This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not that you need to get beaten up anymore, but when the guy responded by saying "that last quote" he was clearly referring to what YOU said:
That "last quote" (the last thing you have in quotes - "Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL.") was from the author. It was not in quotes. You put it in quotes.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument, so I'll explain and then I'll go back to the real issue. I put that Roger Goodell part in quotes because I was quoting the text. However, in the post I specifically referred to a "last quote" from Vick. I was then told in response that the "last quote" was not from Vick. I assumed by "last quote," he meant the quote I'd just called the "last quote." That makes sense, right?Apparently, he meant otherwise. I can see that. Just a case of misinterpretation. If that's the case he just should have been more clear. And no matter how you slice it, cracking stupid jokes and saying you "owned" someone because they misinterpreted your poorly written post is kinda silly.
About as silly as misreading and article and giving links to what a quotation is in an insulting fashion
Had that part been left out, by you, I believe things would have went a tiny bit different...
The part that was conjecture is this.
If it was a direct quote from Vick, then it should have been quoted as such. There's no proof a) that those teams were fully interested, b) they would have started him and c) that Goodell had any active part in Vick's going to Philly. Hence conjecture.
Fair point. I thought I had been pretty clear and was totally baffled by the guy's post.I didn't misread the article, though. I understand the article just fine. I misread somebody else's post about my post.About as silly as misreading and article and giving links to what a quotation is in an insulting fashion
I assume it was information gathered from Vick in the interview and not quoted for any number of reasons. Maybe he didn't say it well, maybe it was part of a rapid-fire dialogue, maybe it just didn't read well for whatever reason. But if Vick didn't say that, then the author is in huge trouble (unless he got it from another source like the Bills and the Bengals and Goodell and the NFL reps). I don't think it's open to interpretation. The words you have in bold have a very clear meaning, yes? What I think you're saying- and correct me if I'm wrong- is that the author purposefully wrote something he had no basis to write- i.e. that he took his opinion and inserted it as fact in the middle of a discussion of other facts. Like I said before, that's not impossible but it seems to me to be highly unlikely.
And that's where we disagree. Just because Vick changed his mind after he met with Goodell doesn't make it dirty pool by virtue of that fact alone. Nor does Vick's characterization of Goodell's discussion as "steering" him towards Philly settle that question. There are two sides to every story, particularly when you are trying to divine someone's motives and intentions.How do you think rational people make "independent" decisions? Does Billy go to college because his mom and dad steered him towards it or because he made a rational decision based upon all available relevant information? They never once told him he had to. But they spoke freely to him about his options...be it the military, getting a job, going to a trade school or going to college. Billy decides he wants to go to college. Was there manipulation? Or do you need to know what went on (specifically) in those various conversations about his future before you can judge whether they were steering him towards one option?Now, if you think Goodell had no business talking to Vick about his future in the NFL, I think you're on crack. Vick was petitioning to be reinstated. If Goodell was laying out for Vick what's expected of him and where the pitfalls might be, that's fair game. And if Vick gets a better idea of what he faces and then decides that going to the Eagles best equips him to be rehabilitated and get his career back on track, then I'd call that a rational decision.
And thats all I'm saying.
There was no evidence provided to corroborate the inserted info. It very well may be 100% accurate but right now its just conjecture.I think Goodell had no business offering any information that might steer him towards one team or away from another, either explicitly or implicitly. It seems pretty clear that he did.Your "Billy" analogy fails because Billy's parents first priority is presumably to Billy and they owe no allegiance to the military, trade schools, jobs or college. Goodell's first priority, on the other hand, should be to the league and fair play. It's a difficult situation to analogize. Best I can do is a recruit going to a college conference commissioner to discuss his future. If an article came out that even suggested that the commissioner maybe possibly said something that pushed him towards one school and/or away from another for any reason (even if the commissioner didn't say anything explicit about any of the schools), how do you think the other schools would react? How about their fans?
Come on. I predicted this on the last page. This was as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.
It is what it is. I guess we can say Vick's a liar and a tool of the league receiving orders to cover this up. But I believe that the author of the GQ article embellished a little on the conversation. Just enough that it wasn't incorrect but enough to place doubt in some minds. Either way, people will be reading his article a ton now.
Would he be talking to teams while suspended?
Ever think that maybe the Commish and Co. said something along the lines of "Talk this over more with your agent and family and decide what's best" and THAT'S what steered him to making his decision?There's a lot of vague in that story and that wasn't hard to tell after reading it...with the reception the story got this statement wasn't hard to see either.In your case it comes down to who you believe is lying to you more it seems...Changing gears a bit though....Anyone think his decision just came down to good ole fashioned money?
I don't know about money. The Eagles structured a deal where if he was a bad citizen, they could cut him after 1 year. They only paid him about $1mil that first year. If he could have supposedly started somewhere else, then he certainly would have made more.
That's if he even suggested a place....Could be what I said before that he simply suggested that he talk his decision over with his agent and family more...but then people would have nothing to talke about now would they? Nothing with stars goes normal...it always has to be a "Who killed Kennedy"....
Maybe it was the second year that did the trick? I can't imagine any team would start him, let along pay starter money for a guy that looked like he did his first year here.
I just find it hard to believe that the writer would mangle what Vick told him like that. I know a lot of journalists and that's the sort of thing that simply isn't worth the trouble in their world. Ruining your reputation among both your peers and your subjects isn't worth a few extra page views. Also, I've been reading this particular guy's work for years and it really doesn't seem like his style at all. He's pretty good at what he does, and a definite straight shooter type. And he's got no axe to grind here- he's from Southern Illinois and he's a Cardinals fan.
True. Perhaps he just got some good advice. Dungy was very adamant about repairing his career and when the whole thing went down, Reid said Dungy played a key role in him going to Philly. Tony is a very likeable guy for players. You never hear anyone have a bad word about him. He seems like he can be persuasive.
Not saying he does. But the way he worded the inserted portion was in such a way that it could be left open to interpretation without making any direct accusations. So he'd never get hit for slander or misrepresentation. He phrased it though to where the reader could think things may have went down that didn't. Who knows what the writer was thinking when he did it. It certainly has created a buzz for his story now though. There is no bad publicity.
I guess. He's just always struck me as a pretty careful guy.Honestly it would have gotten massive publicity without the bit about the Bills and Bengals. It was the first time Vick's been at all candid about dogfighting. Until now it's been carefully measured public statements that sound like a PR person wrote them.
Very true. Maybe the dogfighting was losing steam though. A lot less people are caring at this point. The angle with the commish though is fresh and ties into all the hatred Goodell is feeling right now. Taps into that and gets people to say "You say what Mike Vick said in GQ about Goodell?" All conjecture on my part but its an interesting hypothesis.
Leitch is a Deadspin writer. Not saying he's not entertaining or interesting, but I think you're giving him a bit too much credit on his journalistic integrity.
No, he was the creator of Deadspin. He's moved on. In fact, I'd say that the downward spiral of the sitef started exactly when he left. TO my knowledge he's never had any of his reporting challenged. He's a class act ... and that's coming from someone who hates Deadspin in its current form.
The terms "NFL reps" and "they" are too vague to draw conclusions about what really happened. And Vick saying "they helped me" doesn't shed light on whether he's talking about Roger Goodell, NFL reps or someone else. Without a full transcript or live interview of the conversation, there really is no way of knowing unless Vick clarifies.
I was thinking exactly the same thing! And this is why the league shouldn't be influencing these decisions. This is actually illegal--as it would be a violation of anti-trust. You can't have the league telling a player which team (read company) he can play for. Either he is ready, morally, to represent the league on any team, or he isn't. That's the only determination he should make.'GroveDiesel said:Philly? You mean the organization with the head coach whose two sons are both drug addicts/dealers? Where the fans can turn on you in a second and destroy any player? Where the current starting QB that was similar to Vick had a terrible relationship with his coach and fans? There are plenty of reasons why Philly wasn't "stable."'pollardsvision said:Technically, I guess, it is an opinion, but is there a person on the face of the earth that holds the opinion that Buffalo or Cincy is a more stable franchise than Philly?'Wildcat said:'Banger said:
Best post of the entire thread'TobiasFunke said:
He has the right, but doing so undermines the idea that the league does not play favorites with certain teams. Influencing players to go to certain teams, influencing refs to overlook call for certain teams, is there much difference?
How did they take a huge risk? At worst, Vick does or says something really stupid and he's out, just like pretty much ever other player.Does the phrase "or otherwise coerced him" pretty much describe what the writer of the article is implying?
The playoffs games or Superbowl are not normal games, should the commish have the right to give advice to the refs of what team it would be in the league's best interest if they won?
perhaps you have a point here. It doesn't make sense why Vick and his management team would go against the advice of the guy who has to sign off on his reinstatement to the league.
I honestly have no clue what you're arguing.
He was still under suspension when he signed with the Eagles.
I don't think a writer's opinion from GQ magazine would hold up in court.
looking forward to getting a compensatory draft pick at least.punitive damages!'Insein said:
Does buffalo really need more draft picks to screw up?looking forward to getting a compensatory draft pick at least.punitive damages!'Insein said:
It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.'Voice Of Reason said:
I don't care if Vick was thought to be a star or a nothing, the fact is that Goodell appears to have interfered with the eventual team a free agent signed with, and that's a huge deal whether its Michael Vick, Maurice Clarette or anyone else.If anything, steering him to Philly put him in a place where the league thought he wouldn't be able to make a lot of trouble. Vick was hugely controversial and a lot of people thought he shouldn't be allowed in the league at all. On the Eagles he'd have been a third string QB behind a hall of fame caliber starter and a highly thought of young QB of the future. I don't think its silly at all to see Philly as a destination where Vick was likely to simply fade away and never be thought of again.If the league's "best interest" in this case was to make Vick as small of an issue as possible that seems like the perfect place to put him. Goodell likely figured that he'd be the third string guy for a year, never see the field and hopefully fade away. That way he doesn't get criticized for overpunishing a guy that just got out of jail, but the league doesn't have to face the PETA protests quite as much as they would have if he was starting somewhere for 16 weeks.It obviously didn't work out the way the league was hoping, but I don't see this as at all far fetched. The fact that people are overlooking the impropriety of a commish directing ANY player to ANY team regardless of his reasoning just goes to show how teflon coated this league really is. I wonder what people would be saying if it was the above example of the league directing officials to get a certain team to win the superbowl for the good of the league? I imagine there would be a sizable contingent saying "who cares, that team probably would have won anyway, and besides, isn't it better to have a big market champion?"This kind of big brother meddling makes the league look about as bad as it could imo.
Again, the only person alleging that is the writer of the article. There is no direct quote from Vick saying that. Vick made a statement yesterday saying Goodell had no sway on his decision one way or the other. People are getting upset over a paragraph in an article that was vague either by accident or on purpose. I'm leaning more towards on purpose now because of the reaction that its generated.
Yes, its totally out of character for the NFL to make an attempt to bury a potentially embarrassing story, and completely unreasonable to think that vick, when he made the comments originally didn't expect them to create any kind of a big deal. people will believe what they're going to believe, but I have no trouble seeing these allegations as true and that really bothers me about a sport I'm supposed to give a crap about.
Well thats your problem then. There really is no evidence to prove it is true and the primary party, Vick, has said its not true. So I guess you can continue to be upset about something that is not true or you can go back to watching football.
He didn't. Thats what the author alleged.
