Would the Chicago Bears be interested in Michael Vick?

[SportsWorld]

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribu ... -vick.html

Jarrett Bell of USA Today wrote a piece on Michael Vick, and at the end of it was an interesting quote from one particular NFL head coach.

"I would look at Michael like I look at every other prospect that's available: He goes back into the pool," Bears coach Lovie Smith said in the article. "That's what everyone in society does. Martha Stewart went to prison. She paid her time. Now she's back in society.

"Mike made a mistake, and he's paying the price for that mistake. Once you've paid your debt to society, you have to say, 'OK, let's go on from there.' "

Commisioner Roger Goodell has not committed on a timetable for Vick's reinstatement. But Vick, serving a 23-month sentence for financing a dogfighting ring, has to show true remorse before he is allowed back on an NFL field.

So make a play for Jay Cutler or wait on Michael Vick? Chances are, the Bears will do neither. But it makes for good conversation.

[Chewie]

The REAL question is whether SportsWorld would be interested in Michael Vick.

[WAYSA]

In before PETA

I'd gladly take him, but not to play QB.

[SportsWorld]

The REAL question is whether SportsWorld would be interested in Michael Vick.

I think he's a slightly better option than Orton but I'd pass.

[HMFFL]

Would the Bears Ever Consider Michael Vick?

I am going to have to implore you to read this article thouroughly before jumping into a full-on attack about this idea. Michael Vick is scheduled to be a free man in July of this year. His future in football is of course a huge question mark... Arthur Blank, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons, said back in October of 2008 that he would like to see Vick play in the NFL again, just not with the Falcs.

There has also been interest in Vick from the new UFL, with commissioner Michael Huyghue stating several months ago that there was a 98% chance Vick would play in his league in 2009. Of course, Vick would undoubtedly prefer a return to the NFL.

NFL commish Roger Goodell stated on Wednesday that he would consider reinstating Vick, but that he needed first to gather all of the information that he could:

I think it's clear he's paid a price, but to a large extent he's going to have to demonstrate to the larger community -- not just to the NFL community and to me -- that he has remorse for what he did and that he recognizes mistakes that he made.

All of the legal mess that Vick still has to untangle will certainly be a deciding factor in his possible return to the league... but for a moment, let's assume that he gets it all worked out.

Everyone makes mistakes, but he has to show that genuine remorse in his ability to be a positive influence to correct the things that he did wrong publicly," he added, according to the report.

Let's also assume that he is able to persuade Goodell into reinstating him. After all, regardless of what you personally think about his crimes, he is following the guidelines set before him by the judicial system, and seems serious about getting his life back together.

The purpose of this article is not to get into a moral debate about his previous criminal history... and not to get into a debate about whether the legal system handled it correctly. The purpose is to consider this: If Michael Vick were deemed by the courts and by the NFL to have paid his debt, and were willing to allow him to continue his career in the NFL, would the Chicago Bears consider bringing him in?

Vick was one of the most talented athletes to ever put on a uniform, and it could certainly be argued that the system in Atlanta wasn't suited for him. If he has been keeping his body in shape, there would have to be some interest from teams about what he could contribute on the NFL level.

How would you feel about the Bears giving him a shot? http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2009/3 ... ever-consi

[HMFFL]

10 questions surrounding Vick’s return to NFL

http://www.ajc.com/falcons/content/spor ... n_nfl.html

[Cliff Levingston]

If the Bears really are interested in Pat White in the second round, maybe it would make more sense to grab Vick for cheap and instead spend that 2nd rounder on a decent safety or to further bolster the offensive line.

[Balance-a-Bull]

If the Bears really are interested in Pat White in the second round, maybe it would make more sense to grab Vick for cheap and instead spend that 2nd rounder on a decent safety or to further bolster the offensive line.

I agree

[Friend_Of_Haley]

If the Bears really are interested in Pat White in the second round, maybe it would make more sense to grab Vick for cheap and instead spend that 2nd rounder on a decent safety or to further bolster the offensive line.

I agree, but I think the Bears also highly value character and such things to the point where White is a no-brainer and Vick is no way an option.

Where it would be interesting would be if Pat White was successful in a QB/Wildcat/Slash type role this season and Vick was sitting around next off season looking for a place to sign and the Bears decided to add some depth to the role.

[WAYSA]

Come on.. Everyone knows the Bears are not serious when talking about valuing character. They are no different from most other teams. To say the Bears value character more than other teams is a huge stretch and a joke.

Angelo takes a criminal in round 3 every year.

Dusty D.
Harrison
Tank Johnson in round 2 before that.

etc..

It is absolutely comical to hear Jerry talk about his first day picks and how they have great character only to turn around the next morning and draft a guy like Harrison in round 3.

Come on down Vick! The man has paid his due and I would welcome him with open arms.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Not saying character prevents the Bears from getting a guy, but it certainly helps. Along with character goes things like work ethic and other intangibles. Obviously guys like Urlacher aren't perfect role models, but work hard and stuff so its okay.

[Enrique]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/dogs ... eople.html

I came across this article recently and thought it was interesting.

[Chewie]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/dogs-are-property-not-people.html

I came across this article recently and thought it was interesting.

I liked this line :

Michael Vick is a thug. I would not want him to dog-sit my dogs... I wouldn't want him quarterbacking my team, for that matter. But, if there is an NFL coach wanting to roll the dice with a strong-armed quarterback who is less accurate than a Keynesian economist analyzing the latest stimulus plan, he should be free to do so.

Not this one so much:

Nevertheless, dogs are property, not people, and how a man treats his property is his concern, not mine, so long as he isn't doing it in a manner that will offend the neighbors or disturb the community.

[Michael Jackson]

I guess this isn't very relevant now at this point

[Posey H8er]

Unless Vick can be a Pro Bowl WR, I don't want any of his extra baggage.

[fleet]

Hes an A-hole. I couldn't cheer for a complete failure as a human being. Lots of people would turn their backs on the Bears if it ever would have come to this. The mere thought of this is offensive to me. I need a shower after leaving this thread.