Agree To Disagree

When the Mike Vick dog-fighting scandal first broke, I didn't quite understand how opinions had become quite so polarized on the issue. There was one side that believed that Vick was guilty as sin, and as such should be kicked off of the Falcons and banned from football for life. On the flip side, there seemed to be a camp that refused to say if he was guilty, and thought that due process should have allowed Vick to play through the season. How is there such a chasm on this issue? The explanation is quite simple really, and if people would take a moment to examine what everyone else is saying they'd see that in this case differing opinions aren't contradictory opinions.

Guilty or Not Guilty: The first great divide in the Vick debate seems fairly straight forward. There is a camp of people that sees seven witnesses ready to testify against Vick, physical evidence of dogfighting at a house that Vick owned, and a money trail so large that it could only lead back to a rich person and comes to the conclusion "I think Vick did it". That is ok, mainly because people's opinions do not have a hard and fast standard of certainty. I have the right to believe something that I see as having a 51% probability of being true. You have the right to believe something you see as having a 1% probability of being true.

While we live in a country that does allow people to form whatever opinion they wish, we also live in a country that operates on the standard of "reasonable doubt" when it comes to guilt in a court case. So...what exactly is "reasonable doubt"? Here is the best definition, as well as the most helpful one in applying the concept to the Vick case; "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs." Now for those of you that think Vick is guilty (myself included), ask yourself this question; If your life / family / fortune was on the line, and it depended on correctly answering whether or not Mike Vick was guilty of all of the dog-fighting charges against him, would you hesitate? I know I would, because I haven't seen the evidence in the case. I haven't heard exactly what the witnesses against Vick have to say. I wasn't there, and neither were you (hopefully). In other words, I agree with the people that say that we shouldn't crucify Vick just yet and that we should let the . And I also agree with the people that think Vick is guilty.

Business vs. Fairness: The second aspect of the Vick debate is perhaps the more contentious one. The people that think that the judgement of Vick should be held off till trial also generally believe that Vick shouldn't have his job taken away from him without being convicted of anything. Is it "fair" to get rid of Vick before he is convicted? In the end, probably not. Is it smart business to get rid of Vick right now? Absolutely. You see, the NFL and the Atlanta Falcons don't have to abide by the principle of reasonable doubt. The NFL doesn't have to wait for a conviction to suspend Vick, and the Falcons don't have to let him play in the meantime even if he isn't suspended. In fact, the Falcons would be insane to let him play. Can you imagine the protests? The distractions? The difficulty of Vick preparing for games during the leadup to his trial? The Falcons would lose money, games, and PR points if they let Vick play. Is it fair to him considering that he hasn't been convicted? Nope, but life isn't fair. Look at it this way; let's say you own a 7-11. One day one of your workers (we'll call him Dua for this theoretical) is arrested and charged with dog-fighting. The story makes the front page of your local paper the next day. Now do you let "Dua the Dog-Fighter" continue coming to work until his, knowing that him working at your store will drive away business and perhaps bring harm to both Dua and your property? Of course not. You tell the guy to stay home. Easy choice there, and also an easy choice for the Falcons in this situation. Business decisions don't have to be fair, they just have to be smart.

So are all of these opinions different? Of course. Are they irreconcilable though? No. Maybe now we can all just agree to disagree, with a little better understanding of where everyone else is coming from with their opinions.

Bookmark WTB!
Press [Ctrl + D]

How To Salvage The Falcons

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you are probably well aware that Michael Vick has been indicted on federal charges stemming from the ongoing investigation concerning dog fighting on his property in Virginia. So given the current situation, what do the Falcons do from here? This is a two part question, and quite a complicated one at that.

First off the Falcons need to determine how to best free themselves of Vick, both from a PR standpoint as well as a business standpoint. (Make no bones about it, Vick is done in Atlanta) While some talking idiots heads (Read; Bayless, Skip) have proposed that the Falcons should cut Vick outright, that action would be asinine. Cutting Vick would only punish the Falcons while still giving Vick millions of dollars in guaranteed money. The Falcons would find themselves with huge cap hits in the next few years for cutting Vick, the kind of cap hell that could theoretically find them fielding a team for two or three seasons that would have to be heavily compromised of undrafted free agents. (Yes, cutting Vick outright would be that bad for their cap)

So if the Falcons can't cut him now, do they just play him? Simply put; no. The most important thing for the Falcons right now is to realize that Vick is done for this season one way or another. An NFL quarterback cannot be expected to prepare for a game during a week when he is distracted by court proceedings, or even worse, actually flying to a different state for a court appearance and missing practices. You may have heard some pundits say that "Hey, Kobe Bryant did it when he was accused of rape, so Vick can too". These pundits are idiots. Have you watched an NBA game? How much game to game preparation do you think Kobe Bryant needs between a Tuesday game against Utah and a Thursday game against Denver? The answer is nothing compared to the type of game-planning that goes into preparing an NFL QB for the myriad of defensive schemes that he has to face from week to week. Missing a week of practice and preparation would be fatal to Vick's (or any QB's) performance in a given week. Now factor in the reality that Bobby Petrino is installing a brand new offensive scheme in Atlanta this year, and you can see that putting an unprepared and distracted Vick on the field this season is a disaster waiting to happen for the Falcons from a football standpoint.

So if you can't cut him for cap reasons and you can't play him for football reasons, what on earth do you do if you are the Falcons? The cold-hearted answer is that they have to suspend him and wait for a charge to stick to Vick in order to void his contract and save themselves from salary cap hell. Forget the "leave of absence" crap that is being floated around; Vick lied to both Arthur Blank and Roger Goodell, and that fact alone is enough for the Falcons to suspend Vick. If they don't want to suspend him, fine. Put him on the inactive list and leave him at home each week. Having Vick at games and even practices is going to lead to a media circus that will engulf the entire Falcons team. Blank must step in before that is allowed to happen.

Now for the second part of the Falcons' dilemma; what do they do at QB? The really sad thing is that the Falcons would have been totally fine if they had not chosen to trade Matt Schaub to the Texans. Now they find themselves with Joey Harrington and DJ Shockley as their QB alternatives in year 1 A.V. (After Vick) I for one, think that Harrington will be a fine place holder for a year or two. He really wasn't that bad last year in Miami, and the truth is that Atlanta has an extremely good running game even without Vick in the lineup. Warrick Dunn and Jerious Norwood are one of the better RB tandems in the league, and by leaning on them many of Harrington's deficiencies would be hidden.

The Falcons do have another option for this year, and his name is Daunte Culpepper . For some reason however, the Falcons have been giving signals that they are not interested in the free agent QB. I personally don't see that much downside in bringing in a former Pro Bowl QB on the cheap to compete with Harrington. Perhaps the Falcons have some misgivings about Culpepper's knee, but for whatever reason the Falcons seem to be against bringing in Culpepper.

So what about year 2 A.V. and beyond? The Falcons are actually in an extremely good position to rebound at the QB position. There was a reason that Joey Harrington was selected #3 overall; the man does have some talent. Between Harrington and Shockley the Falcons will at least be serviceable at the QB spot for the next two seasons. Neither Harrington or Shockley though, are the long term answer for the Falcons at QB. That man may well be one of the pair of extremely talented Louisville QBs (Read; Petrino Disciples) that will be available in the next two NFL Drafts. That is right, two. Everyone knows that Brian Brohm will be the top QB in next year's draft, but not everyone is aware that Brohm's backup Hunter Cantwell is also very highly regarded by NFL scouts. Mel Kiper Jr. even goes so far as ranking Cantwell as the #1 Jr. QB in the entire nation.

Now imagine this; Vick sits out this year one way or another, and Joey Harrington starts this season. Then the Falcons will have two drafts where they can try to draft a QB (Brohm or Cantwell) that is both extremely talented as well as very familiar with the offensive system of the Falcons' new coach. If the Falcons miss on both QBs, then they could finally go out and try to find someone in free agency. No matter what though, the future for Atlanta may not be quite as bleak as some people may think.

Ron Mexico Dog Fighting T-Shirt

It was only a matter of time until someone got to work making a T-shirt to spoof the latest Mike Vick scandal. This one evidently went on eBay late Monday. To be honest, as far as online shirts go, this one is pretty stylish. My one major objection though, is the mixing of metaphors going on here. Ron Mexico goes with the herpes scandal, not the dog scandal, c'mon man. I would have preferred something along the lines of "Big Mike's" instead. My favorite part of the shirt though, has to be the #7 football in the mouth. Keepin it classy baby, always classy. So I think you guys know what to do: time to get that bidding up.

Mike Vick: Follow The Money

Be forewarned: This is going to be a lot of speculation, but I think it points to something fairly obvious.

The big news today has been the Outside The Lines report on ESPN featuring an interview with a dogfighting insider who claims that Mike Vick is a "heavyweight" in the dogfighting scene. The two major claims made by the informant are that 1.) He personally fought against a Mike Vick trained pitbull in 2000 and 2.) He had personally seen Mike Vick at a dog fight as recently as last year.

There is something else that has stuck out in the article to me. Now, this speculation factors in that the informant is entirely truthful, so take that as you will. So here are a few excerpts from the article, my emphasis added: See if you know where I am headed:

"Our confidential source said he's been involved in dog fighting for more than 30 years, He has trained and fought -- by his estimation -- about 2,000 pit bulls and was poised to tell "Outside the Lines" about the time in 2000 when his dog squared off against a dog owned by someone he referred to as one of the "heavyweights" of the dog fighting world: Atlanta Falcons quarterback Mike Vick."

"Then he started, you know, waving money," the source said. "He was betting with everybody … He said he got $5,000. He said he's betting on his animal."

"American pit bull terriers account for 99 percent of the species involved in dog fighting, and a pit bull puppy can cost as much as $5,000. An average dog fight carries a $10,000 purse."

Now, if that does not connect the dots for you as to where I am headed I understand: I didn't see it at first either. Things will become a lot more clearer if you go to Vick's player card at ESPN, where you will see...

"Drafted: Year: 2001 Round:1 Pick:1, Falcons"

You see now? If the informant is to be believed, Vick was fighting pit bulls while still in college. Pit bulls that would have 1.) been years in breeding and training and 2.) according to the report would have cost thousands of dollars to buy. And on top of that, Vick is accused not only of having a dog in this 2000 fight, but also at least $5,000 in betting money to throw around. As a recent college grad let me state the obvious: college juniors do not have 5 large to drop on a puppy, nor do they have another 5 large to bet on said puppy when it grows up. So what am I saying? Well, I think that if people are so game to go after Reggie Bush and his family to investigate whether they were accepting funds while Bush was in college, maybe they should also examine whether or not Vick was getting similar benefits. To be honest, if the allegations made in the article are true, Frank Beamer and company should be held responsible for a lack of administrative control if one of their players was getting thousands of dollars in benefits and committing felonies in his spare time.

C'mon Clinton, This is Embarrassing

I am not sure what is more disturbing about the interview Clinton Portis gave concerning Mike Vick and the dog fighting controversy: the comments made by Portis or the laughter of Chris Samuels during the interview. Some lowlights from the comments made by Portis:

"I don’t know if he was fighting dogs or not but it’s his property, it’s his dog. If that’s what he wants to do, do it. You know? "

"You take somebody that’s doing positive in the community. You take a positive role model and put them behind bars for no reason, you know. Over a dog fight?"

"It’s prevalent in life. I’m from Laurel, Mississippi. I know a lot of backroads that’s got a dog fight if you want to go see it, you know?"

Grief. Of course the Redskins tried to cover Portis' tail, releasing the following statement later in the day:

"In the recent interview I gave concerning dog fighting, I want to make it clear I do not take part in dog fighting or condone dog fighting in any manner."

Actually Clinton, you did condone dog fighting. In fact, you said if people want to do it that they should. That sure sounds like condoning something to me. Calling someone a positive role model, even if they engage in brutal acts against animals, sure sounds a lot like condoning those types of behavior to me. As a Redskins fan I must admit that I am suprised by Portis' statements, especially since he has shown himself to be so media savvy in the past. Also as a result of his comments, I have to say I am going to be rooting a little bit harder for Ladell Betts to get a larger share of the Skins' carries next season.