NFL steered Vick to Eagles? (1 Viewer)

[Amused to Death]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009.

"I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734e

From Leitch himself:

“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009."I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734eFrom Leitch himself:“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Day after spin. Agents and publicists do this stuff every day.

 

[Insein]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009.

"I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734e

From Leitch himself:

“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Exactly.

 

[Insein]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009."I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734eFrom Leitch himself:“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Day after spin. Agents and publicists do this stuff every day.

Haters gonna hate.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009."I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734eFrom Leitch himself:“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Day after spin. Agents and publicists do this stuff every day.

Haters gonna hate.

Come on. I know you're an Eagles fan but you're smarter than that.Regardless of what Vick actually meant when he initially had his conversations with Leitch, this was inevitable. As I've already noted, I predicted it before it happened. It means absolutely nothing.Here's some further comments from Leitch. Among them he points out that Vick's denial is actually a carefully worded non-denial:

And for the record, in his clarification, Vick never says that Goodell had nothing to do with this. He said that he had a lot of advisors during that time.

Look, nobody really thinks Goodell told Vick specifically where to sign or where not to sign (that's over the line even for someone as inconsistent and overbearing as Goodell I assume) so Vick's non-denial is basically meaningless. The point is that if he had ANY role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, he compromised the integrity of the league. The exact choice of words goes only to how egregious his sin was, not whether it was a sin.

 

[Insein]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009."I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734eFrom Leitch himself:“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Day after spin. Agents and publicists do this stuff every day.

Haters gonna hate.

Come on. I know you're an Eagles fan but you're smarter than that.Regardless of what Vick actually meant when he initially had his conversations with Leitch, this was inevitable. As I've already noted, I predicted it before it happened. It means absolutely nothing.Here's some further comments from Leitch. Among them he points out that Vick's denial is actually a carefully worded non-denial:

And for the record, in his clarification, Vick never says that Goodell had nothing to do with this. He said that he had a lot of advisors during that time.

Look, nobody really thinks Goodell told Vick specifically where to sign or where not to sign (that's over the line even for someone as inconsistent and overbearing as Goodell I assume) so Vick's non-denial is basically meaningless. The point is that if he had ANY role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, he compromised the integrity of the league. The exact choice of words goes only to how egregious his sin was, not whether it was a sin.

I agree. If Goodell had any role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, it would be a big deal. I simply think that it didn't occur. Goodell has entirely too much to lose from an action like that. The reason I don't like that paragraph in the article is because it made the reader think that Vick made a decision based on the results of that meeting. The reality is that Vick still took time to consider his options after meeting with Goodell. I believe the meeting with Goodell was to remind him that his career is on the line and to weigh his options carefully. Vick wasn't making a decision then and there either way. I don't believe Goodell had any hand in his decision only in his reinstatement to the league.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree. If Goodell had any role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, it would be a big deal. I simply think that it didn't occur. Goodell has entirely too much to lose from an action like that.

The reason I don't like that paragraph in the article is because it made the reader think that Vick made a decision based on the results of that meeting. The reality is that Vick still took time to consider his options after meeting with Goodell. I believe the meeting with Goodell was to remind him that his career is on the line and to weigh his options carefully. Vick wasn't making a decision then and there either way. I don't believe Goodell had any hand in his decision only in his reinstatement to the league.

The two things in bold are not incompatible.I think the text speaks for itself, as does the fact that Vick's denial is actually a non-denial (it's a denial of an extreme reading of the story).

 

[Insein]

I agree. If Goodell had any role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, it would be a big deal. I simply think that it didn't occur. Goodell has entirely too much to lose from an action like that.

The reason I don't like that paragraph in the article is because it made the reader think that Vick made a decision based on the results of that meeting. The reality is that Vick still took time to consider his options after meeting with Goodell. I believe the meeting with Goodell was to remind him that his career is on the line and to weigh his options carefully. Vick wasn't making a decision then and there either way. I don't believe Goodell had any hand in his decision only in his reinstatement to the league.

The two things in bold are not incompatible.I think the text speaks for itself, as does the fact that Vick's denial is actually a non-denial (it's a denial of an extreme reading of the story).

I agree. I'm sure Vick weighed the commissioners "threat" to be a good person in his overall choice as to where he went. I don't think that the Commissioner specifically stated any team. These hypothetically conversations saying Vick thought about Buff or Cincy and the commish said I'd rethink that to me are just too much of a stretch. I think the meeting with the commish was the requirement of getting reinstated to tell him where he was at with teams. Like a progress report. Initially, I'm sure Buff and Cincy looked like better options because he was closer to a starting role (not that he would have started as the author alleged). But he did not make a decision over night and he certainly didn't make a decision as a direct result of the meeting with Goodell. The word "convinced" by the author is poorly placed and implies that it was that meeting solely that convinced Vick to make a decision. That's my issue with this. I still haven't determined if the writer didn't it accidentally or with intent.

 

[Reepicheep]

This is a bunch of codswallop. Leitch knew exactly what he was doing. In GQ he wrote:

"I think I can say this now, because it's not going to hurt anybody's feelings, and it's the truth," Vick tells me a few weeks after the commencement ceremony. "I didn't want to come to Philadelphia. Being the third-team quarterback is nothing to smile about. Cincinnati and Buffalo were better options." Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "And I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation."

And he said this to PFT:

The piece says that he was convinced (not ‘persuaded’) to sign with Philadelphia, and that he got league approval to do so,” Leitch said. “That is all the story has said from the beginning. These things are undeniably true. Vick had countless advisors on that critical move, and Goodell and the NFL — obviously — were a part of the process. This‘steering’ and ‘forbidden’ business came from places outside of this story.

Okay, so, technically speaking, what he wrote in the article is not un-true, or something. He didn't actually use the words 'persuaded', 'steering', or 'forbidden'. He didn't say Vick didn't meet with other people too, or that the permission to sign was contingent on choosing Philly. But Leitch is a professional writer, he knows the structure and sequence of an account will lead the reader to interpet it in a certain way: You don't have to SAY things to IMPLY them. Very convenient to imply shady business involving a popular, polarizing athlete, the biggest professional league in the US, and a controversial commisioner, then just brush it off as no big deal.

 

[Insein]

This is a bunch of codswallop. Leitch knew exactly what he was doing. In GQ he wrote:

"I think I can say this now, because it's not going to hurt anybody's feelings, and it's the truth," Vick tells me a few weeks after the commencement ceremony. "I didn't want to come to Philadelphia. Being the third-team quarterback is nothing to smile about. Cincinnati and Buffalo were better options." Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "And I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation."

And he said this to PFT:

The piece says that he was convinced (not ‘persuaded’) to sign with Philadelphia, and that he got league approval to do so,” Leitch said. “That is all the story has said from the beginning. These things are undeniably true. Vick had countless advisors on that critical move, and Goodell and the NFL — obviously — were a part of the process. This‘steering’ and ‘forbidden’ business came from places outside of this story.

Okay, so, technically speaking, what he wrote in the article is not un-true, or something. He didn't actually use the words 'persuaded', 'steering', or 'forbidden'. He didn't say Vick didn't meet with other people too, or that the permission to sign was contingent on choosing Philly. But Leitch is a professional writer, he knows the structure and sequence of an account will lead the reader to interpet it in a certain way: You don't have to SAY things to IMPLY them. Very convenient to imply shady business involving a popular, polarizing athlete, the biggest professional league in the US, and a controversial commisioner, then just brush it off as no big deal.

Which is why he carefully worded it that way. Its not libel but it stirs up a storm of interest. I'm leaning more towards intentional.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I agree. If Goodell had any role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, it would be a big deal. I simply think that it didn't occur. Goodell has entirely too much to lose from an action like that.

The reason I don't like that paragraph in the article is because it made the reader think that Vick made a decision based on the results of that meeting. The reality is that Vick still took time to consider his options after meeting with Goodell. I believe the meeting with Goodell was to remind him that his career is on the line and to weigh his options carefully. Vick wasn't making a decision then and there either way. I don't believe Goodell had any hand in his decision only in his reinstatement to the league.

The two things in bold are not incompatible.I think the text speaks for itself, as does the fact that Vick's denial is actually a non-denial (it's a denial of an extreme reading of the story).

I agree. I'm sure Vick weighed the commissioners "threat" to be a good person in his overall choice as to where he went. I don't think that the Commissioner specifically stated any team. These hypothetically conversations saying Vick thought about Buff or Cincy and the commish said I'd rethink that to me are just too much of a stretch. I think the meeting with the commish was the requirement of getting reinstated to tell him where he was at with teams. Like a progress report. Initially, I'm sure Buff and Cincy looked like better options because he was closer to a starting role (not that he would have started as the author alleged). But he did not make a decision over night and he certainly didn't make a decision as a direct result of the meeting with Goodell. The word "convinced" by the author is poorly placed and implies that it was that meeting solely that convinced Vick to make a decision. That's my issue with this. I still haven't determined if the writer didn't it accidentally or with intent.

That's nitpicking, and I also don't think it's a valid criticism. It says that after the meetings he "was convinced." That's different than saying that Goodell and only Goodell convinced him. It implies that before the meetings he thought one thing, and after the meetings he thought something else. That's all. And in my opinion, that by itself is really troubling. Especially if you're a Bengals or Bills fan. To say nothing of the use of the phrase "put me in the right situation" by Vick later in the same paragraph.

 

[Insein]

I agree. If Goodell had any role in determining where a free agent chose to sign, it would be a big deal. I simply think that it didn't occur. Goodell has entirely too much to lose from an action like that.

The reason I don't like that paragraph in the article is because it made the reader think that Vick made a decision based on the results of that meeting. The reality is that Vick still took time to consider his options after meeting with Goodell. I believe the meeting with Goodell was to remind him that his career is on the line and to weigh his options carefully. Vick wasn't making a decision then and there either way. I don't believe Goodell had any hand in his decision only in his reinstatement to the league.

The two things in bold are not incompatible.I think the text speaks for itself, as does the fact that Vick's denial is actually a non-denial (it's a denial of an extreme reading of the story).

I agree. I'm sure Vick weighed the commissioners "threat" to be a good person in his overall choice as to where he went. I don't think that the Commissioner specifically stated any team. These hypothetically conversations saying Vick thought about Buff or Cincy and the commish said I'd rethink that to me are just too much of a stretch. I think the meeting with the commish was the requirement of getting reinstated to tell him where he was at with teams. Like a progress report. Initially, I'm sure Buff and Cincy looked like better options because he was closer to a starting role (not that he would have started as the author alleged). But he did not make a decision over night and he certainly didn't make a decision as a direct result of the meeting with Goodell. The word "convinced" by the author is poorly placed and implies that it was that meeting solely that convinced Vick to make a decision. That's my issue with this. I still haven't determined if the writer didn't it accidentally or with intent.

That's nitpicking, and I also don't think it's a valid criticism. It says that after the meetings he "was convinced." That's different than saying that Goodell and only Goodell convinced him. It implies that before the meetings he thought one thing, and after the meetings he thought something else. That's all. And in my opinion, that by itself is really troubling. Especially if you're a Bengals or Bills fan. To say nothing of the use of the phrase "put me in the right situation" by Vick later in the same paragraph.

And that I think is a dangerous implication. The paragraph doesn't address timeframes for when each event went down or who did the convincing. It just says:

Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly.

That's all the author's input. The placement of these ideas in that order gives a vague description that allows the reader to make the extra leap thus absolving the writer of any libelous statements.

 

[cvnpoka]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

 

[cvnpoka]

Why did Vick think he would be a starter in Cincinnati in 2009? Carson Palmer started all 16 games that year.

bc palmer had missed the last 12 games of 2008 and was in the process of seeing doctors and deciding if he needed elbow surgery that would cause him to miss 2009.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And that I think is a dangerous implication. The paragraph doesn't address timeframes for when each event went down or who did the convincing. It just says:

Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly.

That's all the author's input. The placement of these ideas in that order gives a vague description that allows the reader to make the extra leap thus absolving the writer of any libelous statements.

Although we won't know until/unless Leitch releases an audio of the interview, I strongly suspect that Vick is the one who painted that picture. Certainly Vick's word choice later in the same paragraph where he says they "put" him in the right situation suggests that is the case. And Vick's non-denial denial doesn't really clarify things.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Eagles quarterback Michael Vick released the following statement in response to a recent GQ magazine article which inferred that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell played a role in Vick's decision to sign with the Eagles in the summer of 2009."I felt it was necessary to put out a statement today clarifying the article in GQ Magazine. I did speak with many people, but the decision to sign in Philadelphia was based on my discussions with my agent, my family and with Coach Reid. And after those discussions, it became clear to me that this was the place I wanted to play and resume my NFL career. The Commissioner never told me to sign or not sign with particular teams. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear that this was a decision I made and, as I have said numerous times before, I’m very happy with the way it has worked out for me and my family."http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/article-1/Vick-Statement-On-GQ-Article/264bbcf6-c134-43ea-b032-5b873c4c734eFrom Leitch himself:“The story never claims that Goodell ‘steered’ him into signing with Philly, or that he was ‘forbidden’ from signing with Buffalo or Cincinnati. That came from the Deadspin piece last night, which everyone ran with. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/18/leitch-on-vicks-statement-i-wouldnt-disagree-with-a-word-of-it/

Day after spin. Agents and publicists do this stuff every day.

Haters gonna hate.

Lovers gonna love?

 

[Joseph]

I don't care if Vick was thought to be a star or a nothing, the fact is that Goodell appears to have interfered with the eventual team a free agent signed with, and that's a huge deal whether its Michael Vick, Maurice Clarette or anyone else.

If anything, steering him to Philly put him in a place where the league thought he wouldn't be able to make a lot of trouble. Vick was hugely controversial and a lot of people thought he shouldn't be allowed in the league at all. On the Eagles he'd have been a third string QB behind a hall of fame caliber starter and a highly thought of young QB of the future. I don't think its silly at all to see Philly as a destination where Vick was likely to simply fade away and never be thought of again.

If the league's "best interest" in this case was to make Vick as small of an issue as possible that seems like the perfect place to put him. Goodell likely figured that he'd be the third string guy for a year, never see the field and hopefully fade away. That way he doesn't get criticized for overpunishing a guy that just got out of jail, but the league doesn't have to face the PETA protests quite as much as they would have if he was starting somewhere for 16 weeks.

It obviously didn't work out the way the league was hoping, but I don't see this as at all far fetched. The fact that people are overlooking the impropriety of a commish directing ANY player to ANY team regardless of his reasoning just goes to show how teflon coated this league really is.

I wonder what people would be saying if it was the above example of the league directing officials to get a certain team to win the superbowl for the good of the league? I imagine there would be a sizable contingent saying "who cares, that team probably would have won anyway, and besides, isn't it better to have a big market champion?"

This kind of big brother meddling makes the league look about as bad as it could imo.

Again, the only person alleging that is the writer of the article. There is no direct quote from Vick saying that. Vick made a statement yesterday saying Goodell had no sway on his decision one way or the other. People are getting upset over a paragraph in an article that was vague either by accident or on purpose. I'm leaning more towards on purpose now because of the reaction that its generated.

Yes, its totally out of character for the NFL to make an attempt to bury a potentially embarrassing story, and completely unreasonable to think that vick, when he made the comments originally didn't expect them to create any kind of a big deal. people will believe what they're going to believe, but I have no trouble seeing these allegations as true and that really bothers me about a sport I'm supposed to give a crap about.

Well thats your problem then. There really is no evidence to prove it is true and the primary party, Vick, has said its not true. So I guess you can continue to be upset about something that is not true or you can go back to watching football.

The original story was based on an interview with Vick? What's more believable, that the reporter made the whole thing up, or that Vick backtracked once he realized that people might not be too excited about what happened?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

can Ralph Wilson and the Bills sue Goodell for tampering?

I don't think a writer's opinion from GQ magazine would hold up in court.

looking forward to getting a compensatory draft pick at least.punitive damages!

Does buffalo really need more draft picks to screw up?

I'm going to recommend they sue you as well.

 

[Insein]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

So less money than the Eagles 2 year deal for $6+ million.

 

[Insein]

can Ralph Wilson and the Bills sue Goodell for tampering?

I don't think a writer's opinion from GQ magazine would hold up in court.

looking forward to getting a compensatory draft pick at least.punitive damages!

Does buffalo really need more draft picks to screw up?

I'm going to recommend they sue you as well.

I'm sure as a Buffalo fan, you can agree with this sentiment on their drafting ability for the past 10-15 years.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The original story was based on an interview with Vick? What's more believable, that the reporter made the whole thing up, or that Vick backtracked once he realized that people might not be too excited about what happened?

The whole thing? Or a little piece in order to sell a lot?Now what's more believable? A reporter would never write something open ended to create a buzz to sell anything now would they...

 

[Bigboy10182000]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

So less money than the Eagles 2 year deal for $6+ million.

Yep and that same article also says that Vick may get more time at his natural position (QB) then what Cincy may have wanted...Its like EVERY other athlete IMO...it's ALL money related.

 

[Insein]

And that I think is a dangerous implication. The paragraph doesn't address timeframes for when each event went down or who did the convincing. It just says:

Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly.

That's all the author's input. The placement of these ideas in that order gives a vague description that allows the reader to make the extra leap thus absolving the writer of any libelous statements.

Although we won't know until/unless Leitch releases an audio of the interview, I strongly suspect that Vick is the one who painted that picture. Certainly Vick's word choice later in the same paragraph where he says they "put" him in the right situation suggests that is the case. And Vick's non-denial denial doesn't really clarify things.

The full audio or transcript will help to clear everything up. Right now though its drawing a lot of attention to an article that would have been forgetten after a day.

 

[Joseph]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.

The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

Yep and that same article also says that Vick may get more time at his natural position (QB) then what Cincy may have wanted...Its like EVERY other athlete IMO...it's ALL money related.

So less money than the Eagles 2 year deal for $6+ million.

On August 13, 2009, Vick signed a one-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.[22] He earned $1.6 million, of which no amount was guaranteed. The contract contained a team option for the 2010 season worth $5 million.

 

[Insein]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.

The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

Yep and that same article also says that Vick may get more time at his natural position (QB) then what Cincy may have wanted...Its like EVERY other athlete IMO...it's ALL money related.

So less money than the Eagles 2 year deal for $6+ million.

On August 13, 2009, Vick signed a one-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.[22] He earned $1.6 million, of which no amount was guaranteed. The contract contained a team option for the 2010 season worth $5 million.

$5mil + $1.6mil > $2.3mil

 

[glumpy]

It's all still revisionist history. Most people never expected Vick to be NFL relevant again. If ANYONE expected Vick to be a star again, he wouldn't have played on a 2 million dollar 1 year deal with a single option year. It makes far more sense that PHILLY was the only one willing to give him a legit shot and the commissioner simply encouraged him to accept that shot. People act like Goodell handed a star to Philly...HE DIDN'T. If he did as accused (which I find hard to believe), he handed a 30 year old ex-con has-been backup to Philly, an organization in an ideal situation to help rehab the young man. Had Vick remained backup caliber (as was expected), NOBODY WOULD CARE! More...some of the folks whining now would probably be applauding Goodell instead of trying to eviscerate him.

The whole thing is stupid revisionist history. Get over it.

bengals offered him a 2 yr deal for 2.3mhttp://www.cincyjungle.com/2009/8/14/989356/report-bengals-offered-vick-a-two

Yep and that same article also says that Vick may get more time at his natural position (QB) then what Cincy may have wanted...Its like EVERY other athlete IMO...it's ALL money related.

So less money than the Eagles 2 year deal for $6+ million.

On August 13, 2009, Vick signed a one-year contract with the Philadelphia Eagles.[22] He earned $1.6 million, of which no amount was guaranteed. The contract contained a team option for the 2010 season worth $5 million.

Apparently Vick was confident enough to think he'd get that option given the chance.

 

[da_budman]

Michael Vick was a publicity nightmare for the NFL. Has it occurred to anybody that the commissioner steered Vick towards Philly because he assumed he would be buried there on 3rd string and never see the light of day. Just an odd possibility that occurred to me.

Be that as it may it's deffinitely the commish's job to do anything that shows favoritism towards one team or another.

" Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "

A direct quote from the article (which was oddly in quotation marks since if it came directly from Vick, should have been in first person.

" Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "

Im not so sure you can go so far as to say that the author was speciffically saying that Vick could ONLY sign with the Eagles but I think reasonable minds could certainly imply that from reading the quote.

I think the commissioner has some questions to answer and should step down if he is,indeed, steering players away from one team and towards another.... and especially if he is putting the condition of their return to the league on joining a certain team. That's not his job, plain and simple.

 

[Insein]

Michael Vick was a publicity nightmare for the NFL. Has it occurred to anybody that the commissioner steered Vick towards Philly because he assumed he would be buried there on 3rd string and never see the light of day. Just an odd possibility that occurred to me.

Be that as it may it's deffinitely the commish's job to do anything that shows favoritism towards one team or another.

" Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "

A direct quote from the article (which was oddly in quotation marks since if it came directly from Vick, should have been in first person.

" Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "

Im not so sure you can go so far as to say that the author was speciffically saying that Vick could ONLY sign with the Eagles but I think reasonable minds could certainly imply that from reading the quote.

I think the commissioner has some questions to answer and should step down if he is,indeed, steering players away from one team and towards another.... and especially if he is putting the condition of their return to the league on joining a certain team. That's not his job, plain and simple.

That part wasn't in quotation marks. That was the part the author inserted. That's the whole controversial part too.

"I think I can say this now, because it's not going to hurt anybody's feelings, and it's the truth," Vick tells me a few weeks after the commencement ceremony. "I didn't want to come to Philadelphia. Being the third-team quarterback is nothing to smile about. Cincinnati and Buffalo were better options." Those two teams wanted him and would've allowed him to start, but after meeting with commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced—and granted league approval—to sign with Philly. "And I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation."

The bolded orange is the author's part. The pink is in quotes. Lots of miscommunication in this topic. Again, looking more intentional than accidental. This is a national story now instead of character piece for GQ all because of some vague wording and the rampant minds of millions of sports fans.Now with pretty colors to help those who can't see quotation marks.

 

[RUSF18]

I think if this board's font had the quotation marks that curl in, this whole discussion would be long wrapped up.

 

[da_budman]

my apologies. You are correct.

 

[greenheads]

we will never know what really happened with Vick coming back to the NFL.

here's just my take on what may have happened.

1) Goodell was concerned that Vick being a starter in the NFL so soon after his release from prison could be a PR problem for the league. (possible peta protests at games negative publicity and so on)

2) he looks for a spot for Vick to go to a team as a back up. On the bench and not a starter would lessen the PR hit.

3) Philly looks like a good spot where Vick won't be a starter right away, with Kolb and possibly at the time Mcnabb being ahead of Vick.

4) he may have "suggested" to Vick he go to Philly and earn his way into the line up, instead of Buffalo where he could be a starter right away. Goodell may have gotten Tony Dungee and Andy Reid to counsel this to Vick also.

Why would anybody think Goodell wouldn't have done something like that. His interest is protecting the league not Vick.

Now Vick lets it slip that he was "steered to Philly". And then he back tracks.

Whether Goodell did anything like that, we'll never know, Whether it was right or not is another issue, but if he did its understandable why. Look what Goodell did to Tyrell Pryor with the 5 game suspension, similar move to protect the "integrity' of the league.

 

[Reepicheep]

Now Vick lets it slip that he was "steered to Philly". And then he back tracks.

Zero Vick quotes to support this. Only person backtracking is Leitch, who implied this in the GC article then claimed he wasn't trying to imply anything untoward took place and acted surprised about how everyone was flipping out. Your proposed reconstruction is certainly possible though.