How Many Games Should Vick Be Suspended?

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

JDALY27
07-19-2007, 11:51 AM
With the aiport incident and middle finger to his own fans on the field last year I would give hime the entire season off to clear his head.

Chief X_Phackter
07-19-2007, 11:54 AM
Knowing what I know now, since the trial probably won't start until towards the end of the season, it's likely that he won't get suspended for any games at all (this year). I just don't know enough about it yet, other than the rumors that are going around. Obviously they think they have enough on him or they wouldn't have indicted him. It really all depends on when the trial starts. Once the trial starts, I don't think you'll see him on the field anymore for the simple fact that he can't be the QB of a national football league team, and be coming and going to court appearances. That being said, I'm sure his attorneys will do their best to make sure the trial doesn't start until after the season. Then they at least have an argument against any suspension threatened by the league (not that it wouldn't happen). I do have a feeling that once this plays out to the end, if Vick is found guilty, he may never play football again. Did you happen to see who the judge is assigned to the case? The dude is notorious for sentencing people for sometimes double the federal guidelines because he is willing to take into account the effect the crime has on a community.

jdlea
07-19-2007, 11:56 AM
I voted 4 because I think that's what he'll get. As of right now, I don't think, if I were the commissioner, I would suspend him. I believe it's tough to justify suspending guys before their legal proceedings even take place, apparently Goodell disagrees. I don't like his "Suspend first, ask questions later" attitude, but I think Vick can expect to take a few weeks off because of all of this.

I do think that, if I were Arthur Blank, we would sit down and have a nice long chat about how he intends to move forward as the Falcons' quarterback and let him know that he could not be on a shorter leash, not based on his play, but his off-field behavior. Meaning: if this trial doesn't go well, he'd better have a good agent if he wants to continue playing.

freddyg12
07-19-2007, 11:58 AM
I think the Falcons can find a way to ease into this; they could give him/talk him into a leave of absence until it goes to court. His pay would be the difficult thing to work out; they could withhold game checks but pay any roster bonus or vice versa. Might be sticky, but he & his agent would probably rather bow out for the time being rather than get into a fight w/Falcons mgmt.

Goodell would then be more willing to withold any action until it goes to trial. Kind of saves face for everybody for the time being.

firstdown
07-19-2007, 12:01 PM
If this was an out of the blue situation I would say yes but based on some minor previous stuff and the basic embarrassment of the situation I think a suspension is in order right now. These guys need to start realizing that what they do, illegal or not, reflects on the league. He obviously knew what was going on at least. Trying to deny that is just even more embarrassing for him so that puts him right in the line of fire for a suspension to me.
If the leaque suspended him because he was lying wouldn't they be finding him guilty before the trial takes place. I believe he is guilty and should be suspended but at this time I think it should be left up to the Falcons and not the NFL. I also think that the league is not going to have to suspend Vick as the judge is going to do that for them. An interesting thing I heard last night is that the judge will have the last word if he is found guilty of how much jail time he receives. Thats when the brutal things they did to these dogs will come back to bite him with a longer sentence.

Dlyne8r
07-19-2007, 12:06 PM
Considering Pacman Jones’ suspension of 10 games, and what he has been accused of, I would recommend that Vick be tossed for the entire season. Of course we’ve all heard the arguments and comparisons between Vick and Pacman, and that Vick has not had the number of run-ins w/ the law, etc. etc., but Vick has apparently done immeasurable harm to those animals not to mention his teammates, his team owner, and God knows what else. If the NFL is going to be consistent with their new get tough policies, then they need to dish the same, if not similar, punishment to Vick that they have to Pacman.

SmootSmack
07-19-2007, 12:44 PM
Considering Pacman Jones’ suspension of 10 games, and what he has been accused of, I would recommend that Vick be tossed for the entire season. Of course we’ve all heard the arguments and comparisons between Vick and Pacman, and that Vick has not had the number of run-ins w/ the law, etc. etc., but Vick has apparently done immeasurable harm to those animals not to mention his teammates, his team owner, and God knows what else. If the NFL is going to be consistent with their new get tough policies, then they need to dish the same, if not similar, punishment to Vick that they have to Pacman.

That's sort of what I'm leaning toward as well. I have a feeling though that something will be worked out where he's suspended indefinitely but with pay, with no opportunity to return before the 5th game of the season.

Dlyne8r
07-19-2007, 01:08 PM
"SmootSmack: That's sort of what I'm leaning toward as well. I have a feeling though that something will be worked out where he's suspended indefinitely but with pay, with no opportunity to return before the 5th game of the season."

That is exactly what is being said here in Atlanta. If the Falcons (and Arthur Blank especially) place Vick on an “indefinite leave,” even with pay, the organization appears to be placing some type of disciplinary action toward Vick. But, they also would look like they were offering some amount of support for Vick in case he is exonerated. Finally, the scenario you mention would avoid the impending media frenzy and accompanying distractions to the team.

Gmanc711
07-19-2007, 01:16 PM
I voted zero until he's proven guilty (which I think he is)...but unlike those in the other cases, this is his first time in serious trouble with the law/NFL, so I'm willing to give him the benifit of the doubt until his trial plays out.

If he is found guilty....than I dont think he should ever play again.

onebum
07-19-2007, 01:26 PM
all of them, other than some

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum