Rob's House Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Not entirely related to the subject of this thread, but I vividly remember a majority of posters on this board slamming Vick and saying things like they'd boycott the team if the Bills signed him... they're awfully quiet about him these days... It's cool to be a scumbag as long as you're a good football player. It doesnt matter what the fans did or didnt want. Or which particular player was involved. The bigger point is, you cant have the commissioner telling Free Agents which teams to sign with. That is collusion and fixing. True. Goodell should step down and an investigation should take place. This is IMO far more egregious than "spygate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Vick also said in that interview that the only place he would have succeeded is in Philly, because they let him play any way he wanted. Yeah...Michael Vick playing for a Dick Jauron who canned his OC just before the season started and promoted Alex Van Pelt to the position, leaving the team without a full-time QB coach. I don't know if Philly is the "only" place he would have succeeded...I'm comfortable suggesting he would have completely bombed in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 They did put Vick in the right situation...as this town (and I suspect Cincy as well) would have blown a gasket if that POS had signed here. You're right. This is the same Vick that no one wanted in Buffalo--including, I would imagine, most of these posters manufacturing their outrage over this non-issue. Where is the story describing Buffalo going after Vick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If Andy Reid (or maybe even Chan Gailey) were the coach of the Bills at the time, and the Bills had Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb at QB here, Goodell would have very likely steered him away from Philly and toward Buffalo. Granted, you really don't want the league having that much say in where players play, but it had nothing to do with the franchises. It had to do with Vick not playing right away, and easing his way back in under the tutelage of a guy who would know how to handle him and the situation. I don't like it, but I also fully understand that the league has a right to protect its product and its product took an enormous hit with the Mike Vick scandal. No one knew it would turn out this way. It had nothing to do with hating Buffalo. So you are saying that if we were Philly and Philly were us then vick would have came to Buffalo?????? Thanks Sherlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 League Office to Tony Dungy: you misunderstood what we said....that's not the way it came down. Tony Dungy to Mike Vick : ok, this is what your going to say...... Mike Vick: you guys misunderstood me........(let the backtracking begin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills!Win! Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have a solution to this whole fiasco, its called "WE CAN'T CHANGE THE PAST, SO LET'S BRING ON THE EAGLES IN WEEK 5 AND KICK THEIR BUTTS AND SHOW THEM WE DON'T NEED VICK." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) You're right. This is the same Vick that no one wanted in Buffalo--including, I would imagine, most of these posters manufacturing their outrage over this non-issue. Where is the story describing Buffalo going after Vick? Tony Dungy says Michael Vick could potentially wind up in Buffalo, which he says previously discussed signing the quarterback: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4636199 http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/74088/116/Report-Bills-Considering-Michael-Vick http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/02/02/vick-assured-hell-be-traded/ Edited August 18, 2011 by papazoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 99% of the time I wouldn't care but any advice with the suspension looming seems a bit improper. I don't care if he calls clabo and says stay in ATL, I do care when he has complete power over a guys livelihood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have a solution to this whole fiasco, its called "WE CAN'T CHANGE THE PAST, SO LET'S BRING ON THE EAGLES IN WEEK 5 AND KICK THEIR BUTTS AND SHOW THEM WE DON'T NEED VICK." Yes, that surely is going to happen. They will simply add insult to injury, and we will be even more bitter about how this went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You're right. This is the same Vick that no one wanted in Buffalo--including, I would imagine, most of these posters manufacturing their outrage over this non-issue. Where is the story describing Buffalo going after Vick? It's not for the Commissioner to decide where players should and shouldnt go. As the man with all of the power to reinstate a player, even merely suggesting which teams to stay away from is collusion and roster fixing. Doesnt matter the player or situation. It's a bad precedent to set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills1960 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I want to see some action taken by the Bills or Bengals. A press release or some kind of inquiry the league. What reasoning did they have to have done this besides the fact they'd rather have him in a bigger market? How was he better off in Philly than in Buffalo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You're right. This is the same Vick that no one wanted in Buffalo--including, I would imagine, most of these posters manufacturing their outrage over this non-issue. Where is the story describing Buffalo going after Vick? What the hell does anyone's feelings about Vick playing for the Bills have to do with anything? And how is the commissioner steering free agents towards certain teams a non-issue? Please explain because on the surface your assertion sounds idiotic but I'm interested to hear if there is an intelligent rationale that I haven't thought of. Please do explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 So you are saying that if we were Philly and Philly were us then vick would have came to Buffalo?????? Thanks Sherlock No, I'm saying that if three people out of several million who lived in Philly then, lived in Buffalo then (Reid, McNabb, Kolb), Goodell would have steered Vick to Buffalo, asswipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 On racism: I understand Ralph detests Eastern Europeans even more than any other race - Which is why Poz was not resigned in Barnett was picked up to replace him. His name sounds polish.. DUH Fortunately for us the board does not segregate foolish posts…. Kidding aside, I think Vick would have been forced to scramble a lot more in Buffalo and given his injury history, it would have made him into not much of a difference maker for current the team. It is however a serious allegation that the league can manipulate free agency to that degree and it will e interesting to see how the spin progresses form here. You want to believe that the commissioner refrains from playing god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QB Bills Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Like many others have stated, the issue is not whether you wanted him on your team or not. It's whether your team should have an equal shot as anyone else to land him (or any other player). The outrage isn't because he had a great year last year. Honestly, every football fan, not just Bills or Bengals, should be upset about this if it's true. It doesn't have to be Michael Vick. It could have been Aaron Maybin. Same deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, I'm saying that if three people out of several million who lived in Philly then, lived in Buffalo then (Reid, McNabb, Kolb), Goodell would have steered Vick to Buffalo, asswipe. That still is a dumb hypothetical argument, those three people were with Philadelphia now what? wiper of asses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 That still is a dumb hypothetical argument, those three people were with Philadelphia now what? wiper of asses I don't think it's a dumb hypothetical at all. Most of the complaints here seem to reek of "hating Buffalo", and we're screwed again, and Goodell and the NFL favor the big cities and crap on the smaller markets, and even though we hate Vick they took him from us. I'm saying in the hypothetical it had zero to do with any of that, it was all about those three guys (granted, it could have been any two talented quarterbacks ahead of Vick on the depth chart that gave Vick little chance of seeing the field in 2009). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I don't think it's a dumb hypothetical at all. Most of the complaints here seem to reek of "hating Buffalo", and we're screwed again, and Goodell and the NFL favor the big cities and crap on the smaller markets, and even though we hate Vick they took him from us. I'm saying in the hypothetical it had zero to do with any of that, it was all about those three guys (granted, it could have been any two talented quarterbacks ahead of Vick on the depth chart that gave Vick little chance of seeing the field in 2009). Ok that I can see I'm not whining about Buffalo and I dont think it has anything to do with the situation, I understand Philly was the best place for him and the league and obviously so did Goodell, I just dont believe that goodell should be able to leverage Vicks reinstatement with pressure to go to a certain team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Like many others have stated, the issue is not whether you wanted him on your team or not. It's whether your team should have an equal shot as anyone else to land him (or any other player). The outrage isn't because he had a great year last year. Honestly, every football fan, not just Bills or Bengals, should be upset about this if it's true. It doesn't have to be Michael Vick. It could have been Aaron Maybin. Same deal. Right if you insert Aaron Maybin in Vick place, then it's the Philly fans who are on the losing end of the commissioner favoritism, ether way the commissioner should not be practicing favoritism.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 This is a tweet from Adam Schefter (you can see it on espn's nfl page now) AdamSchefter Adam Schefter Michael Vick: "Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. I want to make it clear this was a decision I made." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts