Kolb Vs Vick

Orizio · 24-09-2010 12:43am

What Vick has down off the pitch is irrelevent to his abilities on the pitch. He deserves to start at QB purely on the basis of form.

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 12:45am

Syferus wrote: »

The idea that someone cannot be redeemed or even allowed the chance to fail without the same spite and ill will that typified their original actions is a horrible one and one that would crumble the fabric of society if excercised.

I don't even like Vick and I don't like what he did but I also don't profess to understand the intricacies of his value as a human being today, now, after paying his legal due to society. He has a long way to go to pay his moral dues, but the idea that someone would wish failure on someone else means they are guilty of hatred in their own way and nothing good ever will come from hatred.

Still not a valid reason for attacking another person's opinion and attitude in the way you attacked it.

Peyton Manning · 24-09-2010 12:50am

Syferus wrote: »

The idea that someone cannot be redeemed or even allowed the chance to fail without the same spite and ill will that typified their original actions is a horrible one and one that would crumble the fabric of society if excercised.

I don't even like Vick and I don't like what he did but I also don't profess to understand the intricacies of his value as a human being today, now, after paying his legal due to society. He has a long way to go to pay his moral dues, but the idea that someone would wish failure on someone else means they are guilty of hatred in their own way and nothing good ever will come from hatred.

While what Vick did plays a big role here, you can even ignore it and just focus on the facts. He was the highest paid player in the NFL, and thus has a responsibility to represent the league as an ambassador and as a role model. He failed in that role, and thus should not be allowed to represent it again. Rest assured, if you or I had a comfortable, well paid job and we fúcked up to the degree that Vick did, we would not be welcomed back upon completion of our "rehabilitation".

Im not arguing against the effectiveness of rehabilitation, I'm arguing that the NFL should not tolerate anything like this. If you're dumb enough to do something like that while being paid a fortune, you don't deserve a second chance.

And I severely doubt Vick is rehabilitated. He's been in trouble while in prison, he's been in trouble since he's been released and you can be damn sure he'll let the NFL down again in the near future.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 12:54am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Again see above. And OJ Simpson was retired when all of his nonsense happened. His HOF accolade is for his abilities on the field and nothing else. His personal life doesn't factor into the equation.

I was actually going to get into a punishment/redemption discussion here, and argue my points. But if you are going to hammer Vick, and then say "Ah well OJ's murders and his time in the NFL are completely unrelated", then I'm fcuking outta here, tbqh!

I can't argue against the kind of Quasi-logic where you cite the NFL as some sort of upstandingly moral organisation, then brush away OJ's standing as a Hof'er.

I have a huuuuge amount of respect for you dude, but i can't buy that!

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 1:01am

davyjose wrote: »

I was actually going to get into a punishment/redemption discussion here, and argue my points. But if you are going to hammer Vick, and then say "Ah well OJ's murders and his time in the NFL are completely unrelated", then I'm fcuking outta here, tbqh!

I can't argue against the kind of Quasi-logic where you cite the NFL as some sort of upstandingly moral organisation, then brush away OJ's standing as a Hof'er.

I have a huuuuge amount of respect for you dude, but i can't buy that!

OJ Simpson was acquitted of all charges in 1995 of his wife's murder and is serving time for armed robbery in 2006 or 2007. This happened LONG after his NFL career and is not related to what Vick done in anyway. How can the NFL punish him for something he done when:

A: He was not hired by them anymore
B: He was not looking for a job with them again
C: He was retired from the NFL a long time before he was convicted for something in 2008.

This is not related to Vick in anyway. OJ never looked for a second chance at the job, Vick did. Clear difference. As for accolades on the pitch before conviction I believe sure both Vick and OJ should keep whatever they earned before conviction.

Look at it this way EVERYBODY knows OJ was long retired and its easy for the NFL to say None of their Business to a guy who is a con 20 years or so after he retired.

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 1:05am

davyjose wrote: »

"Ah well OJ's murders and his time in the NFL are completely unrelated", then I'm fcuking outta here, tbqh!

Just to add where you there? He was acquitted of those murder charges. He is not a murderer in the eyes of the law. So the 2008 conviction aside had the NFL refused OJ a job after 1995 based on his Murder Trial he could have sued them for discrimination when he was acquitted of all charges. Again HUGE difference to Vick.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:09am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

OJ Simpson was acquitted of all charges in 1995 of his wife's murder and is serving time for armed robbery in 2006 or 2007. This happened LONG after his NFL career and is not related to what Vick done in anyway. How can the NFL punish him for something he done when:

A: He was not hired by them anymore
B: He was not looking for a job with them again
C: He was retired from the NFL a long time before he was convicted for something in 2008.

This is not related to Vick in anyway. OJ never looked for a second chance at the job, Vick did. Clear difference. As for accolades on the pitch before conviction I believe sure both Vick and OJ should keep whatever they earned before conviction.

Look at it this way EVERYBODY knows OJ was long retired and its easy for the NFL to say None of their Business to a guy who is a con 20 years or so after he retired.

The NFL should either do a blanket exclusion of all convicted criminals or none at all -- OJ aside, that's my point. You can't distinguish between players' crimes. "Ah he only drove under the influence, that's all." The NFL can't just take a dislike to a particular crime and exclude him. That's discrimination. The federal government make the call of how long they spend in prison. If the NFL allow convicted criminals play, then they have to allow Vick -- he's not the first and he won't be the last.

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 1:11am

davyjose wrote: »

The NFL should either do a blanket exclusion of all convicted criminals or none at all -- OJ aside, that's my point. You can't distinguish between players' crimes. "Ah he only drove under the influence, that's all." The NFL can't just take a dislike to a particular crime and exclude him. That's discrimination. The federal government make the call of how long they spend in prison. If the NFL allow convicted criminals play, then they have to allow Vick -- he's not the first and he won't be the last.

You are completely missing my point. What OJ did after his career in the NFL has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL. So again in no way can you compare this to the Vick thing.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:12am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Just to add where you there? He was acquitted of those murder charges. He is not a murderer in the eyes of the law. So the 2008 conviction aside had the NFL refused OJ a job after 1995 based on his Murder Trial he could have sued them for discrimination when he was acquitted of all charges. Again HUGE difference to Vick.

OJ is currently serving a 30 year sentence for armed robbery dude.

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 1:15am

davyjose wrote: »

OJ is currently serving a 30 year sentence for armed robbery dude.

I already said that read my post again. Ah here let me quote what I said.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

OJ Simpson was acquitted of all charges in 1995 of his wife's murder and is serving time for armed robbery in 2006 or 2007. This happened LONG after his NFL career and is not related to what Vick done in anyway. How can the NFL punish him for something he done when:

Again how is his prison sentence now in any way related to Vick? OJ is not hired by the NFL or trying to get re-hired by the NFL. These issues are not the same in any way.

Allowing someone to keep their accolades wont send out a bad message to anyone especially if it was before their convictions. So OJ and Vick cases are no way related.

Peyton Manning · 24-09-2010 1:16am

davyjose wrote: »

OJ is currently serving a 30 year sentence for armed robbery dude.

...from 2008, some 29 years after his retirement from the NFL.

Vick's actions occurred under contract of the NFL.

There is a huge, huge difference that you seem to be purposely ignoring.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:18am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

You are completely missing my point. What OJ did after his career in the NFL has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL. So again in no way can you compare this to the Vick thing.

He's in the hall of fame. You're the one criticising the NFL, not me. I accept that the NFL have a blanket acceptance of former convicts. Other people seem happy to allow some former convicts back, but not other's.

Again, it's not the NFL's place to determine the severity of the crime, it's the federal government's.

I honestly don't get it. If Vick were banned for life, then OJ should be kicked out of the hall of fame, hence he still represents the NFL.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:22am

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Allowing someone to keep their accolades wont send out a bad message to anyone especially if it was before their convictions. So OJ and Vick cases are no way related.

I beg to differ, I think honouring one criminal, and barring another criminal from playing, is highly hypocritical. Simple.

Am i still a fan of the NFL? Yes. Do I think Vick alone should be kicked out while other's play on? No.

All or nothing, lads.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:23am

Archimedes wrote: »

...from 2008, some 29 years after his retirement from the NFL.

Vick's actions occurred under contract of the NFL.

There is a huge, huge difference that you seem to be purposely ignoring.

i think you guys are purposely ignoring it dude. OJ, as a member of the HOF, represents the NFL. I'm open to argument on that...

tallaghtoutlaws · 24-09-2010 1:23am

davyjose wrote: »

He's in the hall of fame. You're the one criticising the NFL, not me. I accept that the NFL have a blanket acceptance of former convicts. Other people seem happy to allow some former convicts back, but not other's.

Again, it's not the NFL's place to determine the severity of the crime, it's the federal government's.

I honestly don't get it. If Vick were banned for life, then OJ should be kicked out of the hall of fame, hence he still represents the NFL.

Look this is getting ridiculous. I already said that accolades should remain especially if they recieve them before conviction and this includes Michael Vick. You cannot take away something a player did before he got convicted.

And how does OJ represent the NFL now? Just because he is in their HOF that doesn't give the NFL exclusive rights on his life unless he is under contract.

Even if Vick was banned for life and he got rewards before the ban he would be in the same boat as OJ then. Except Vick got his conviction during his NFL contract.

Again and Im finishing with this because it seems you are missing most of my points and I don't know what else I can add to even get you to see what I am saying.

Throwing this in here just to add to my last post on this:

davyjose wrote: »

I beg to differ, I think honouring one criminal, and barring another criminal from playing, is highly hypocritical. Simple.

Am i still a fan of the NFL? Yes. Do I think Vick alone should be kicked out while other's play on? No.

All or nothing, lads.

How the fook is it? OJ was a criminal long after he played in the NFL and not under contract. Vick wasn't. For fook sake this is ridiculous. OJ earned all his accolades. Had Vick made the HOF or won awards before a NFL ban I would say the same thing. You are clearly drawing a line where you want to. You cannot compare these two at all. Totally different circumstances.

davyjose · 24-09-2010 1:30am

I get your point. i honestly can't continue this, so we'll have to agree to differ. IMO, the NFL would be highly hypocritical to exclude Vick, and Vick alone. I also think, in a free world, the guy should be allowed work for whoever want to hire him. But we'll leave it there. the missus is screaming at me to put the laptop down

cooker3 · 25-09-2010 2:32am

Personally speaking I don't see the NFL as any better or worse as other corporation. If someone wants to employ Vick as a QB than once he has served his time I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed. Tbh I'm surprised it would be even legal for Goddell to stop him playing/working although someone might correct me there.

Dohnny Jepp · 25-09-2010 2:34am

cooker3 wrote: »

Personally speaking I don't see the NFL as any better or worse as other corporation. If someone wants to employ Vick as a QB than once he has served his time I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed. Tbh I'm surprised it would be even legal for Goddell to stop him playing/working although someone might correct me there.

Big Ben was banned eventhough charges were dropped. What was it 4 games for bring the nfl name into disrepute.

Nfl can do what it wants. There is just a sh*t lack of consistancy.

de5p0i1er · 28-09-2010 4:19am

I'm with Vick, he's playing really well atm. If they stick with him the have a better chance of winning the divesion.

frostie500 · 28-09-2010 10:43am

de5p0i1er wrote: »

I'm with Vick, he's playing really well atm. If they stick with him the have a better chance of winning the divesion.

Got to agree, I was just looking at the stats for Vick earlier and he has more big plays(over 40 yards) than any other QB, hasn't thrown a pick, only Manning has a higher rating and has been more productive than Rodgers and Brady. Yet there are still questions about whether he deserves to be the starter. Right now Michael Vick is one of the best QBs in the NFL and his past, as awful as it was, needs to put aside and his ability recognised.

It could all go horribly wrong in the next few weeks but in the game against the Jags Vick looked assured, used his pocket well and was an effective drop back passer. There were times(Maclin's first TD) that in the past Vick would have taken off out of the pocket and tried to run in a score, instead he kept the play alive with pocket awareness and waited for a receiver to get open, he's making progress and Kolb can have no complaints about being benched

Tristram · 30-09-2010 1:34am

He has done well with the opportunity presented to him. I'm curious to see how he fares against a defence that sucks a little less than the Jags.

Tristram · 30-09-2010 3:25am

Just after stumbling across this

Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders makes the case that Michael Vick is being overvalued. The reason is simple: the quality of his opposition.

Michael Vick’s now played ten quarters of football, and eight of them have come against the pass defenses that ranked 31st (Jacksonville) and 32nd (Detroit) in DVOA a year ago.

But it looks as if the Eagles are in luck:

He will not face an above-average pass defense until Week 7, when he gets the Titans; after that, he may not face another one until Chicago in Week 12 or Dallas in Week 14. The Eagles face what appears to be a remarkably easy slate of pass defenses this year outside of, coincidentally, Week 1.

Dohnny Jepp · 30-09-2010 12:15pm

Meh hate scheduling arguments. Vick can only play who they are scheduled to play.

And on the note of how things ranked a year ago. A lot of teams this year are nothing like last year. Some much better like the chiefs, and some much worse like half the nfc :P

Syferus · 30-09-2010 5:06pm

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Meh hate scheduling arguments. Vick can only play who they are scheduled to play.

And on the note of how things ranked a year ago. A lot of teams this year are nothing like last year. Some much better like the chiefs, and some much worse like half the nfc :P

I always slightly cringe when people mention a team having an 'easy' or 'hard' schedule. The one of the main reasons the NFL is so enjoyable is because it's way more unpredictable than alot of other sports and teams can improve hugely over one off-season, so scheduling arguments feel reductive of the reasons I watch the NFL.

tallaghtoutlaws · 30-09-2010 5:23pm

Syferus wrote: »

I always slightly cringe when people mention a team having an 'easy' or 'hard' schedule. The one of the main reasons the NFL is so enjoyable is because it's way more unpredictable than alot of other sports and teams can improve hugely over one off-season, so scheduling arguments feel reductive of the reasons I watch the NFL.

To be fair in Recent years there has been a huge gap between the good and sh1t teams. So it is very easy to say who is a poor team or not especially when the same teams are struggling at the start of the new season. Even 3 games in it is quite easy to see who are the teams that haven't done anything to fix how poor they are.

On paper it is easy to say easy or hard schedules. Teams you would expect to beat and teams that are just pure muck are a given in any sport. But it all does go down to the good old term of "Any Given Sunday" for whatever reason the underdog wins due to the fact the favourites failed to show up on the given day.

Syferus · 30-09-2010 5:49pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

To be fair in Recent years there has been a huge gap between the good and sh1t teams. So it is very easy to say who is a poor team or not especially when the same teams are struggling at the start of the new season. Even 3 games in it is quite easy to see who are the teams that haven't done anything to fix how poor they are.

On paper it is easy to say easy or hard schedules. Teams you would expect to beat and teams that are just pure muck are a given in any sport. But it all does go down to the good old term of "Any Given Sunday" for whatever reason the underdog wins due to the fact the favourites failed to show up on the given day.

No one is saying there isn't bad teams and good ones, but how many would have said the Bengals would win their divison 6-0 in August 2009? Or this year that the Chiefs and the Bears would be 3-0? Teams in the NFL can go beyond one-off victories you'd see in any other sport, but does anyone think there's even a remote possibility of, say, Sunderland or Wolves getting into the Champion's League this season?

All the parity rules, caps, whatever, means the NFL may not be a level playing field but it is one that every franchise can have a real shot at building a divison winning, conference winning and indeed Superbowl winning team.

Hence why schedule arguments fall a little flat - last year's stats for this year's teams in an unpredictable league.

tallaghtoutlaws · 30-09-2010 6:18pm

Syferus wrote: »

No one is saying there isn't bad teams and good ones, but how many would have said the Bengals would win their divison 6-0 in August 2009?

No one but no one said they would get danced on all season long either. My point is there ARE clear sh1te teams in the NFL and it is easy for those teams to be classed as sh1te. These teams so very little sign of improving and continue to have problems.

Then there are those teams in the middle forever bordering on a .500 record who scalp the big teams every year and you could never honestly say there are easy or hard teams. On paper some will say they are games you should win and others will say well they are the type of team that will give you a run for your money.

Or this year that the Chiefs and the Bears would be 3-0?

See above.

Teams in the NFL can go beyond one-off victories you'd see in any other sport, but does anyone think there's even a remote possibility of, say, Sunderland or Wolves getting into the Champion's League this season?

Again with the soccer references who gives a flying **** about the premier league. Two very different sports and have no significance in this debate.

All the parity rules, caps, whatever, means the NFL may not be a level playing field but it is one that every franchise can have a real shot at building a divison winning, conference winning and indeed Superbowl winning team.

No one is saying they can't but again sometimes it is easy enough to spot a team that is growing in potential I.e the Bengals and sometimes it is very easy to spot the teams that are once again sh1te.

Hence why schedule arguments fall a little flat - last year's stats for this year's teams in an unpredictable league.

Again I diagree on the first count but the second count we are 3 games in and now I say of course you can debate on performance as you have 3 games to go on.

Syferus · 30-09-2010 7:00pm

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Again with the soccer references who gives a flying **** about the premier league. Two very different sports and have no significance in this debate.

..? The point being made was that the NFL enforces a more even playing field than other sports and that comparison is very relevant when somoene is talknig about why they like the NFL over many other sports, so don't let your own feelings blinker you from the fact that no sport exsists in a vacuum - you wouldn't be watching the NFL if there was a couple dozen other sports you like to follow more than it!

The rest of what you said is boardline semantics - I prefaced my last post by explictedly saying that of course there are good and bad teams - apart from the honest (or purposeful!) misreading of what my original point was, that schedule arguments are give too much creditablity at times and that they're in their nature reductive of why I watch the NFL. Not you. Not your mother or your cat's brother, me.

tallaghtoutlaws · 30-09-2010 7:09pm

Syferus wrote: »

..? The point being made was that the NFL enforces a more even playinf field than other sports and that comparison is very relevant when somoene is talknig about why they like the NFL over many other sports, so don't let your own feelings blinker you from the fact that no sport exsists in a vacuum!

Are you kidding me Blinkers? :rolleyes: Once again you are knocking someones personal opinion. I play more than one sport and coach in more than one sport so my blinkers as you say it have no relevence in this debate either. But to add you said this:

Teams in the NFL can go beyond one-off victories you'd see in any other sport, but does anyone think there's even a remote possibility of, say, Sunderland or Wolves getting into the Champion's League this season?

This to me has no relevance in this debate and is not a comparison to make. Now had you said the above and followed it up with that is the reason why you like the NFL over soccer I would understand but you quite clearly didn't. yo never once mentioned soccer until to made the reference to the 2 soccer teams which cannot be compared in my opinion to the NFL regardless as you say my blinkers :rolleyes:

The rest of what you said is boardline semantics - I prefaced my last post by explictedly saying that of course there are good and bad teams - apart from the honest (or purposeful!) misreading of what my original point was, that schedule arguments are give too much creditablity at times and that they're in their nature reductive of why I watch the NFL. Not you. Not your mother or your cat's brother, me.

Wait I misunderstood your original post? Oh I am sorry if you don't like people replying with their opinion on your posts. :rolleyes:

tallaghtoutlaws · 30-09-2010 7:15pm

Syferus wrote: »

apart from the honest (or purposeful!) misreading of what my original point was,

Yeah I purposely ignored what you wrote :rolleyes:

Not your mother or your cat's brother, me.

Absolutely no need for this in your post. If you don't want people responding to your opinion, don't post then. The irony is lost though considering you knocked others opinions in the past in fact in this thread.

you wouldn't be watching the NFL if there was a couple dozen other sports you like to follow more than it!

Erm what? I watch just as much Rugby, Soccer and Golf as I do American Football. I fail to see the relevance of the above either. And in fact fail to see what you are getting at also.

Kolb Vs Vick

Comments