RealGM

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 7:49 pm**

I added a poll at the top. How do you feel about bringing in Vick?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingc ... id=4376513

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson isn't ruling out potential interest in Michael Vick.

Asked Tuesday about the possibility of signing Vick, Thompson said the team looks "at all options at all times" but didn't want to speculate about the odds of the team actually pursuing him.

"We look at everything," Thompson said.

Thompson typically is coy about the team's plans, so it wasn't immediately clear whether his comments indicated sincere interest in Vick.

Vick has been conditionally reinstated in the NFL after completing a 23-month federal sentence for running a dogfighting ring. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has said Vick can sign with a team and begin playing by week six of the NFL season.

More than two dozen NFL teams have said they're not interested in signing the 29-year-old Vick. The others have declined comment or taken a stance like that of the Packers.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 7:55 pm**

He's certainly better than what we have now. I don't see him signing here though.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 7:57 pm**

I voted yes. The guy did the time, and I believe he deserves a second chance. If he can play, and contribute to our team, we should sign him (to a short-term, reasonable contract). Our backup situation isn't great, and he'd be a versatile threat for us otherwise.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 7:59 pm**

MickeyDavis wrote:I don't see him signing here though.

I could see him signing here. It's a good team, a good organization, and he'd still be playing NFL ball. I don't think he can be that picky if he wants to play in the NFL again, and I'm not sure there are many other options out there for him that would be as good as this one.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 7:59 pm**

The guy did the time, and I believe he deserves a second chance.

This is exactly how I feel.

And if he can help the team, why not? I voted yes.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:03 pm**

The question isn't whether he should be back in the NFL or not. You can debate that if you wish but that decision has been made. The question is whether we should sign him. I'd absolutely take him over Flynn or Brohm.

Yes we have a good organization but after the Favre fiasco last year I think MM and TT want a quiet camp and not the circus that would forumuate with Vick.

And although his options may be limited I think Vick would rather sign with a team where he'd have a reasonable chance to start within the next year or two at the latest. Washington for example, Campbell is in the last year of his deal. San Francisco has horrible QB's. Denver has Orton, etc... Those teams may say they aren't interested but I just don't see Vick wanting to go to GB where the only chance he has to start over the next 10 years is if AR is injured.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:15 pm**

I don't see it happening, but he's a big improvement over Flynn and Brohm. So yes, I'd be interested in him.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:15 pm**

MickeyDavis wrote:And although his options may be limited I think Vick would rather sign with a team where he'd have a reasonable chance to start within the next year or two at the latest. Washington for example, Campbell is in the last year of his deal. San Francisco has horrible QB's. Denver has Orton, etc... Those teams may say they aren't interested but I just don't see Vick wanting to go to GB where the only chance he has to start over the next 10 years is if AR is injured.

I'm not saying that GB is the best option for him long term. I'm saying that's it's not a bad option for a short-term, one or two year contract where he can play behind Rodgers and maybe get into the game to be a duel-threat on certain plays. Then, he can move on and be signed as a starter somewhere else.

Now if one of those teams with weaker QB position bites on Vick, it would make sense for Vick to choose one of those options over Green Bay. But those teams have spoken out against doing so. Thus, it's highly unlikely he'll get a starting job anywhere after not playing for two years, especially with the baggage he's bringing in. But if he comes in to GB and performs well, he can certainly shop himself on the market as someone who can still play at a high level.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:28 pm**

I think he would add a great dynamic to the offense.

I think there are a large number of things we could do with him in the slot and A. Just being a receiver B. Motioning behind Rodgers for a pitch, handoff, fake where he can throw as well C. In the slot, stepping back for a double pass D. Backup QB.

If it is possible, I'd do it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:49 pm**

I was just about to start a thread on this after I heard Thompson's sound bite on the radio. He definitely left the door open. I was kind of surprised he didn't flat out say no, since the organization is probably looking forward to a quiet camp and no Brett Favre like media frenzy.

Thompson is known to take low risk flyers on "troubled" players, though. He signed Koren Robinson to a deal when no one else was really even looking at him.

I'd be in favor of bringing in Vick to have him compete with Brohm and Flynn. I don't think the West Coast offense is ideal for Vick, but it is actually the offense he has ran for the majority of his NFL career, so it wouldn't be completely foreign to him. If nothing else it would make the pre-season games 10x more interesting.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:52 pm**

I'm not so interested in having him at QB, rather installing 20-30 plays in a spread formation that will look like an Urban Meyer offense involving him motioning to Rodgers or just going out on a route.

Put him in for a few wildcat sets as well. I guess he is QB there but that is where I would like Vick. Yeah, I think he'd be 2nd QB as well but I think he would really open up the playbook.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:53 pm**

I voted no unless we are bringing him in as a kick returner. We have one of the best receiving corps in the NFL so a guy with a career QB rating of 75 and a completion percentage of 54% would be completely useless.

Would he be better in terms of an overall offensive weapon than Brohm and Flynn? Yes. Do I want to watch his bastardized version of the QB postion on a team that I enjoy? Nope.

Also if anyone here actually heard the press conference the title of this thread is a little misleading.
Here were the questions and responses about Vick:

(Is there any way you guys will sign Michael Vick?)
(sigh) Uh, what is the answer that we give to questions like this? We're always looking to improve our team and we look at all options at all times. I wouldn't care to speculate in terms of the odds or anything like that.

(So you have looked at it to some degree)

We look at everything. Well, not everything. We don't look at stuff from across the ocean or something.

(Have you had any discussions about whether it would be worth pursuing him?)
We have had discussions about a large number of things and we're always talking personnel, different scenarios and things like that.

(This is an unusual guy, not a normal situation)
Yeah but the routine we go through is the same. It doesn't mean anymore that we're more likely or less likely to do it. It's a routine that we go through. It's automatic.

It's a stock answer. If you asked him if the pack had any interest in signing Me he would say the same exact thing. Much ado about nothing.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 8:58 pm**

I think he'd really be an asset at the back up QB spot if Rodgers went down. If Vick showed that he still had a little of what he had when he left the game, then we'd still have a chance to compete. Brohm and Flynn aren't taking this team to the playoffs, period. Vick might be able to if he has anything left.

Edit: If I remember correctly he was the first ever visiting QB to win at Lambeau in the playoffs. He also took his team to the NFC Championship game. He would flat out be a better option than Flynn and Brohm...assuming he hasn't lost his game completely in the last 2 years.

That being said I guess I would be open to getting Vick his own package of wildcat plays. I would love to see him in shot gun with Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson, and Martin spread out. The defense would have to honor Vick's scrambling threat but still try to cover the best 5 WR line up in the league.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 9:06 pm**

GreenBayBucks wrote:I think he'd really be an asset at the back up QB spot. If Vick showed that he still had a little of what he had when he left the game, then we'd still have a chance to compete. Brohm and Flynn aren't taking this team to the playoffs, period. Vick might be able to if he has anything left.

That being said I guess I would be open to getting Vick his own package of wildcat plays. I would love to see him in shot gun with Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson, and Martin spread out. The defense would have to honor Vick's scrambling threat but still try to cover the best 5 WR line up in the league.

No way in hell I would take snaps out of the hands of statistically one of the best QBs in the NFL to give to Vick. That's just dumb.

Aaron Rodgers had Pro Bowl numbers and you want to take snaps away from him for a guy with 92 career TDs (21 rushing and 71 passing) 52 Ints and 55 fumbles. He has more career TOs than TDs.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 9:23 pm**

Ill-yasova wrote:No way in hell I would take snaps out of the hands of statistically one of the best QBs in the NFL to give to Vick. That's just dumb.

Aaron Rodgers had Pro Bowl numbers and you want to take snaps away from him for a guy with 92 career TDs (21 rushing and 71 passing) 52 Ints and 55 fumbles. He has more career TOs than TDs.

I'm not saying they should split time or anything even close to it. I'd try some wildcat stuff in pre-season, if it was at all effective I'd try it out a few times throughout the reg season. It is just one more thing opposing teams have to scout and prepare for. I am a huge Aaron Rodgers fan and I've historically been a Michael Vick basher. I just think Vick could be a solid #2 in case Rodgers goes down and possibly add something to our arsenal in the form of the wildcat.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 9:25 pm**

Ill-yasova wrote:I voted no unless we are bringing him in as a kick returner. We have one of the best receiving corps in the NFL so a guy with a career QB rating of 75 and a completion percentage of 54% would be completely useless.

Vick lead a team to a NFC title game as a duel-threat QB. He's not great, and he won't supplant Rodgers, but he's better than what we have right now. Why would you rather go with inferior players?

Also if anyone here actually heard the press conference the title of this thread is a little misleading.

Nope. I didn't say that the Packers have interest in Vick, but rather that they wouldn't rule him out. That's precisely what TT said, and how ESPN titled the column. Regardless of whether that's a stock answer, I've heard TT clearly rule out people before, and he didn't rule out Vick.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 9:46 pm**

MickeyDavis wrote:He's certainly better than what we have now. I don't see him signing here though.

Not at QB. Not a chance in hell. No way he could come in here and run this offense.

But I voted yes as a Kordel Stewart slash-type option. Teach him a handful of plays from the QB position and line him up at WR/HB/H-Back and KR/PR.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 10:06 pm**

Flynn can't throw more than 10 yards down field. Brohm has been awful. So yes, Vick is better than either of them at QB.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 10:16 pm**

MickeyDavis wrote:Those teams may say they aren't interested but I just don't see Vick wanting to go to GB where the only chance he has to start over the next 10 years is if AR is injured.

Don't get me wrong, I love Aaron Rodgers. But still, not injured over the next 10 years? He is no iron man, he was even hurt at times last season and led to struggles. We do need a solid backup on this team incase that were to happen again. Vick wouldn't be a bad option considering it give our team the ability to include some Wildcat formations to keep everyone on their toes. Would I want him to try and challenge A-Rod to be the starter or supplant him? No way. Would I like him as backup insurance to a slightly injury prone QB while giving us some Kordell Stewart abilities? Yes.

Posted: **Tue Aug 4, 2009 11:42 pm**

I would like to see him return kicks and back up at QB

RealGM

Packers won't rule out Vick

Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick

Re: Packers won't rule out Vick