Vick Indicted

High 5 · Post #41 » by **High 5** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:27 pm

livestrong4ever wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

LOL are you crazy! People are not haters on here. Your just a big mofo homer. Like you always are.

Please give examples of me always being a homer. I don't think considering Vick + Crumpler better for the Falcons than Brees + Walker is being a homer. Of course, knowing that Vick will have the off the field problems where he probably won't be playing, then sure, but just judging them as players you would be foolish as the GM of the Falcons not to want Vick and Crumpler on your team.

livestrong4ever · Post #42 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:39 pm

High 5 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Please give examples of me always being a homer. I don't think considering Vick + Crumpler better for the Falcons than Brees + Walker is being a homer. Of course, knowing that Vick will have the off the field problems where he probably won't be playing, then sure, but just judging them as players you would be foolish as the GM of the Falcons not to want Vick and Crumpler on your team.

I never like Vick. I would rather have more of natural qb with a good running game like NO does. I don't see how this fits in with there team and why they would trade a top 5 qb for a average qb.

High 5 · Post #43 » by **High 5** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:47 pm

livestrong4ever wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I never like Vick. I would rather have more of natural qb with a good running game like NO does. I don't see how this fits in with there team and why they would trade a top 5 qb for a average qb.

That's New Orleans, we're talking about the Falcons. The Falcons didn't have half the OL. The Falcons didn't have any receivers that could catch the ball. The Falcons didn't have the bright coaching staff that New Orleans did. Drew Brees would not look anything like he does now if he was drafted to Atlanta.

But I realize that people dislike Vick for his off the field problems and can't get past his passing stats, so I don't know why I waste my time trying to teach them about the game of football. So I'll leave and let you guys get back to the Vick bashing.

Wizards2Lottery · Post #44 » by **Wizards2Lottery** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:55 pm

Drew Brees was passing to a 7th round pick and a former 2nd round pick. Had no tight end help, a RB coming back from a severe injury and a rookie adjusting to the game.

Who are you teaching the game of football too? Vick is an awfully inaccurate passer. His recievers drop balls but he isn't helping the cause either. Remind me when he has a completion % of more than 56 (Which itself is sad since this would be his 7th year in the league).

Vick = massive underachiever. Your joking yourself if you'd take him and Crumpler over a guy whos one of the best pure passers of this age,

livestrong4ever · Post #45 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:58 pm

These are some very specific crimes that they have mentioned in the feds case agianist Vick. From what i have been hearing they really don't go into the specifics usually as they did like in the Vick case . With four eye witnesses, uncover cops. This guy is a sick sick man and he should be kicked out of the nfl. I don't care who this man is. I don't see how anybody can support this guy. How anybody could wear his jersey with pride. How anybody can look this guy in the face and not be totally disgusted by his actions.

Post #46 » by **dms269** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:59 pm

Gilbert0Arenas wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yeah how dumb does that look. A top 5 QB + best RB in the game for a dog fighting scumbag.

Hindsight is 20-20.

And about Crumpler. Don't mistake that Crumpler is a top 3 nfl te behind Gates and Gonzalez.

livestrong4ever · Post #47 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:37 pm

uga_dawgs24 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Hindsight is 20-20.

And about Crumpler. Don't mistake that Crumpler is a top 3 nfl te behind Gates and Gonzalez.

Top five maybe

cooley
winslow
shockey
heap

all fall in the line with crumpler.

Post #48 » by **NO-KG-AI** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:51 pm

He's definitely in a lot of hot water, but I'm not going to judge him until he's proven guilty, that's just the way I am :dontknow:

I don't have a problem with anyone else doing it, but I don't want to be the person with my foot in my mouth if something comes out and he had no part of it.

People please, let it go, Matt Schaub has never done anything, and if Vick is gone, the best thing that can happen is to Atlanta is to finish at the bottom, and start fresh. They got a great return on a guy who played very few games, and looked mediocre to me anyway.

livestrong4ever · Post #49 » by **livestrong4ever** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:05 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:He's definitely in a lot of hot water, but I'm not going to judge him until he's proven guilty, that's just the way I am

I don't have a problem with anyone else doing it, but I don't want to be the person with my foot in my mouth if something comes out and he had no part of it.

People please, let it go, Matt Schaub has never done anything, and if Vick is gone, the best thing that can happen is to Atlanta is to finish at the bottom, and start fresh. They got a great return on a guy who played very few games, and looked mediocre to me anyway.

It looks pretty damn convincing to me. But I guess more and more will come out in the trail in the up coming months.

Post #50 » by **lpsevier** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:09 pm

I doubt Vick misses any time this year.

I hope not anyway.

captain_cheapseats · Post #51 » by **captain_cheapseats** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:23 pm

RaoulDuke79 wrote:Just a post on this topic I found interesting, take it for what it's worth

It's not worth a whole lot, actually. The stuff about how a U.S. Attorney doesn't indict until he's 99% sure while a State prosecutor indicts every time is not true. In fact it can't be true, because prosecutors don't indict people at all. What they do is bring charges before a jury that decides whether or not to indict. The prosecutor has zero discretion in the matter, they can bring the charges or not, but indicting is 100% up to the jury. What the person you got that from said is akin to saying "prosecuts don't convict until they are 100% sure the person is guilty" and represents a person who clearly is talking out of their *ss.

Also, as a side note, the whole difference between Federal and State indictments is misleading from the get go because States aren't required to indict people at all. The Feds have to indict people under the 5th Amm., but that doesn't apply to the States. Some States require indictment for certain crimes anyway, some don't. Some do, but use different procedures. The whole argument is based on very shaky ground.

RaoulDuke79 · Post #52 » by **RaoulDuke79** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:27 pm

captain_cheapseats wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

It's not worth a whole lot, actually. The stuff about how a U.S. Attorney doesn't indict until he's 99% sure while a State prosecutor indicts every time is not true. In fact it can't be true, because prosecutors don't indict people at all. What they do is bring charges before a jury that decides whether or not to indict. The prosecutor has zero discretion in the matter, they can bring the charges or not, but indicting is 100% up to the jury. What the person you got that from said is akin to saying "prosecuts don't convict until they are 100% sure the person is guilty" and represents a person who clearly is talking out of their *ss.
Also, as a side note, the whole difference between Federal and State indictments is misleading from the get go because States aren't required to indict people at all. The Feds have to indict people under the 5th Amm., but that doesn't apply to the States. Some States require indictment for certain crimes anyway, some don't. Some do, but use different procedures. The whole argument is based on very shaky ground.

Well, he IS a lawyer so that seems about right :lol:

captain_cheapseats · Post #53 » by **captain_cheapseats** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:31 pm

As for my thoughts generally, I don't think Vick should be suspended yet, innocent until proven guilty and all. What sets this apart from the Pac-Man thing is that here Vick is saying he didn't do anything wrong at all. The NFL should let the courts determine if that is true or false, and act accordingly. Pac-Man admitted to causing trouble in the various strip clubs. The question was simply whether or not he had caused enough trouble to warrant being convicted of a crime. So even if he were found not guilty of inciting a riot etc., he still went to a strip club, acted out of control, and ended up causing a scene. Vick isn't saying "I knew a little about the dog fights, but not enough for me to be convicted." He's saying he knew nothing, and is totally innocent. That's the difference, and why Vick should be in the NFL until found guilty.

randomhero423 · Post #54 » by **randomhero423** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:28 pm

Bonds was never indicited. and They've been trying to do that for years. Vick's in trouble. I've never been a fan of the guy, he's very overrated and always seemed like a thug to me (not trying to start a racial thing). I hope his *** is put in jail.

Post #55 » by **Icness** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:33 pm

Just focusing on the football part of this...

How will it affect the Falcons when people are booing and protesting Vick everywhere they go? How can they turn themselves over to him and completely trust him as their leader when he might be gone? Can Vick harness the negativity and finally learn to complete a midrange pass to someone other than Alge Crumpler? Does a clearly betrayed Arthur Blank still want to write massive checks to an indicted criminal who has consistently made poor choices off the field? How does a rookie head coach handle all the distractions? Does this make them a candidate for Daunte Culpepper?

Whether he's ultimately found guilty or not (I believe he is), there's almost no conceivable way this doesn't torpedo any hope the Falcons had of having a good season, either on the field or off it.

Ayt · Post #56 » by **Ayt** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:36 pm

I think he'll be suspended and ultimately found guilty and sent to prison. The suspension is simply based on how much the NFL has cracked down on "trouble makers." The conviction is based on the roughly 90% conviction rate in federal cases and the evidence that has already been made public.

randomhero423 · Post #57 » by **randomhero423** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:40 pm

helloooooooooooo joey harrington.

next year's draft. assuming atl is in the top 5. they can select brohm. and be reunited with petrino. i can easily see it.

jumanji · Post #58 » by **jumanji** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:06 am

Ayt wrote:I think he'll be suspended and ultimately found guilty and sent to prison. The suspension is simply based on how much the NFL has cracked down on "trouble makers." The conviction is based on the roughly 90% conviction rate in federal cases and the evidence that has already been made public.

I agreee, what i think we've learned in our society is you're better off killing your old lady as opposed to injuring pets.

livestrong4ever · Post #59 » by **livestrong4ever** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:06 am

You have to be pretty naive to think this guy in innocent and brining up other cases and act like that proves anything towards this case. I really don't get that.

UrbanLegendMD · Post #60 » by **UrbanLegendMD** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:49 am

livestrong4ever wrote:You have to be pretty naive to think this guy in innocent and brining up other cases and act like that proves anything towards this case. I really don't get that.

cause pets are decent people