Do morals come into play when drafting FF players? (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?Do you care if they use drugs?Do you care if they're violent?Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Obviously we can't know how every guy is behind closed doors. But I do know at least some of what Vick does with his life. And I hate him for it. Therefore, I don't want him on my fantasy team. Fantasy football is a game. It's supposed to be played for fun. It wouldn't be any fun for me to have Vick on my team. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[BeTheMatch]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

So we're supposed to hate everyone because some people are bad that we think are good? Makes a lot of sense.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?Do you care if they use drugs?Do you care if they're violent?Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Good luck with this. I voiced something similar in the Vick threads and was trashed/thrashed for it. It's apparently not easy for most fans to separate the man from the player.

 

[Jason Wood]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

So we're supposed to hate everyone because some people are bad that we think are good? Makes a lot of sense.

Not at all...you're supposed to like athletes for what they do on the field, and how their play makes you feel as either a fantasy owner or a fan of the team. It's nearly impossible for people to do, I realize, but it just seems absolutely illogical to me to remove an asset from the equation on moral issues when you have no basis to compare him against his cohorts.

 

[Jason Wood]

Let's say over the course of the federal prosecution, other NFL players names come out. Let's say as many as three dozen names come out and they are all, as luck would have it, major fantasy football contributors. What then? Do you forfeit the season if you have two or three on your roster? Do you trade them away even though you're in 1st place and look back on those wins in the first few weeks as tainted? Do you cut them on principle?

 

[The Kansas Comet]

It wouldn't affect my draft strategy - I've had TO on enough teams that have won. If an NFL team employs the guy, I see no reason why it should keep me from drafting him on to my make-believe team. However, it is easier and more enjoyable for me to root for a team that has Warrick Dunn on it, certainly.

 

[IM666]

Let's say over the course of the federal prosecution, other NFL players names come out. Let's say as many as three dozen names come out and they are all, as luck would have it, major fantasy football contributors. What then? Do you forfeit the season if you have two or three on your roster? Do you trade them away even though you're in 1st place and look back on those wins in the first few weeks as tainted? Do you cut them on principle?

 

[BeTheMatch]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

So we're supposed to hate everyone because some people are bad that we think are good? Makes a lot of sense.

Not at all...you're supposed to like athletes for what they do on the field, and how their play makes you feel as either a fantasy owner or a fan of the team. It's nearly impossible for people to do, I realize, but it just seems absolutely illogical to me to remove an asset from the equation on moral issues when you have no basis to compare him against his cohorts.

Says who? You? I'll like or dislike a person for whatever reason I want, thank you. This whole debate is interesting to me in that, the people who don't want Vick on their team anymore aren't criticizing people who would still take Vick (at least not that I've read). Yet people who have no problem with Vick on their team seem to be flailing away at people who don't want Vick because they don't like him anymore.And what do you mean we have no basis to compare Vick to his cohorts? Of course we do. None of his cohorts have been charged with electrocuting dogs. Until they have been, I have no problem giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sylira21]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

 

[BeTheMatch]

But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Exactamundo!

 

[phthalatemagic]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

Yeah, I guess I didn't. What I interpreted is something like "Don't pat yourself on the back for removing Mike Vick becuase you don't know what the other players have done, so removing Vick from your team means nothing".I don't think everyone subscribes to the "don't ask don't tell" policy that you speak of. Maybe their priorities are different than yours with regards to how serious a crime is, but I'm certain many people have a line. And secondly I'm not so sure at least savvy sports fans put their sports heroes on a moral pedestal over their peers. If my neighbor were found guilty for killing a woman via DWI, he'd get the same reaction from me as Leonard Little would. I don't think I'm alone in that either. I think savvy sports fans have the same expectations for athletes as they do for their peers.

 

[phthalatemagic]

But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

Wow. I thought I was cynical. You've just used the biggest brush ever to paint over the entire world of professional athletes in one broad stroke. I, personally, find that both silly and sad.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

Wow. I thought I was cynical. You've just used the biggest brush ever to paint over the entire world of professional athletes in one broad stroke. I, personally, find that both silly and sad.

Again, this probably boils down to a larger issue of how you view the world. The handful of personal interactions I've had with star athletes and celebs has, unfortunately, reinforced my view that you wouldn't let most of these guys near your daughter (if you have one). Understanding that, I'm completely fine with rooting my ### off for guys wearing Eagles Green or playing for Team Woodrow.

 

[tomarken]

You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

The guy can only control what he knows, a team minus Mike Vick is a team minus one bad guy (according to whoever thinks Vick is a bad guy)

I'm not quite sure you get what I'm saying. We confuse "liking some one" with "liking what they do that entertains us."It's the "don't ask, don't tell" policy...people want so desperately to feel a personal connection to their sports heroes and favorite celebrities they put up this mythical blinder that these people are somehow not only morally normal but actually superior; which couldn't be further from the truth.

So we're supposed to hate everyone because some people are bad that we think are good? Makes a lot of sense.

Not at all...you're supposed to like athletes for what they do on the field, and how their play makes you feel as either a fantasy owner or a fan of the team. It's nearly impossible for people to do, I realize, but it just seems absolutely illogical to me to remove an asset from the equation on moral issues when you have no basis to compare him against his cohorts.

Says who? You? I'll like or dislike a person for whatever reason I want, thank you. This whole debate is interesting to me in that, the people who don't want Vick on their team anymore aren't criticizing people who would still take Vick (at least not that I've read). Yet people who have no problem with Vick on their team seem to be flailing away at people who don't want Vick because they don't like him anymore.And what do you mean we have no basis to compare Vick to his cohorts? Of course we do. None of his cohorts have been charged with electrocuting dogs. Until they have been, I have no problem giving them the benefit of the doubt.

This is a completely subjective matter. As I posted earlier in this or one of the other 524378952307 Vick threads, it's up to each owner to make their own judgements on whatever criteria they want. I would still draft Vick if, from a fantasy football perspective, it made sense to do so - i.e. he fell to me at a spot in the draft where he had more value than anyone else on the board. But I have no doubt I can and will field a competitive team (as I always do) with or without Vick on my roster, and I'd be a lot happier if he wasn't. Note, that doesn't mean I think everyone else on my roster is a saint. It doesn't mean I hold professional athletes in high regard. It doesn't mean I think dog slaughtering is better or worse than wife beating, or drug dealing, or anything else. It doesn't mean anything other than the fact that, in this particular instance, the things Michael Vick have been accused of are sickening to me, and I'd rather not have to root for him on Sundays in the fall. I'm not asserting a fact for anyone else to weigh in and prove wrong.

If I say I wouldn't draft Vick because I think he'll only throw for 500 yards and 2 TD's this year, then we can debate that as we all do on these boards. And the beauty of that is that at the end of the season, we can look back and see who was right and who was wrong. But if I say I won't draft Vick because rooting for him to win would make my stomach turn, that is not debatable. Whether or not anyone else in the NFL is any more or less moral in your eyes or mine is irrelevant in this specific case. If I'm so wrong, I guess I should be getting trounced in every fantasy league I'm in, but strangely that is not the case (especially since I started subscribing to FBG a few years ago!)

 

[phthalatemagic]

I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

I don't think it's foreign for most people to assume everyone is a decent person until they show otherwise.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

Wow. I thought I was cynical. You've just used the biggest brush ever to paint over the entire world of professional athletes in one broad stroke. I, personally, find that both silly and sad.

I don't think it's silly and sad not to presume that pro football players are automatically people of high character, nor is it particularly cynical, just because they play a sport we all enjoy so much. If one can accept the premise that they are people like you and me, with all the concurrent flaws, then one isn't so disappointed when one of those athletes flubs up in their off-field lives. The phrase "should be held to a higher standard" has been bandied about in these discussions of late but I have trouble signing on to that concept. To me, they're just talented guys, good at what they do. The other stuff just doesn't have any relevance to me.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

Wow. I thought I was cynical. You've just used the biggest brush ever to paint over the entire world of professional athletes in one broad stroke. I, personally, find that both silly and sad.

I don't think it's silly and sad not to presume that pro football players are automatically people of high character, nor is it particularly cynical, just because they play a sport we all enjoy so much. If one can accept the premise that they are people like you and me, with all the concurrent flaws, then one isn't so disappointed when one of those athletes flubs up in their off-field lives. The phrase "should be held to a higher standard" has been bandied about in these discussions of late but I have trouble signing on to that concept. To me, they're just talented guys, good at what they do. The other stuff just doesn't have any relevance to me.

You're misunderstanding. Wood seems to have a view that presumes most athletes are bad guys, even if we don't know it yet. I'm simply saying it's very cynical to just assume that someone is a bad guy because he's a professional athlete. We don't assume someone is a bad guy, for instance, if he's an architect. So if you assume that someone is bad because he's a football player, sounds to me like you're the one holding them to a higher standard.

 

[Jason Wood]

I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

I don't think it's foreign for most people to assume everyone is a decent person until they show otherwise.

It's not foreign, in fact, it's the standard worldview.

I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I hate. I'll never have Michael Vick on my team again.

This is exactly what I was talking about...the fallacy of celebrity. We tend to assign character and morality traits on famous people we don't know well AT ALL based on whether they are providing us joy or entertainment. Just because you presume you only root for "good guys", the demographics of the NFL and our society would paint a different picture.Do you care if people cheat on their wives?

Do you care if they use drugs?

Do you care if they're violent?

Do you care if they have odd sexual proclivities?

To think that many of the sports "heroes" you DO feel good about rooting for aren't doing all of those things and a LOT more is naive, at best. You're not alone, we're all guilty of it. But the reality is, unless you're intimately familiar with these guys personal lives, you're kidding yourself to think somehow removing Mike Vick from the equation ensures you have guys worthy of your respect and admiration.

Actually, I don't care if they cheat on their wives, use drugs, or are "different". And since we're talking football players, I'm assuming violent is a bit of a given. Well, except for kickers. But just because I may unknowingly have a cross-dressing coke fiend on my fantasy squad doesn't make it all right in my own mind to knowingly have a dog-electrocutor.

Well articulated and again, you're not saying anything that most people wouldn't. I, personally, just find it silly because it presumes that athletes are inherently good and moral people; which is naive.

Wow. I thought I was cynical. You've just used the biggest brush ever to paint over the entire world of professional athletes in one broad stroke. I, personally, find that both silly and sad.

I don't think it's silly and sad not to presume that pro football players are automatically people of high character, nor is it particularly cynical, just because they play a sport we all enjoy so much. If one can accept the premise that they are people like you and me, with all the concurrent flaws, then one isn't so disappointed when one of those athletes flubs up in their off-field lives. The phrase "should be held to a higher standard" has been bandied about in these discussions of late but I have trouble signing on to that concept. To me, they're just talented guys, good at what they do. The other stuff just doesn't have any relevance to me.

You're misunderstanding. Wood seems to have a view that presumes most athletes are bad guys, even if we don't know it yet. I'm simply saying it's very cynical to just assume that someone is a bad guy because he's a professional athlete. We don't assume someone is a bad guy, for instance, if he's an architect. So if you assume that someone is bad because he's a football player, sounds to me like you're the one holding them to a higher standard.

Incorrect...I presume that there are a good chunk of guys that are "bad guys" and, by simple distribution, each and every team has a few who fit the bill. Ergo, to be a "fan" of an NFL team, you either have to delude yourself into thinking you KNOW these guys when you really don't, OR you have to accept that rooting for someone on the field is much different than liking them as human beings.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Incorrect...I presume that there are a good chunk of guys that are "bad guys" and, by simple distribution, each and every team has a few who fit the bill. Ergo, to be a "fan" of an NFL team, you either have to delude yourself into thinking you KNOW these guys when you really don't, OR you have to accept that rooting for someone on the field is much different than liking them as human beings.

OK, well, I'll take my personal view a step further. First of all, I don't have any "heroes" - and if I did, they certainly wouldn't be some professional athlete just because of something he can do well on a field/court. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that everyone in the NFL is a great person. At the same time, when it comes out in great detail as it has in Vick's case, that's a different story.I already said I won't have Vick on my fantasy team. To take that further, I would never buy a Vick jersey or let my son buy a Vick jersey. If I happened to live in Atlanta, I would never go to a Falcons game again if they decided to keep Vick on the team. And if enough truly bad guys like this were exposed and the NFL didn't do much about it, I might end up abandoning the NFL altogether. I would stop playing fantasy. I would stop watching games. I would cancel the NFL Ticket. I wouldn't buy any merchandise. I wouldn't go to games.This is exactly what Roger Goodell and the NFL fear. They don't want to lose fans. They don't want fans to think the NFL is full of thugs. That's why I'm hoping the NFL comes down extremely hard on Vick. If they do, three things would be accomplished: 1) Vick would be out of the league. 2) Other players who may be involved in dog fighting on some level would have received a big-time warning that they better shape up. 3) They would restore the image of the NFL and keep their fans from revolting.

 

[Jason Wood]

Incorrect...I presume that there are a good chunk of guys that are "bad guys" and, by simple distribution, each and every team has a few who fit the bill. Ergo, to be a "fan" of an NFL team, you either have to delude yourself into thinking you KNOW these guys when you really don't, OR you have to accept that rooting for someone on the field is much different than liking them as human beings.

OK, well, I'll take my personal view a step further. First of all, I don't have any "heroes" - and if I did, they certainly wouldn't be some professional athlete just because of something he can do well on a field/court. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that everyone in the NFL is a great person. At the same time, when it comes out in great detail as it has in Vick's case, that's a different story.I already said I won't have Vick on my fantasy team. To take that further, I would never buy a Vick jersey or let my son buy a Vick jersey. If I happened to live in Atlanta, I would never go to a Falcons game again if they decided to keep Vick on the team. And if enough truly bad guys like this were exposed and the NFL didn't do much about it, I might end up abandoning the NFL altogether. I would stop playing fantasy. I would stop watching games. I would cancel the NFL Ticket. I wouldn't buy any merchandise. I wouldn't go to games.This is exactly what Roger Goodell and the NFL fear. They don't want to lose fans. They don't want fans to think the NFL is full of thugs. That's why I'm hoping the NFL comes down extremely hard on Vick. If they do, three things would be accomplished: 1) Vick would be out of the league. 2) Other players who may be involved in dog fighting on some level would have received a big-time warning that they better shape up. 3) They would restore the image of the NFL and keep their fans from revolting.

I agree with your points save for that last one...The "image" problem is purely about perception, guys have been doing this kind of thing for as long as the league has existed. The difference is we now live in a world of 24-7 radio, blogs, websites and news cycles. Imagine, for a second, what life would be like for Lawrence Taylor were he playing today? Imagine how vilified Joe Namath would've been after every Jets loss when TMZ was posting photos of Joe with some young vixen out at 3 in the morning? The morality of NFL players isn't on the decline, the AWARENESS of that morality is what's changing. And that's like putting a genie back in the bottle...not going to happen.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Incorrect...I presume that there are a good chunk of guys that are "bad guys" and, by simple distribution, each and every team has a few who fit the bill. Ergo, to be a "fan" of an NFL team, you either have to delude yourself into thinking you KNOW these guys when you really don't, OR you have to accept that rooting for someone on the field is much different than liking them as human beings.

OK, well, I'll take my personal view a step further. First of all, I don't have any "heroes" - and if I did, they certainly wouldn't be some professional athlete just because of something he can do well on a field/court. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that everyone in the NFL is a great person. At the same time, when it comes out in great detail as it has in Vick's case, that's a different story.I already said I won't have Vick on my fantasy team. To take that further, I would never buy a Vick jersey or let my son buy a Vick jersey. If I happened to live in Atlanta, I would never go to a Falcons game again if they decided to keep Vick on the team. And if enough truly bad guys like this were exposed and the NFL didn't do much about it, I might end up abandoning the NFL altogether. I would stop playing fantasy. I would stop watching games. I would cancel the NFL Ticket. I wouldn't buy any merchandise. I wouldn't go to games.This is exactly what Roger Goodell and the NFL fear. They don't want to lose fans. They don't want fans to think the NFL is full of thugs. That's why I'm hoping the NFL comes down extremely hard on Vick. If they do, three things would be accomplished: 1) Vick would be out of the league. 2) Other players who may be involved in dog fighting on some level would have received a big-time warning that they better shape up. 3) They would restore the image of the NFL and keep their fans from revolting.

I agree with your points save for that last one...The "image" problem is purely about perception, guys have been doing this kind of thing for as long as the league has existed. The difference is we now live in a world of 24-7 radio, blogs, websites and news cycles. Imagine, for a second, what life would be like for Lawrence Taylor were he playing today? Imagine how vilified Joe Namath would've been after every Jets loss when TMZ was posting photos of Joe with some young vixen out at 3 in the morning? The morality of NFL players isn't on the decline, the AWARENESS of that morality is what's changing. And that's like putting a genie back in the bottle...not going to happen.

I never said the morality of NFL players is on the decline, but perception is reality. I realize in today's world of 24-7 coverage that things are different, that's why I think it's so important for the NFL to do everything it can to protect its image. According to Mortensen and Pasquarelli, the NFL is already urging Vick to take a "leave of absence" for all of 2007 because they know it will be impossible for the Falcons to function with Vick around while this thing plays out.

 

[Jason Wood]

Incorrect...I presume that there are a good chunk of guys that are "bad guys" and, by simple distribution, each and every team has a few who fit the bill. Ergo, to be a "fan" of an NFL team, you either have to delude yourself into thinking you KNOW these guys when you really don't, OR you have to accept that rooting for someone on the field is much different than liking them as human beings.

OK, well, I'll take my personal view a step further. First of all, I don't have any "heroes" - and if I did, they certainly wouldn't be some professional athlete just because of something he can do well on a field/court. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that everyone in the NFL is a great person. At the same time, when it comes out in great detail as it has in Vick's case, that's a different story.I already said I won't have Vick on my fantasy team. To take that further, I would never buy a Vick jersey or let my son buy a Vick jersey. If I happened to live in Atlanta, I would never go to a Falcons game again if they decided to keep Vick on the team. And if enough truly bad guys like this were exposed and the NFL didn't do much about it, I might end up abandoning the NFL altogether. I would stop playing fantasy. I would stop watching games. I would cancel the NFL Ticket. I wouldn't buy any merchandise. I wouldn't go to games.This is exactly what Roger Goodell and the NFL fear. They don't want to lose fans. They don't want fans to think the NFL is full of thugs. That's why I'm hoping the NFL comes down extremely hard on Vick. If they do, three things would be accomplished: 1) Vick would be out of the league. 2) Other players who may be involved in dog fighting on some level would have received a big-time warning that they better shape up. 3) They would restore the image of the NFL and keep their fans from revolting.

I agree with your points save for that last one...The "image" problem is purely about perception, guys have been doing this kind of thing for as long as the league has existed. The difference is we now live in a world of 24-7 radio, blogs, websites and news cycles. Imagine, for a second, what life would be like for Lawrence Taylor were he playing today? Imagine how vilified Joe Namath would've been after every Jets loss when TMZ was posting photos of Joe with some young vixen out at 3 in the morning? The morality of NFL players isn't on the decline, the AWARENESS of that morality is what's changing. And that's like putting a genie back in the bottle...not going to happen.

I never said the morality of NFL players is on the decline, but perception is reality. I realize in today's world of 24-7 coverage that things are different, that's why I think it's so important for the NFL to do everything it can to protect its image. According to Mortensen and Pasquarelli, the NFL is already urging Vick to take a "leave of absence" for all of 2007 because they know it will be impossible for the Falcons to function with Vick around while this thing plays out.

And I think that somehow, someway, that's exactly what will happen. Whether Vick acquiesces or Blank has to make a more forceful decision on that front.

 

[On The Rocks]

Do morals come into play when drafting FF players?

Sometimes yes....sometimes no.When Micheale Pittman, and Randy McMichael were busted for beating thier wives, I made a conscious decsion not to select them.However if LT went out and raped the kid next door and he was sitting there at...ohhh..lets say the #3 spot. I wouldn't pass on him.