Anybody feel guilty about rostering Mike Vick? (1 Viewer)

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

On second thought you guys should draft Vick and then BENCH him. Then send him an email about it. THAT'LL SHOW HIM!

sounds like a damn peta rally in here.

PETA is a group that often goes overboard in their pursuit of "ethical treatment of animals." Being disgusted by someone electrocuting and drowning dogs for losing fights isn't really going overboard imo. I would say it's pretty rational. Whether that causes them to select or not select Vick is up to them. But it's interesting that the sentiment against Vick made you think of a PETA rally, as if you'd have to be an extremist to hold those positions. I don't think the majority of people would consider these views "extremist."

 

[j3r3m3y]

I would start Osama bin Laden if it gave me an advantage.

 

[G-King]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

 

[Jericho34]

I traded Vick for Bush.Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

 

[Jeremy]

I have him in the dynasty league. Feels a little dirty, but I also have Tebow, so I figure than balances it out. unsure:

 

[VaTerp]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

On second thought you guys should draft Vick and then BENCH him. Then send him an email about it. THAT'LL SHOW HIM!

sounds like a damn peta rally in here.

PETA is a group that often goes overboard in their pursuit of "ethical treatment of animals." Being disgusted by someone electrocuting and drowning dogs for losing fights isn't really going overboard imo. I would say it's pretty rational. Whether that causes them to select or not select Vick is up to them. But it's interesting that the sentiment against Vick made you think of a PETA rally, as if you'd have to be an extremist to hold those positions. I don't think the majority of people would consider these views "extremist."

In Ga you can get up to 6 months for a first offense of spousal battery and a 1000 fine (though often much less like 300 and a day in jail + some classes) Whereas animal cruelty is a felony with 5-10 years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine...And you don't think that is a little 'extremist'????

 

[Tillmanisahero]

On second thought you guys should draft Vick and then BENCH him. Then send him an email about it. THAT'LL SHOW HIM!

sounds like a damn peta rally in here.

PETA is a group that often goes overboard in their pursuit of "ethical treatment of animals." Being disgusted by someone electrocuting and drowning dogs for losing fights isn't really going overboard imo. I would say it's pretty rational. Whether that causes them to select or not select Vick is up to them. But it's interesting that the sentiment against Vick made you think of a PETA rally, as if you'd have to be an extremist to hold those positions. I don't think the majority of people would consider these views "extremist."

In Ga you can get up to 6 months for a first offense of spousal battery and a 1000 fine (though often much less like 300 and a day in jail + some classes) Whereas animal cruelty is a felony with 5-10 years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine...And you don't think that is a little 'extremist'????

only they should give more for spousal not less for animal abuse

 

[Jericho34]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them. Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

 

[Dope]

I do feel guilty.

The thing is, I could trade him. I have Vick on my dynasty team and have Flacco and Orton as decent enough players for this season and beyond.

The thing is, I have been in this league for over 10 years and while I had some decent seasons, I still have never won a playoff game.

So I'm selling my soul a little bit right now.

 

[jackdubl]

I just traded Phillip Rivers for Vick in a keeper league where Vick can be kept but Rivers can't. I told my wife that, as bad as it sounds, Mike Vick killing all those dogs was the best thing that could have happened for his fantasy value. I'm a cynic, though.

 

[Jericho34]

I just traded Phillip Rivers for Vick in a keeper league where Vick can be kept but Rivers can't. I told my wife that, as bad as it sounds, Mike Vick killing all those dogs was the best thing that could have happened for his fantasy value. The irony. I'm a cynic, though.

My post wasn't meant to be judgmental of people who don't do what we did this year. I just thought given the title of the thread that some might find it interesting....this is all "fantasy," right? None of it has any impact on anything. If people really don't like a player, there's no rule that says you have to accept that player as a commodity in your game.We're a redraft league, so we had some flexibility. If someone already owned these players, we obviously wouldn't have done this.

 

[monkeysee]

I wish more of you were in my leagues. Sitting on your leather couch, eating a cheeseburger (both of which were made by killing animals the same way Vick did) feeling self righteous

There are cow fighting rings? And that's where we get all of our cheeseburgers?I think Wikipedia needs an update.

 

[VaTerp]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them. Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

No further explanation needed. I understood quite well the first time and it's a very feminime thing to do. I'm also quite comfortable with my views on gender stereotypes and any of my fundamental deficiencies as percieved by some anonymous guy(???) on the internet.The fact that you feel the need to insult my intelligence based on your assumption of what my IQ may be is quite amusing. But if it makes you feel better about the fact thay you and your league mates make decisons like a stereotypical flock of females, more power to you.

As for how your life is being stunted by your raging estrogen levels, I don't know you so I want engage in the same foolish conjecture that you did with me. It is also evident that you took my last sentence out of context but I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points. Apparently that doesnt matter to you so to you and yours.

Have a great one!

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

No reason to feel guilty. Rostering and starting Vick doesn't help him in any way. You're not putting money in his pockets of increasing his contract value or anything. You're letting him be "on" your pretend team. He gains nothing so don't worry about it.

I love some of the comments here. "I don't want to judge," "He did his time," etc. Everyone is so scared to have an opinion these days. Yeah, I can judge killing dogs. Put me down for "against." I don't care about his background. Unless he was taught that dogs don't feel pain, he knew he was torturing dogs.

Yes, he did his time. Nobody is suggesting that he be banned from the NFL. But I decide when I feel comfortable about rooting for a player. I'll determine when he's paid his debt in that regard. If someone doesn't care, fine. But there's nothing wrong with choosing not to root for a guy like Vick at this stage.

It's not more "manly" to think it's no big deal.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them. Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

No further explanation needed. I understood quite well the first time and it's a very feminime thing to do. I'm also quite comfortable with my views on gender stereotypes and any of my fundamental deficiencies as percieved by some anonymous guy(???) on the internet.The fact that you feel the need to insult my intelligence based on your assumption of what my IQ may be is quite amusing. But if it makes you feel better about the fact thay you and your league mates make decisons like a stereotypical flock of females, more power to you.

As for how your life is being stunted by your raging estrogen levels, I don't know you so I want engage in the same foolish conjecture that you did with me. It is also evident that you took my last sentence out of context but I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points. Apparently that doesnt matter to you so to you and yours.

Have a great one!

Why do you think it's "feminine" to choose, as a league, not to draft certain players? Honestly. I don't see the connection.Also, your post seemed kind of defensive. He challenged your intelligence (an inappropriate thing to do) and you responded by posting plenty of big words and phrases in your response. It's very different than your previous post, as if you wanted to show how smart you were and how wrong he was. Did you do that on purpose?

If you think it's a fact that their decision mean they're acting like a "stereotypical flock of females," I'd like to know more about this stereotype. Was it the fact that they got together and made the decision? Or the fact that they're not allowing certain players on their teams? Or the fact that they decided on what basis they'd ban players?

The Vick situation has brought out a lot of interesting subtexts to the game of fantasy football. Your response was one of them and I was wondering if you could elaborate. Thanks.

 

[Jericho34]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them. Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

No further explanation needed. I understood quite well the first time and it's a very feminime thing to do. I'm also quite comfortable with my views on gender stereotypes and any of my fundamental deficiencies as percieved by some anonymous guy(???) on the internet.The fact that you feel the need to insult my intelligence based on your assumption of what my IQ may be is quite amusing. But if it makes you feel better about the fact thay you and your league mates make decisons like a stereotypical flock of females, more power to you.

As for how your life is being stunted by your raging estrogen levels, I don't know you so I want engage in the same foolish conjecture that you did with me. It is also evident that you took my last sentence out of context but I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points. Apparently that doesnt matter to you so to you and yours.

Have a great one!

"If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group?"Your question indicates you didn't understand "quite well" the first time. This combined with your 19th-century understanding of women and hormones indicated to me that you're rather limited. You may be brilliant in real life for all I know. Perhaps you're playing a cretinous persona on a message board for purposes known only to you.

"The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points."

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that this is the only thing you know. But I must agree with you. I suppose my league will have to risk losing to your league when they face off this Sunday in the league-on-league fantasy championship.

Have a better one!

 

[jackdubl]

My quick answer to the question is: No.

My longer answer is: Football players are not saints, unless they are Saints. Warren Moon beat his wife, LT orders underage prostitutes, Dr. Rockzo lines it up in his car, Donte Stallworth commits vehicular manslaughter, DUI's, this and that. We all go crazy when some player makes a politically incorrect statement, like the whole Stevie Wonder/Hellen Keller deal. Football players are not social commentators or international diplomats, but we treat them as such just because they have a microphone in their face. A lot of these guys came up from poorer circumstances and have less education than most of us posting on these boards. I don't get rubbed the wrong way when they don't turn out to be squeaky clean. I know we never hear about the majority of players who do everything right, we only hear about the ones who screw up somehow. But these guys hit each other for a living, so I'm not going to get bent out of shape when they say or do something dumb.

 

[VaTerp]

Why do you think it's "feminine" to choose, as a league, not to draft certain players? Honestly. I don't see the connection.

Also, your post seemed kind of defensive. He challenged your intelligence (an inappropriate thing to do) and you responded by posting plenty of big words and phrases in your response. It's very different than your previous post, as if you wanted to show how smart you were and how wrong he was. Did you do that on purpose?

If you think it's a fact that their decision mean they're acting like a "stereotypical flock of females," I'd like to know more about this stereotype. Was it the fact that they got together and made the decision? Or the fact that they're not allowing certain players on their teams? Or the fact that they decided on what basis they'd ban players?

The Vick situation has brought out a lot of interesting subtexts to the game of fantasy football. Your response was one of them and I was wondering if you could elaborate. Thanks.

In regard to the tone of my post and whether or not I used "big" words on purpose I'll just say that whatever I typed was a natural response to what was posted. I do a lot of writing for a living so it's easy for me to slip into a certain mode. I don't really think my tone was inconsisitent with many of the things I have posted here in various threads but I'm not really all that concerned either way.As for why I think it's "feminine" to decide as a group to ban players from being drafted that's simply my opinion based on my personal experiences in dealing with men and women. If during my draft someone said "Hey you know what, Vick and Big Ben are really bad dudes. I think we should ban them as a group so nobody is subjected to having to root for them," that person would have been laughed out of the room and called several different versions of a female dog or a kitty kat. Maybe that's just me and my friends but I know a lot of guys outside of my leagues who would react the same way and I know a lot of women who would be in favor of such a move.

In general, my experience has been that most men will say hey if you don't want to draft the guy for personal reasons, fine that's your decision. But to decide what's best for the whole group is something that women would be more likely to do. I don't feel the need to justify this it by citing research on brain patterns based on gender and I don't feel it represents an antiquated view of gender stereotypes. Again, it's my opinion based on my experience. If someone has had a different opinion based on different experiences so be it. I really didn't think I would need to go into this level of detail on a forum that presumably has a vast majority of male participants but maybe the world is more progressive than I thought. Please note my opinon doesnt reflect a view that either gender is superior just a general differece in the way we approach certain things.

And it is interesting to point out that the OP said it was his wife that pointed out he should feel guilty about rostering Vick and led him to creating this thread.

"If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group?"

Your question indicates you didn't understand "quite well" the first time. This combined with your 19th-century understanding of women and hormones indicated to me that you're rather limited. You may be brilliant in real life for all I know. Perhaps you're playing a cretinous persona on a message board for purposes known only to you.

"The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points."

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that this is the only thing you know. But I must agree with you. I suppose my league will have to risk losing to your league when they face off this Sunday in the league-on-league fantasy championship.

Have a better one!

The fact that you continue to take pot shots at my intelligence in an apparent attempt to hurt my feelings or something is another thing that is very feminie in my book. I.e: When I argue with my wife, I tend to focus on the merits of the opposing view points while she gets emotional and personal (even as a lawyer). But again, this is all based on my personal experience. Obviously we have different view points on this. You can continue to infer that I'm stupid and use SAT words to call me an idiot and I'll keep thinking that your name is Gary without the r or just a guy who is very in touch with his more feminime side. Either way, I think this conversation is straying further and further away from anything constructive and what the people who run this site would want. So I'll just agree to disagree.

Peace-

Waiting on your witty response to this....actually you can have the last word. That's something else I've learned over the years in dealing with women or men who think like them.

 

[Mr. Nasty]

I think what Vick did was grotesque, appalling and I was disgusted by his actions (or what I heard of them). As a dog owner for most of my life, I was outraged that this was happening. That being said, I drafted Kolb and when he went down, I quickly grabbed Vick to replace him. Did I suddenly forgive him for what he did? Absolutely not. But as someone else said, this is business and not personal. I am not his friend and am not going to hang out with the guy. I am using his athletic skills to my advantage (hopefully) in fantasy football and that is it.

 

[moderated]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

lol at the top fantasy qb not being rostered in your league.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Why do you think it's "feminine" to choose, as a league, not to draft certain players? Honestly. I don't see the connection.

Also, your post seemed kind of defensive. He challenged your intelligence (an inappropriate thing to do) and you responded by posting plenty of big words and phrases in your response. It's very different than your previous post, as if you wanted to show how smart you were and how wrong he was. Did you do that on purpose?

If you think it's a fact that their decision mean they're acting like a "stereotypical flock of females," I'd like to know more about this stereotype. Was it the fact that they got together and made the decision? Or the fact that they're not allowing certain players on their teams? Or the fact that they decided on what basis they'd ban players?

The Vick situation has brought out a lot of interesting subtexts to the game of fantasy football. Your response was one of them and I was wondering if you could elaborate. Thanks.

In regard to the tone of my post and whether or not I used "big" words on purpose I'll just say that whatever I typed was a natural response to what was posted. I do a lot of writing for a living so it's easy for me to slip into a certain mode. I don't really think my tone was inconsisitent with many of the things I have posted here in various threads but I'm not really all that concerned either way.As for why I think it's "feminine" to decide as a group to ban players from being drafted that's simply my opinion based on my personal experiences in dealing with men and women. If during my draft someone said "Hey you know what, Vick and Big Ben are really bad dudes. I think we should ban them as a group so nobody is subjected to having to root for them," that person would have been laughed out of the room and called several different versions of a female dog or a kitty kat. Maybe that's just me and my friends but I know a lot of guys outside of my leagues who would react the same way and I know a lot of women who would be in favor of such a move.

In general, my experience has been that most men will say hey if you don't want to draft the guy for personal reasons, fine that's your decision. But to decide what's best for the whole group is something that women would be more likely to do. I don't feel the need to justify this it by citing research on brain patterns based on gender and I don't feel it represents an antiquated view of gender stereotypes. Again, it's my opinion based on my experience. If someone has had a different opinion based on different experiences so be it. I really didn't think I would need to go into this level of detail on a forum that presumably has a vast majority of male participants but maybe the world is more progressive than I thought. Please note my opinon doesnt reflect a view that either gender is superior just a general differece in the way we approach certain things.

And it is interesting to point out that the OP said it was his wife that pointed out he should feel guilty about rostering Vick and led him to creating this thread.

"If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group?"

Your question indicates you didn't understand "quite well" the first time. This combined with your 19th-century understanding of women and hormones indicated to me that you're rather limited. You may be brilliant in real life for all I know. Perhaps you're playing a cretinous persona on a message board for purposes known only to you.

"The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points."

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that this is the only thing you know. But I must agree with you. I suppose my league will have to risk losing to your league when they face off this Sunday in the league-on-league fantasy championship.

Have a better one!

The fact that you continue to take pot shots at my intelligence in an apparent attempt to hurt my feelings or something is another thing that is very feminie in my book. I.e: When I argue with my wife, I tend to focus on the merits of the opposing view points while she gets emotional and personal (even as a lawyer). But again, this is all based on my personal experience. Obviously we have different view points on this. You can continue to infer that I'm stupid and use SAT words to call me an idiot and I'll keep thinking that your name is Gary without the r or just a guy who is very in touch with his more feminime side. Either way, I think this conversation is straying further and further away from anything constructive and what the people who run this site would want. So I'll just agree to disagree.

Peace-

Waiting on your witty response to this....actually you can have the last word. That's something else I've learned over the years in dealing with women or men who think like them.

There was deifnitely a different style to your last post as opposed to the previous one. It seemed like you bristled at your intelligence being called into question. Again, he shouldn't have done that but the response was interesting. I know you weren't addressing me, but it seems like you're revealing more than you intend here. Your view as to what is feminine and "gary without the r" (more suitable for middle school, really) is an unusual position that I hope you don't consider "masculine." I'm not sure it's progressive, but it's certianly not regressive. It also seems to validate some things that the other poster said as well, which is a bit disappointing.

On topic, I didn't see any reasons why not wanting Vick available in a league is "feminine" and the lack of explanation make me think the original poster (from way back) is right: There's nothing wrong at all with feeling unfcomfortable about rostering Vick. I don't think there should be guilt because he doesn't benefit from it. But people of all genders and orientations are animal lovers and consider heinous crimes especially hard to forgive. They are uncomfortable with associating in any way with those felons, and that could include fantasy football. Not sure one could label that masculine or feminine with any degree of integrity.

But again, it was wrong for him to challenge your intelligence. It has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[VaTerp]

There was deifnitely a different style to your last post as opposed to the previous one. It seemed like you bristled at your intelligence being called into question. Again, he shouldn't have done that but the response was interesting.

I know you weren't addressing me, but it seems like you're revealing more than you intend here. Your view as to what is feminine and "gary without the r" (more suitable for middle school, really) is an unusual position that I hope you don't consider "masculine." I'm not sure it's progressive, but it's certianly not regressive. It also seems to validate some things that the other poster said as well, which is a bit disappointing.

On topic, I didn't see any reasons why not wanting Vick available in a league is "feminine" and the lack of explanation make me think the original poster (from way back) is right: There's nothing wrong at all with feeling unfcomfortable about rostering Vick. I don't think there should be guilt because he doesn't benefit from it. But people of all genders and orientations are animal lovers and consider heinous crimes especially hard to forgive. They are uncomfortable with associating in any way with those felons, and that could include fantasy football. Not sure one could label that masculine or feminine with any degree of integrity.

But again, it was wrong for him to challenge your intelligence. It has nothing to do with the topic.

With all due respect I think you're missing my point. I'm not labeling any discomfort in rostering Vick to being masculine or feminine.I think it's fine for any individual to not feel comfortable rostering any player for any reason. And I can certainly understand why someone of any gender, orientation, or whatever would not want to personally roster Vick, Big Ben, or another player who they find reprehensible.

However, to take the decision away from each individual and ban them as a group so that nobody feels compelled to draft a player is something that my experience has shown is more likely for women to do. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's the opinion I've formed based on a lifetime of experience. I don't think that's necessarily a masculine, feminine, progressive, or regressive point of view. I think it's a gender based generalization I'm making based on personal experience. And it's a scientific fact that men and women think differently.

So, I'm not sure what part of my "explanation" you found to be lacking or what it validates from the other poster that you find to be disappointing. But it really doesn't matter at this point. I've made my points throughout this thread and if I'm not mistaken, you've done the same. Reasonable people can agree to disagree and that may be the case here.

Peace

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

There was deifnitely a different style to your last post as opposed to the previous one. It seemed like you bristled at your intelligence being called into question. Again, he shouldn't have done that but the response was interesting.

I know you weren't addressing me, but it seems like you're revealing more than you intend here. Your view as to what is feminine and "gary without the r" (more suitable for middle school, really) is an unusual position that I hope you don't consider "masculine." I'm not sure it's progressive, but it's certianly not regressive. It also seems to validate some things that the other poster said as well, which is a bit disappointing.

On topic, I didn't see any reasons why not wanting Vick available in a league is "feminine" and the lack of explanation make me think the original poster (from way back) is right: There's nothing wrong at all with feeling unfcomfortable about rostering Vick. I don't think there should be guilt because he doesn't benefit from it. But people of all genders and orientations are animal lovers and consider heinous crimes especially hard to forgive. They are uncomfortable with associating in any way with those felons, and that could include fantasy football. Not sure one could label that masculine or feminine with any degree of integrity.

But again, it was wrong for him to challenge your intelligence. It has nothing to do with the topic.

With all due respect I think you're missing my point. I'm not labeling any discomfort in rostering Vick to being masculine or feminine.I think it's fine for any individual to not feel comfortable rostering any player for any reason. And I can certainly understand why someone of any gender, orientation, or whatever would not want to personally roster Vick, Big Ben, or another player who they find reprehensible.

However, to take the decision away from each individual and ban them as a group so that nobody feels compelled to draft a player is something that my experience has shown is more likely for women to do. If you don't agree, that's fine. That's the opinion I've formed based on a lifetime of experience. I don't think that's necessarily a masculine, feminine, progressive, or regressive point of view. I think it's a gender based generalization I'm making based on personal experience. And it's a scientific fact that men and women think differently.

So, I'm not sure what part of my "explanation" you found to be lacking or what it validates from the other poster that you find to be disappointing. But it really doesn't matter at this point. I've made my points throughout this thread and if I'm not mistaken, you've done the same. Reasonable people can agree to disagree and that may be the case here.

Peace

Well, you labeled not allowing Vick to be rostered "feminine." When the poster criticized you, you labeled that "feminine" as well. If you don't like something...it seems to be feminine. Then you went with "gary without an r" and men who are in touch with their feminine side, which shows more than a bit of ignorance with regard to orientation. Not that you need to be an expert in those areas, or would even want to be. But it's pretty obvious.As far as banning individuals from making certain decisions and acting to limit that as a group being "female," I appreciate that your lifetime of experience fuels that opinion. But American history and the gender makeup of government over the past couple hundred years (or thousands if we extend beyond this country) show that, in reality, it's a pretty common male practice. I wouldn't ay it's exclusively male, but to say it's a female trait defies history.

Also, as this league is voluntary, nobody is forced to do anything. I'm sure if you see a rule in a league you really hate, you feel comfortable leaving. I'm sure they're the same way.

But we seem to agree that there's nothing male or female about feeling uncomfortable about rostering Vick. I suppose we disagree about the meaning of taking the extra step of banning him from the league. But like you said, reasonable people can agree to disagree and I do appreciate your position there.

 

[VaTerp]

Well, you labeled not allowing Vick to be rostered "feminine." When the poster criticized you, you labeled that "feminine" as well. If you don't like something...it

seems to be feminine. Then you went with "gary without an r" and men who are in touch with their feminine side, which shows more than a bit of ignorance with regard to orientation. Not that you need to be an expert in those areas, or would even want to be. But it's pretty obvious.

The bolded part is a crock of BS and I'm not ignorant with regard to orientation. That you and some other random poster on an internet forum share that opinion carries no significance and certainly does not make it obvious by any means. I labeled the guy feminine because he chose to attack my intelligence in a manner that seemed to me to be based on emotion and not the arguments themselves. Generally speaking, women show their emotions more outwardly than men and he comes off as rather feminine to me.

Lastly, if you want to get into a discussion of the history of this country and the gender makeup of government then maybe we can do that in a different place at a different time, but my opinion does not defy history.

And in the context of FF, I'd be willing to bet money that more women would be supportive of banning Vick and Roethlisberger as a group than men would.

 

[Ranethe]

I traded Vick for Bush.

Not for guilt but for RB depth later. Is that morally wrong?

Given Vick's amazing Monday night, I thought I'd chime in on this thread...very late, admittedly. My league agreed as a group prior to this season to "ban" Vick, Roethlesberger, and Jerramy Stevens. This wasn't to show we were morally superior. We merely felt as a group that we wouldn't enjoy rooting for these players, all of whom have demonstrated a disturbing depravity that goes far beyond garden variety NFL legal woes (fighting - drinking - cheating...sexting!).If Vick (or Big Ben for that matter) were not "banned" in our league, I would certainly scoop him up and use him against my opponents. It would be hard to feel "guilty" about using Vick if my failure to do so meant my opponent would be using him against me.

So how long have you and the girls been playing?Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them. Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

No further explanation needed. I understood quite well the first time and it's a very feminime thing to do. I'm also quite comfortable with my views on gender stereotypes and any of my fundamental deficiencies as percieved by some anonymous guy(???) on the internet.The fact that you feel the need to insult my intelligence based on your assumption of what my IQ may be is quite amusing. But if it makes you feel better about the fact thay you and your league mates make decisons like a stereotypical flock of females, more power to you.

As for how your life is being stunted by your raging estrogen levels, I don't know you so I want engage in the same foolish conjecture that you did with me. It is also evident that you took my last sentence out of context but I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points. Apparently that doesnt matter to you so to you and yours.

Have a great one!

Ignorance reaches new levels. Nice going.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Well, you labeled not allowing Vick to be rostered "feminine." When the poster criticized you, you labeled that "feminine" as well. If you don't like something...it

seems to be feminine. Then you went with "gary without an r" and men who are in touch with their feminine side, which shows more than a bit of ignorance with regard to orientation. Not that you need to be an expert in those areas, or would even want to be. But it's pretty obvious.

The bolded part is a crock of BS and I'm not ignorant with regard to orientation. That you and some other random poster on an internet forum share that opinion carries no significance and certainly does not make it obvious by any means. I labeled the guy feminine because he chose to attack my intelligence in a manner that seemed to me to be based on emotion and not the arguments themselves. Generally speaking, women show their emotions more outwardly than men and he comes off as rather feminine to me.

Lastly, if you want to get into a discussion of the history of this country and the gender makeup of government then maybe we can do that in a different place at a different time, but my opinion does not defy history.

And in the context of FF, I'd be willing to bet money that more women would be supportive of banning Vick and Roethlisberger as a group than men would.

I guess I should be grateful you didn't label my response "feminine." If you think he comes off as feminine because he attacked your intelligence...that sounds like a defense mechanism. He was basing it on your posts. Remember, he's never met you. In this thread, you seem to be the one showing your emotions and getting defensive when your intelligeence is questioned. Not to worry-- I don't consider that feminine.And I'm sorry, but your ignorance with regard to orientation was revelaed when you equate "gary with a g" to men and their feminine side. Gays are not men who want to be female. That's why I said it was ignorant.

And there's no discussion necessary when discussing the history of gvoernment. It's almost exclusively male. That's kind of the end of that discussion. Since government limits individual liberty and bans many things, your position that it's a female trait simply isn't suppoRted by facts, history or anything except your personal experience. Which is perfectly fine, of courSe. It's your opinion.

In this thread, we're discussing any guilt associated with rostering Vick, and one poster said his league banned him from being on rosters. That's not in any way feminine (according to any objective study of relevant data) but you bring up an interesting point with regard to Roethlisberger, siNCe he wasn't convicted of anything. I admit that women would be sensitive to his crimes (being that gender was the victim) but the act of banning them doesn't seem to be more likely coming from one gender than another. You seem to disagree, which is fine...except you can't really say why. Therefore, I must conclude that any guilt or decisions to ban players is gender-neutral. But again, I appreciate that you disagree and there's no need to be defensive. I respect the fact that you see things completely different for whatever reason.

 

[VaTerp]

Well, you labeled not allowing Vick to be rostered "feminine." When the poster criticized you, you labeled that "feminine" as well. If you don't like something...it

seems to be feminine. Then you went with "gary without an r" and men who are in touch with their feminine side, which shows more than a bit of ignorance with regard to orientation. Not that you need to be an expert in those areas, or would even want to be. But it's pretty obvious.

The bolded part is a crock of BS and I'm not ignorant with regard to orientation. That you and some other random poster on an internet forum share that opinion carries no significance and certainly does not make it obvious by any means. I labeled the guy feminine because he chose to attack my intelligence in a manner that seemed to me to be based on emotion and not the arguments themselves. Generally speaking, women show their emotions more outwardly than men and he comes off as rather feminine to me.

Lastly, if you want to get into a discussion of the history of this country and the gender makeup of government then maybe we can do that in a different place at a different time, but my opinion does not defy history.

And in the context of FF, I'd be willing to bet money that more women would be supportive of banning Vick and Roethlisberger as a group than men would.

I guess I should be grateful you didn't label my response "feminine." If you think he comes off as feminine because he attacked your intelligence...that sounds like a defense mechanism. He was basing it on your posts. Remember, he's never met you. In this thread, you seem to be the one showing your emotions and getting defensive when your intelligeence is questioned. Not to worry-- I don't consider that feminine.And I'm sorry, but your ignorance with regard to orientation was revelaed when you equate "gary with a g" to men and their feminine side. Gays are not men who want to be female. That's why I said it was ignorant.

And there's no discussion necessary when discussing the history of gvoernment. It's almost exclusively male. That's kind of the end of that discussion. Since government limits individual liberty and bans many things, your position that it's a female trait simply isn't suppoted by facts, history or anything except your personal experience. Which is perfectly fine, of coure. It's your opinion.

In this thread, we're discussing any guilt associated with rostering Vick, and one poster said his league banned him from being on rosters. That's not in any way feminine (according to any objective study of relevant data) but you bring up an interesting point with regard to Roethlisberger, sicne he wasn't convicted of anything. I admit that women would be sensitive to his crimes (being that gender was the victim) but the act of banning them doesn't seem to be more likely coming from one gender than another. You seem to disagree, which is fine...except you can't really say why. Therefore, I must conclude that any guilt or decisions to ban players is gender-neutral. But again, I appreciate that you disagree and there's no need to be defensive. I respect the fact that you see things completely differently for whatever reason.

I explained why I labeled him as feminine and I also gave reasons for my opinion. If I have to explain it to you further then you're not the kind of guy that I generally hang out with and vice versa. No harm there.There is no objective study of relevant data here so you are still being disingenuous if you think data or history is on your side of the argument. And your characterizations of government for the sake of this discussion is overly simplistic. And when did I say gay men wanted to be female? In a sophmoric attempt at humor I repeated something I heard on the radio this morning. But are you saying that gay men are not, in general, more feminine than straight men? Ok, that's fine too.

I'm done here though. Enjoy the game.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Well, you labeled not allowing Vick to be rostered "feminine." When the poster criticized you, you labeled that "feminine" as well. If you don't like something...it

seems to be feminine. Then you went with "gary without an r" and men who are in touch with their feminine side, which shows more than a bit of ignorance with regard to orientation. Not that you need to be an expert in those areas, or would even want to be. But it's pretty obvious.

The bolded part is a crock of BS and I'm not ignorant with regard to orientation. That you and some other random poster on an internet forum share that opinion carries no significance and certainly does not make it obvious by any means. I labeled the guy feminine because he chose to attack my intelligence in a manner that seemed to me to be based on emotion and not the arguments themselves. Generally speaking, women show their emotions more outwardly than men and he comes off as rather feminine to me.

Lastly, if you want to get into a discussion of the history of this country and the gender makeup of government then maybe we can do that in a different place at a different time, but my opinion does not defy history.

And in the context of FF, I'd be willing to bet money that more women would be supportive of banning Vick and Roethlisberger as a group than men would.

I guess I should be grateful you didn't label my response "feminine." If you think he comes off as feminine because he attacked your intelligence...that sounds like a defense mechanism. He was basing it on your posts. Remember, he's never met you. In this thread, you seem to be the one showing your emotions and getting defensive when your intelligeence is questioned. Not to worry-- I don't consider that feminine.And I'm sorry, but your ignorance with regard to orientation was revelaed when you equate "gary with a g" to men and their feminine side. Gays are not men who want to be female. That's why I said it was ignorant.

And there's no discussion necessary when discussing the history of gvoernment. It's almost exclusively male. That's kind of the end of that discussion. Since government limits individual liberty and bans many things, your position that it's a female trait simply isn't suppoted by facts, history or anything except your personal experience. Which is perfectly fine, of coure. It's your opinion.

In this thread, we're discussing any guilt associated with rostering Vick, and one poster said his league banned him from being on rosters. That's not in any way feminine (according to any objective study of relevant data) but you bring up an interesting point with regard to Roethlisberger, sicne he wasn't convicted of anything. I admit that women would be sensitive to his crimes (being that gender was the victim) but the act of banning them doesn't seem to be more likely coming from one gender than another. You seem to disagree, which is fine...except you can't really say why. Therefore, I must conclude that any guilt or decisions to ban players is gender-neutral. But again, I appreciate that you disagree and there's no need to be defensive. I respect the fact that you see things completely differently for whatever reason.

I explained why I labeled him as feminine and I also gave reasons for my opinion. If I have to explain it to you further then you're not the kind of guy that I generally hang out with and vice versa. No harm there.There is no objective study of relevant data here so you are still being disingenuous if you think data or history is on your side of the argument. And your characterizations of government for the sake of this discussion is overly simplistic. And when did I say gay men wanted to be female? In a sophmoric attempt at humor I repeated something I heard on the radio this morning. But are you saying that gay men are not, in general, more feminine than straight men? Ok, that's fine too.

I'm done here though. Enjoy the game.

I'm afraid that history shows governments to be historically male, proving your "experience" to be out of touch with thousands of years of history. That doesn't mean you're lying. It just means your exprience is too small a sample to compete with several centuries and retain any degree of integrity.Your "reasons" were "your experience." That's great, but it's not based on anything that has been observed by anyone else or documented throughout history. And while I appreciate your tribute to your local morning zoo, it revels a degree of ignorance with regard to orientation. Again, I'm sure you don't care...and why would you?

At least we can agree that there's nothing wrong with not wanting someone with objectionable behavior on their team, which was the topic of the thread. You might even agree that a voluntary league can make up whatever rules they want. We might diverge on how that relates to gender, but then we might agree more than we disagre. And that's always a great place to leave a discussion. Be well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In CBS Vick is owned in 99 percent of all leagues.

Not 100 percent. And not 100 percent after literally the single greatest fantasy performance they started this pursuit in 1962 or so.

How many people play fantasy football? Millions? And even after all that there must be thousands upon thousands of people who will not pick up Vick on a virtual basis in a game in which you predict who will do best on Sundays.

I will say that Vick is the only FF player I have ever owned who I did not chear for. I was amazed Sunday and vastly interested but it's pretty hard for me to pull for the guy.

However I also don't pull for my FF starters who are playing against my home team.

Does anyone think no matter what heights Vick ascends this season FF-wise that he will never be owned in 100 percent of all leagues? Even in Week 16 championship weekend???

 

[3optic]

I own him in a keeper. Originally got him as a back up for Kolb. I have to say I'm very happy for the guy. I love dogs and understand dog fighting is cruel but uh.. so's chicken farming and a lot of other things we take for granted but subsidize daily. I'm not trying to excuse what the man did but we're talking about a guy who's clearly, as far as I can see already gone through his repentance and payed his debt to society. Can we get on with enjoying what he brings to the game of football now?

 

[Otis]

Lol at this thread. Seriously?

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

In CBS Vick is owned in 99 percent of all leagues. Not 100 percent. And not 100 percent after literally the single greatest fantasy performance they started this pursuit in 1962 or so.How many people play fantasy football? Millions? And even after all that there must be thousands upon thousands of people who will not pick up Vick on a virtual basis in a game in which you predict who will do best on Sundays. I will say that Vick is the only FF player I have ever owned who I did not chear for. I was amazed Sunday and vastly interested but it's pretty hard for me to pull for the guy.Does anyone think no matter what heights Vick ascends this season FF-wise that he will never be owned in 100 percent of all leagues? Even in Week 16 championship weekend???

According to my CBS info... he is owned in 100% of them.

 

[FantasyTrader]

Lol at this thread. Seriously?

I'm with ya.

 

[two_dollars]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

lol at the top fantasy qb not being rostered in your league.

lol what? in what scoring system can he possibly be the top qb? He's 10th in our very normal format, right behind Palmer.

 

[atl3695]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

lol at the top fantasy qb not being rostered in your league.

lol what? in what scoring system can he possibly be the top qb? He's 10th in our very normal format, right behind Palmer.

He should be number 1 in pts per game played in most formats. Did your leaguemates know when they signed up that they were only allowed to pickup players that you approved of and passed your personal moral character test? No objections to you having final say on their rosters (which they obviously paid for if they are paying transaction fees)?

 

[two_dollars]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

lol at the top fantasy qb not being rostered in your league.

lol what? in what scoring system can he possibly be the top qb? He's 10th in our very normal format, right behind Palmer.

He should be number 1 in pts per game played in most formats. Did your leaguemates know when they signed up that they were only allowed to pickup players that you approved of and passed your personal moral character test? No objections to you having final say on their rosters (which they obviously paid for if they are paying transaction fees)?

Yes, everyone knew before the draft. Everyone knew last year before the draft as well. They were free to walk if they chose. They stayed. That said, we will probably vote him in next year since I'm putting it out to the league. Not that I have to justify anything here..And my league doesn't award points for games not played, so he's 10th, not 1st. If FF pts per game played was a viable stat, Steven Jackson would have been a consensus #1 for a couple years. If the season ended right now, Vick would be 10th.

 

[two_dollars]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

lol at the top fantasy qb not being rostered in your league.

lol what? in what scoring system can he possibly be the top qb? He's 10th in our very normal format, right behind Palmer.

He should be number 1 in pts per game played in most formats. Did your leaguemates know when they signed up that they were only allowed to pickup players that you approved of and passed your personal moral character test? No objections to you having final say on their rosters (which they obviously paid for if they are paying transaction fees)?

Yes, everyone knew before the draft. Everyone knew last year before the draft as well. They were free to walk if they chose. They stayed. That said, we will probably vote him in next year since I'm putting it out to the league. Not that I have to justify anything here..And my league doesn't award points for games not played, so he's 10th, not 1st. If FF pts per game played was a viable stat, Steven Jackson would have been a consensus #1 for a couple years. If the season ended right now, Vick would be 10th.

 

[jafo]

I own Vick and I was cheering for him on Monday night. You all hear that? That's my right to do and I'm not afraid to say it. If he wins me some fat cash I'll be cheering even louder. All this PC stuff is enough to make you all lose focus on winning. Banning players?? Really? What is the world coming to...this is a FANTASY game. A game people.

Some of you outta run home and let your momma set your lineup.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I own Vick and I was cheering for him on Monday night. You all hear that? That's my right to do and I'm not afraid to say it. If he wins me some fat cash I'll be cheering even louder. All this PC stuff is enough to make you all lose focus on winning. Banning players?? Really? What is the world coming to...this is a FANTASY game. A game people.

Some of you outta run home and let your momma set your lineup.

Because real men set their own imaginary lineups for their pretend fantasy games, right? I think it's just fine that you were cheering for him. You have every right to do so, and I'm sure he either got you a win or turned an existing victory into a blowout. But I'm sure you realize that other people can exercise those very same rights to choose not to cheer for him, correct? I understand why some people don't feel good about rostering someone with his past, and I even understand why a group of people playing in a league would all agree not to roster him. It depends on the people involved.

 

[Jericho34]

I own Vick and I was cheering for him on Monday night. You all hear that? That's my right to do and I'm not afraid to say it. If he wins me some fat cash I'll be cheering even louder. All this PC stuff is enough to make you all lose focus on winning. Banning players?? Really? What is the world coming to...this is a FANTASY game. A game people.

Some of you outta run home and let your momma set your lineup.

Because real men set their own imaginary lineups for their pretend fantasy games, right? I think it's just fine that you were cheering for him. You have every right to do so, and I'm sure he either got you a win or turned an existing victory into a blowout. But I'm sure you realize that other people can exercise those very same rights to choose not to cheer for him, correct? I understand why some people don't feel good about rostering someone with his past, and I even understand why a group of people playing in a league would all agree not to roster him. It depends on the people involved.

This was basically what I was driving at: there's no rule that says you have to follow the NFL's lead on who is or isn't banned. Do whatever floats your boat. I wasn't really making a comment on Vick or his past at all.That said, I'm amazed that anyone can believe Vick is sorry or was rehabilitated by spending a year in prison. Look at the time and money he spent on dog fighting. Look at what people who practice this hobby actually *do* to dogs. When Vick was caught, I think he was a sociopathic piece of garbage who was only sorry he got caught. I don't think he's changed in the least. This obviously comes in conflict with the starry-eyed worship we all want to feel toward anyone who is any good at this game.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

feel guilty about what?

The guy did his time and its not like he killed a person.

Go Vick Go!!!!!

 

[Jericho34]

No reason to feel guilty. Rostering and starting Vick doesn't help him in any way. You're not putting money in his pockets of increasing his contract value or anything. You're letting him be "on" your pretend team. He gains nothing so don't worry about it.I love some of the comments here. "I don't want to judge," "He did his time," etc. Everyone is so scared to have an opinion these days. Yeah, I can judge killing dogs. Put me down for "against." I don't care about his background. Unless he was taught that dogs don't feel pain, he knew he was torturing dogs. Yes, he did his time. Nobody is suggesting that he be banned from the NFL. But I decide when I feel comfortable about rooting for a player. I'll determine when he's paid his debt in that regard. If someone doesn't care, fine. But there's nothing wrong with choosing not to root for a guy like Vick at this stage. It's not more "manly" to think it's no big deal.

As far as my not judging, that was directed at people and leagues who roster Vick. I obviously judge Vick and find him to be grotesque.

 

[seer_taru]

So how long have you and the girls been playing?

Sorry, couldn't resist. That just sounds like a very estrogen thing to do. If an individual doesn't want to draft Vick for personal reasons then fine but why ban him and Big Ben as a group? And would anyone really draft Stevens anyway?

To each their own I guess, I just hope my life is never impacted by people with such narrow (IMO) points of view.

Well, I thought this was staggeringly obvious, but...your sexism does indicate you're fundamentally deficient. So here's a clearer explanation for the double-digit IQ set: (1) none of us want to root for these players; (2) if we don't agree as a group to exclude them (Vick and Big Ben), our competitiveness will force us to use (and thus root) for them.

Perhaps you could explain to the narrow-minded, estrogen-burdened folks out there how our lives are being stunted by not being open to dog fighting or to people who engage in it.

No further explanation needed. I understood quite well the first time and it's a very feminime thing to do. I'm also quite comfortable with my views on gender stereotypes and any of my fundamental deficiencies as percieved by some anonymous guy(???) on the internet.

The fact that you feel the need to insult my intelligence based on your assumption of what my IQ may be is quite amusing. But if it makes you feel better about the fact thay you and your league mates make decisons like a stereotypical flock of females, more power to you.

As for how your life is being stunted by your raging estrogen levels, I don't know you so I want engage in the same foolish conjecture that you did with me. It is also evident that you took my last sentence out of context but I'll just leave it alone. The only thing I know is that your league is missing out on a lot of FF points. Apparently that doesnt matter to you so to you and yours.

Have a great one!

Ignorance reaches new levels. Nice going.

Agreed. Ignorant. While explaining why he wasn't ignorant, became more so. "Gary without the r". Ridiculous.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

We don't have this issue in my league. It is well known if you try to pick up Vick, I will drop him from your roster, you lose the guy you dropped to pick him up, and you're still paying the $5 transaction fee. Thus, he's unrosterable.

Weak; $5, really?In our league, we didn't make the guy that picked up Vick drop him.Instead, a few of us got together and bought some dog kennels. Then we smeared them with head cheese and ketchup and hid them in the Vick owner's garden shed. Two weeks ago we called the cops and reported he was running a dog fighting ring out of his house.Now he's doing a 90-day stretch in county.

 

[jojoh07]

for all the ones who are not rostering him for "moral" reasons ..... I have league openings next year for every single one of you.

 

[jackdubl]

Guilt is weakness entering the body.

 

[thatguy]

Lol at this thread. Seriously?

Yup.

 

[purestrength]

for all the ones who are not rostering him for "moral" reasons ..... I have league openings next year for every single one of you.

I'm one of them.How much is the entry fee? Who holds the money? How many teams in the league? Brief description of the scoring system?I'm interested in joining your league, as long as it is reputable and as long as the 2011 NFL season is not canceled.Don't confuse human decency for weakness because I'll be happy to take your money.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

for all the ones who are not rostering him for "moral" reasons ..... I have league openings next year for every single one of you.

I'm one of them.

How much is the entry fee? Who holds the money? How many teams in the league? Brief description of the scoring system?

I'm interested in joining your league, as long as it is reputable and as long as the 2011 NFL season is not canceled.

Don't confuse human decency for weakness because I'll be happy to take your money.

I'm in...

1.01 - Jesus... Tim Tebow