaters, and even the occassional drug traffic entrepreneur, can a guy that was convicted for fighting dogs get a second chance? FIGHTING DOGS, are you kidding me? I know it is illegal, but when you let some of the other stuff I mentioned slide, then you are going to have a hard time convincing me that he doesn't deserve a second shot.
I'd like to see Vick come in and prove to the critics that he has changed his ways AND play at a level that is comparable to where he was playing before he left the game. He does have two years of wear and tear off of his body, so that could actually help him out in this case. Will he ever be one of the greats of the game? I doubt it, but I have convinced myself that he can still be a good player in this league.
I've officially made a public stand for Mike Vick to continue to play football. I think I am officially losing my mind.
|
Comments
You make a decent argument with acceptable logic. I don't think people would get in too big a fit about this. I think one of the reason people went up in the air over it, myself included, is the diversion from common athlete/celebrity problems and the inherent air of organized criminality that was carried along with it.
I think the most interesting point you make is "who cares?" Let us not forget that this was the first QB taken, and that Drew Brees (the second taken) was not taken until the beginning of the second round. In the end, look at the disparity of performance between the two (to say nothing of the quality of character). In terms of performance, Vick was only a threat to teams that could not rush the passer with speed on the outside. Simple as that. He floundered against base cover 2 at times because he simply could not make accurate passes. At best, he was a big play performer who excelled when talent was around him. His completion percentage was never better than mediocre (55%?). In season when they were successful with Vick, they were still not an elite team. The QB position consistently wants this elusive, monster athlete but it is counterproductive for teams to invest in it when accuracy is the single most important thing in moving the ball down the field. You are talking about a guy who was consistently bad against teams that had good, base Cover 2 in Tampa, Indy, Chicago and Carolina. The hype was more than the product. Every play had a chance for something neat to see, but if you needed 6 yards through the air on an underneath route against drop coverage on 2nd and 8 Mike Vick would throw the football at his receiver's feet.
Nice post AT...
Keep it up.