Vick Sentenced to 23 Months For Dog Fighting

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This is an evolving area of law. The Supreme Court decided a case involving this last term, and another one is on deck for this term.

Here is the simple nutshell:

The defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty.

The crime will carry a statutory minimum and a statutory maximum range. (I think in this case the minimum would be zero and the maximum would be 5 years, but I don't know that for sure). A defendant cannot be sentenced outside of that range, which tends to be rather large--like the 0 to 5 year range that I think applies in this case.

The Judge, with the help of the United States Probation Office, then uses The United States Sentencing Guidelines to compute a "Guidelines Sentence." This is a much narrower sentencing range, computed by taking into account such factors as whether the defendant was a ring leader, whether human life was put at risk by the crime, the amount of money stolen, the amount of drugs sold, the defendant's criminal history, etc.

The Guidelines Sentence tends to be a pretty narrow range--say 24-30 months might be one that ends up applying to Vick.

The Judge then has an option. If he sentences the defendant within the Guidelines range, then that sentence is "presumptively reasonable," and is almost certain not to be overturned on appeal. (And I mean almost certain. The 4th Circuit (the appellate court over Vick's case) has never overturned a sentence within the Guidelines range.)

If, however, the Judge thinks that the Guidelines range is either too high or too low, then he can do a "variance" sentence. Basically, he has to explain why the Guidelines range is not appropriate and why another sentence is more appropriate.

If the Judge does this, then there is more of a chance that he will be overturned. Basically, the larger the variance, the more justification needed.

Though it is still evolving, it seems that most district court variances stick. The ones that are being overturned tend to be very large variances on the order of 400% or more.

As for what constrains the judge . . . he is obligated to impose a sentence "sufficient but not greater than necessary" to



I don't know if that helps or not.

Actually this helps a lot. Thanks.

[oliegirl]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2983768

I didn't see this article posted, forgive me if it already has been. A couple of the comments in here just really infuriated me...mainly:

Some people here, though, still were sticking with Vick, even as most were sticking it to him. In a reader forum on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Web site, one post maintained, "This is about race no matter how we put it. White folks can shoot ducks all day, but when you fight pit bull against pit bull it is a crime."

I'm not really angry with the idiot that said this b/c clearly he just doesn't "get" the difference between hunting a duck and using it for food, as most hunters (at least all the ones I know) do, and breeding an animal to be a killing machine solely for the "thrill" of watching animals maul each other to death. My anger is directed at the AJC for publishing crap like this and giving these idiots the satisfaction of seeing their name in print...and giving them the feeling that they are right because they printed it.

[gstelmack]

FWIW, that says forum on the web site. My local TV station has something similar, where any idiot can post any blathering, much like we do here. It would be like coming here for opinions on Vick, the war in Iraq, etc. If anything ESPN are the ones legitimizing it by publishing it. AJC provides a talking forum but does not "publish" it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

My anger is directed at the AJC for publishing crap like this and giving these idiots the satisfaction of seeing their name in print...and giving them the feeling that they are right because they printed it.

Idiots or not, the comments are reflective of a significant portion of the area and are probably worth being aware of. Besides, there is pretty much nothing in/around Atlanta that doesn't have a racial component to it in some way, this isn't anything new or surprising.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Idiots or not, the comments are reflective of a significant portion of the area and are probably worth being aware of. Besides, there is pretty much nothing in/around Atlanta that doesn't have a racial component to it in some way, this isn't anything new or surprising.

The ironic thing for me is that I've been in cities all over the South, and black-white relations are actually better here, IMO of course, than anywhere else. So I wonder if a big part of the reaction is a reaction that would occur in parts of the African American community anywhere over their perceptions towards the justice system.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Vick's Defense attorney

"Nobody's been rougher on Mike than Mike's been on himself,"

Somehow, I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Somehow, I don't believe that is an accurate statement.

It certainly won't be accurate this time next year.

[st.cronin]

I may be unique in that I hope Vick WILL redeem himself to some extent. I don't know if its possible, but I'm hoping to see it.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I may be unique in that I hope Vick WILL redeem himself to some extent. I don't know if its possible, but I'm hoping to see it.

I hope so too.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Vick's strategy at the moment seems to be "plead guilty, appeal the sentence no matter what it is" unless there's some stipulation in the plea that would prevent appeals (if that's even possible).

If he pleads guilty, he has to take whatever the judge gives him. He can not appeal the sentence (At least according to the legal experts that ESPN have been putting on the air since yesterday.)

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I hope so too.

I think there's a large number of people (let's just make up a number and say 20% of the American population) that will feel there is no way he can redeem himself. I really don't know what he could do to even change the minds of those willing to give him a chance. Unless he sat down with each person and proved to be a reasonable, rational, regretful human being, he is fighitng a losing battle. Most attempts (like giving money to the SPCA or something) will ring as hollow, no matter how genuine he is.

[Crapshoot]

With the (seemingly necessary) caveat that what Vick did is awful, how on earth can a man who drove drunk and killed a woman (Little) or a man who was involved (to say the bare minimum) in a murder (Lewis) be okay for the league, when Vick isn't? The NFL couldn't give two shits about character - all they could care about is public opinion. And I guess it amazes me how this came out worse than either of the two other incidents.

[Noble_Platypus]

They shouldnt be, but it can be argued that was a single incident, not years of killing people before getting caught.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

With the (seemingly necessary) caveat that what Vick did is awful, how on earth can a man who drove drunk and killed a woman (Little) or a man who was involved (to say the bare minimum) in a murder (Lewis) be okay for the league, when Vick isn't?

It was a different regime back then, and it's definitely not okay. Jamal Lewis should have gotten a lot more than 1 or 2 games as well for financing a large drug deal, but the commish at the time had no balls.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

With the (seemingly necessary) caveat that what Vick did is awful, how on earth can a man who drove drunk and killed a woman (Little) or a man who was involved (to say the bare minimum) in a murder (Lewis) be okay for the league, when Vick isn't? The NFL couldn't give two shits about character - all they could care about is public opinion. And I guess it amazes me how this came out worse than either of the two other incidents.

It's a) because they are animals and b) because of intent. Drunk driving is reckless, but there was no intent to kill the woman. Lewis, who I am very shaky on the details on, was not regularly torturing and killing people.

[Pumpy Tudors]

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong? If he donates money to the SPCA or PETA or even just goes on television and apologizes, why should I believe that he really means it? The only lesson he's learning from all this is that being a marketable NFL player doesn't necessarily protect him when he breaks the law. If he's never involved in dogfighting again, I'll think that it's because he doesn't want to go (back) to prison. I won't think that it's because he suddenly cares about pit bulls.

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

[Noble_Platypus]

Stevew is correct, that happened before Goodell took over. He cant go back retroactive to get those guys.

[Noble_Platypus]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong? If he donates money to the SPCA or PETA or even just goes on television and apologizes, why should I believe that he really means it? The only lesson he's learning from all this is that being a marketable NFL player doesn't necessarily protect him when he breaks the law. If he's never involved in dogfighting again, I'll think that it's because he doesn't want to go (back) to prison. I won't think that it's because he suddenly cares about pit bulls.

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

I said the same thing above, I dont think he is sorry he did it, just sorry he got caught.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Noble_Platypus

I said the same thing above, I dont think he is sorry he did it, just sorry he got caught.

Ah, OK. I didn't mean to just repeat what someone else said. This thread is moving so quickly that I missed it.

[Noble_Platypus]

no problem, just saying I agree with you, thats all

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong? If he donates money to the SPCA or PETA or even just goes on television and apologizes, why should I believe that he really means it? The only lesson he's learning from all this is that being a marketable NFL player doesn't necessarily protect him when he breaks the law. If he's never involved in dogfighting again, I'll think that it's because he doesn't want to go (back) to prison. I won't think that it's because he suddenly cares about pit bulls.

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

QTF.

picsplzkthnx! klnx!

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong? If he donates money to the SPCA or PETA or even just goes on television and apologizes, why should I believe that he really means it? The only lesson he's learning from all this is that being a marketable NFL player doesn't necessarily protect him when he breaks the law. If he's never involved in dogfighting again, I'll think that it's because he doesn't want to go (back) to prison. I won't think that it's because he suddenly cares about pit bulls.

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

I definitely sympathize with this pov, and I agree he's got a very tough case to make.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong? If he donates money to the SPCA or PETA or even just goes on television and apologizes, why should I believe that he really means it? The only lesson he's learning from all this is that being a marketable NFL player doesn't necessarily protect him when he breaks the law. If he's never involved in dogfighting again, I'll think that it's because he doesn't want to go (back) to prison. I won't think that it's because he suddenly cares about pit bulls.

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

You totally ripped me off dude.

I'm still trying to think of a similar situation where an athlete/celebrity got busted for something that couldn't be blamed on a one-time loss of sense -- DWI, drug possession, picking up prostitutes, assault, etc -- and I got nothing.

[Kodos]

FWIW, I didn't think Ray or Jamal Lewis, or Little should have ever been allowed to play again. Basically, I would make Goodell look like his is coddling players.

[larrymcg421]

My understanding is that there was basically zero evidence that Ray Lewis was involved in any murder, and the worst they had on him was making misleading statements during the investigation.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My understanding is that there was basically zero evidence that Ray Lewis was involved in any murder, and the worst they had on him was making misleading statements during the investigation.

That's how I remember it, too. From wikipedia:

Despite his accomplishments on the field, Lewis' public image was tarnished following a Super Bowl party on January 31, 2000. Following this party, he was brought into the Atlanta Police Department for questioning, then arrested (along with his friends Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting) and charged with the murders of Jacinth Baker and Richard Lollar. Baker and Lollar were stabbed to death outside a nightclub during a fight in the Buckhead district of Atlanta. The charges resulted in Lewis being held in custody, preventing him from playing in the Pro Bowl in Hawaii he had been scheduled to play in the following Sunday.

After news of the arrest was known, family, friends, and some members of the public doubted Lewis's involvement in such a crime. While police examined the limo he had chartered and conducted a search of his Owings Mills, Maryland home, numerous character witnesses petitioned the courts for him to be granted bail. A few weeks later, he was offered bail by a judge under the following conditions:

* He turn in his passport
* He follow a 9 PM curfew
* He would not consume an alcoholic beverage
* He would remain in the state of Maryland, except while traveling to Georgia for legal purposes

With the NFL being in the off-season, they did not move to make any sanctions against Lewis, announcing that at the present time, it was not necessary.

The trial of Lewis and his codefendants started during the following spring. After the prosecution had presented its case, with little or no evidence that Lewis had committed any overt acts against the victims, Lewis's attorney arranged with prosecutors to dismiss the murder charges and let Lewis plead guilty in a plea bargain to a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of justice[17]; he also agreed to testify against Oakley and Sweeting, who were each charged with murder. Lewis accepted this plea bargain, and he was sentenced to one year of unsupervised, unrestricted probation. He was also offered expungment of this record if he successfully completed his probation, and was not suspended by the NFL. He was fined a league record US$250,000.

Oakley and Sweeting were represented by noted Atlanta criminal defense attorneys L. David Wolfe, Bruce Harvey, and Steve Sadow. Though all were acquitted in June 2000, the Atlanta Police Department and District Attorney's office believe Lewis's associates to be guilty. No other suspects have ever been arrested for the crime.

On April 29, 2004, Lewis gave a large monetary settlement to four-year-old India Lollar, who was born shortly after the death of her father Richard. This settlement (reported by The Baltimore Sun to be at least US$1 million) preempted the civil trial scheduled for June 14, 2004. The suit filed by the Baker family was also settled. The terms were undisclosed.

[st.cronin]

dola

So, basically, he pled guilty in a case where nobody was actually convicted of a crime other than him? And he laid a huge sum of money on the victim's family.

[stevew]

Ray Lewis didn't kill no motherfucking lion. I really have every reason to dislike the guy, but that one seemed like more of a wrong place/wrong time type of event.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

dola

So, basically, he pled guilty in a case where nobody was actually convicted of a crime other than him? And he laid a huge sum of money on the victim's family.

He pled guilty to obstruction of justice, not murder. Theres a big difference. As to settling out of court on the civil stuff, people do it all the time. Sometimes its cheaper and cleaner than going to court.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Synovia

He pled guilty to obstruction of justice, not murder. Theres a big difference. As to settling out of court on the civil stuff, people do it all the time. Sometimes its cheaper and cleaner than going to court.

Right, I just thought it was interesting that even with his plea they couldn't generate a case.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Bee

I think there's a 50-50 chance if he plays everything right, but IMO that doesn't include allowing this to go to trial.

No chance in hell he ever plays again.

Hes 27 right now. He'll be 28 before all the state stuff is finished. Hes going to get a MINIMUM of 1 year in jail for the federal charges. (29). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year in jail for the state charges (30). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year suspension from the NFL. (31). He'll turn 32 before he gets a chance to join a team at the beginning of the season. He'll not have played football in almost 4 years.


Who wants a 32 year old quarterback, who was bottom 1/2 of the league when young, who hasnt played ball in 4 years, and is going to cause people to picket your stadium, and cause sponsors to leave?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No chance in hell he ever plays again.

Hes 27 right now. He'll be 28 before all the state stuff is finished. Hes going to get a MINIMUM of 1 year in jail for the federal charges. (29). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year in jail for the state charges (30). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year suspension from the NFL. (31). He'll turn 32 before he gets a chance to join a team at the beginning of the season. He'll not have played football in almost 4 years.


Who wants a 32 year old quarterback, who was bottom 1/2 of the league when young, who hasnt played ball in 4 years, and is going to cause people to picket your stadium, and cause sponsors to leave?

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat. I don't like it, I wish he would never play again, but he surely will. If he goes to jail for 2 years, he'll have 2 years where he gets to work out for 4 hours a day. As a quarterback? Probably not, but a team will sign him, at worst, to be a receiver.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Right, I just thought it was interesting that even with his plea they couldn't generate a case.

Like the Libby case, it is usually obstruction of justice or perjury that prevents a prosecutor from making a case. And while I don't know the Lewis case facts that well, I wouldn't trust that Wiki entry - it reads like it was written by his agent. The way everything is phrased doesn't strike me as a balanced account of what happened.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Like the Libby case, it is usually obstruction of justice or perjury that prevents a prosecutor from making a case. And while I don't know the Lewis case facts that well, I wouldn't trust that Wiki entry - it reads like it was written by his agent. The way everything is phrased doesn't strike me as a balanced account of what happened.

Difference is, Libby was CONVICTED of perjury. I would think if somebody pleads out, that their plea then becomes the opposite of obstruction, it becomes actual evidence. Otherwise, what's the point.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Difference is, Libby was CONVICTED of perjury. I would think if somebody pleads out, that their plea then becomes the opposite of obstruction, it becomes actual evidence. Otherwise, what's the point.

I don't know the specifics with Lewis (and I don't really follow your logic), but there are plenty of reasons a plea deal is reach in obstruction of justice or perjury cases: a defendant has made inconsistent statements to authorities so they have him dead to rights (but they can't show what he is hiding), the sides compromise on the lesser count (this is the most common motivation for plea deals), and/or the state knows it can't meet its burden on other charges so it leverages any sentence it can get. A plea is the norm in our criminal justice system and it doesn't mean the defendant cooperated with the government in any way.

[Swaggs]

I thought someone was going to come in with the breaking news that Bush had pre-emptively pardoned Vick.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No chance in hell he ever plays again.

Hes 27 right now. He'll be 28 before all the state stuff is finished. Hes going to get a MINIMUM of 1 year in jail for the federal charges. (29). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year in jail for the state charges (30). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year suspension from the NFL. (31). He'll turn 32 before he gets a chance to join a team at the beginning of the season. He'll not have played football in almost 4 years.


Who wants a 32 year old quarterback, who was bottom 1/2 of the league when young, who hasnt played ball in 4 years, and is going to cause people to picket your stadium, and cause sponsors to leave?

Whoever brings him back won't bring him back as a QB. He'll come back as a wideout and yes, someone will take him unless the NFL says he's banned for good.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't really follow your logic.

My logic is just that if somebody pleads guilty to obstructing justice, I would think that part of the deal would be that they stop obstructing justice and testify as to what happened.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My logic is just that if somebody pleads guilty to obstructing justice, I would think that part of the deal would be that they stop obstructing justice and testify as to what happened.

That would be more of a contempt charge by a judge. Then a judge can hold you until you testify. With obstruction or perjury, you can keep on lying (as long as you aren't under oath) or keep on obstructing (as long as you don't create new obstructions) and accept your sentence. There is no need to cooperate at all.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

With the (seemingly necessary) caveat that what Vick did is awful, how on earth can a man who drove drunk and killed a woman (Little) or a man who was involved (to say the bare minimum) in a murder (Lewis) be okay for the league, when Vick isn't? The NFL couldn't give two shits about character - all they could care about is public opinion. And I guess it amazes me how this came out worse than either of the two other incidents.

That's pretty much my take on this. New Commissioner in town, who is trying to "act tough" is really what I think it as hand here, more than some sort of newfound morality on the part of an American sports league that would move Green Bay to Los Angeles if it meant more TV revenues. (and if it weren't against the team's bylaws, which were deemed illegal after the merger, but grandfathered in Green Bay.)

[mtolson]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

My sympathy for David Carr aside, I wonder something:

Could this whole situation really make Michael Vick truly sorry for what he did? I mean, if you grow up around dogfighting, and you buy a house for the purpose of hosting dogfights, and you encourage dogfighting around you, and you unmercifully kill dogs, why would you suddenly be sorry? Is he just now finding out that his behavior was wrong?

I guess what I mean to say is that I'll only believe that he's sorry he got caught. I don't know why I feel the need to say this, but I guess I just wanted to get that out.

I understand what you are saying but there is a small possibility that what your described is exactly what happened. We are often products of our environment. I know of young men that grew up in the inner-city selling drugs and worse. Later in life when provided a positive role model or in one case once arrested they began to understand just how wrong there actions were and later went on give speeches to inner-city kids regarding the problems they encountered as youth and how they went down the wrong path. Both did so with hopes that passing on their experiences would help prevent other young kids from falling into the same lifestyle. I am not saying the this is what Vick is going through, only that there is a possibility that he may too been a product of his environment and is capable of remorse.

What you feel is exactly how many others feel. I want to believe for his sake that he is capable of obtaining redemming qualities and would hate to see him loss his lively-hood if in fact he truly is remorseful and is a changed person once he is out of jail. What he did was extremely wrong and he should be punished. I don't believe that he should be banned from the NFL for life.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2983768

I didn't see this article posted, forgive me if it already has been. A couple of the comments in here just really infuriated me...mainly:



I'm not really angry with the idiot that said this b/c clearly he just doesn't "get" the difference between hunting a duck and using it for food, as most hunters (at least all the ones I know) do, and breeding an animal to be a killing machine solely for the "thrill" of watching animals maul each other to death. My anger is directed at the AJC for publishing crap like this and giving these idiots the satisfaction of seeing their name in print...and giving them the feeling that they are right because they printed it.

Let's not be naive here. It's the news business, just like any other business. The financial bottom line matters. It's one of the most volatile stories in Atlanta in a long time. Giving people the ability to post whatever vitriol they want = more hits = more ad revenue. A big reason Vick was thought to be worth that huge contract was the money that he brought in. The AJC realizes that even now, Vick helps indirectly bring in the cash. People love to watch a train wreck, and every one of the Vick stories in which commenting is allowed turns into exactly that.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No chance in hell he ever plays again.

Hes 27 right now. He'll be 28 before all the state stuff is finished. Hes going to get a MINIMUM of 1 year in jail for the federal charges. (29). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year in jail for the state charges (30). Hes going to get a MINIMUM of another year suspension from the NFL. (31). He'll turn 32 before he gets a chance to join a team at the beginning of the season. He'll not have played football in almost 4 years.


Who wants a 32 year old quarterback, who was bottom 1/2 of the league when young, who hasnt played ball in 4 years, and is going to cause people to picket your stadium, and cause sponsors to leave?

He doesn't have to wait a year to start serving his federal sentence, so that takes a year off your calculations. Who knows what is going to happen with the state stuff based on the incompetence shown by the state attorneys to this point and then you're also assuming the NFL will add another year suspension which hasn't been decided either (although I think that one is probable). Most of the reports I've seen seem to predict Vick could be back in the NFL either 2009 or 2010. He only has to serve 87% of the sentence and 15% of that can be served at a half way house where he could play football if the NFL lets him. So a year sentence is basically 9 months in jail and the 18 months would be less than 14 months. If he gets a 1 year sentence in November and starts serving his sentence, he'll be out of jail by August, 2008. If the NFL give him a 1 year suspension, he'll be back for 2009. If he gets 18 months then it would probably be pushed back to 2010. I think in either of those cases, we'd likely see him back (as others said, probably not as a QB). Now if something happens with the NFL coming down harder on him, the federal sentence being much harsher than the 12-18 months or the state charges resulting in something other than a sentence running concurrently it could push it out even further and in that case I don't see him coming back at all (which was my 50-50 prediction).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Bee

He doesn't have to wait a year to start serving his federal sentence, so that takes a year off your calculations. Who knows what is going to happen with the state stuff based on the incompetence shown by the state attorneys to this point and then you're also assuming the NFL will add another year suspension which hasn't been decided either (although I think that one is probable). Most of the reports I've seen seem to predict Vick could be back in the NFL either 2009 or 2010. He only has to serve 87% of the sentence and 15% of that can be served at a half way house where he could play football if the NFL lets him. So a year sentence is basically 9 months in jail and the 18 months would be less than 14 months. If he gets a 1 year sentence in November and starts serving his sentence, he'll be out of jail by August, 2008. If the NFL give him a 1 year suspension, he'll be back for 2009. If he gets 18 months then it would probably be pushed back to 2010. I think in either of those cases, we'd likely see him back (as others said, probably not as a QB). Now if something happens with the NFL coming down harder on him, the federal sentence being much harsher than the 12-18 months or the state charges resulting in something other than a sentence running concurrently it could push it out even further and in that case I don't see him coming back at all (which was my 50-50 prediction).

...and an NFL team that has difficulty putting butts in the seats like Atlanta has always had would probably benefit from the publicity. I don't think Blank would bring him back (PETA picketing Home Depot....), but if he were to sell the team due to the inevitable sharp decline in interest in 2007 and 2008, things go back to business as usual in Atlanta, and a new owner might have a pretty good reason to bring him back.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...and an NFL team that has difficulty putting butts in the seats like Atlanta has always had would probably benefit from the publicity. I don't think Blank would bring him back (PETA picketing Home Depot....), but if he were to sell the team due to the inevitable sharp decline in interest in 2007 and 2008, things go back to business as usual in Atlanta, and a new owner might have a pretty good reason to bring him back.

Do Falcon fans really expect a sharp decline in interest that quickly?

[Ben E Lou]

If I recall correctly, in '98, the Falcons went 14-2 and didn't fill the dome until the last 2 games of the year. If this team goes 5-11 with an unexciting QB, the interest will wane once again. The Falcons have never held the attention of Atlanta very well without a Deion or Vick.

[miked]

I hope to be getting some tickets to MNF against the dull Giants for $15 They should let people in for free if they can stay awake.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If I recall correctly, in '98, the Falcons went 14-2 and didn't fill the dome until the last 2 games of the year. If this team goes 5-11 with an unexciting QB, the interest will wane once again. The Falcons have never held the attention of Atlanta very well without a Deion or Vick.

Trust me, Joey Harrington is a very exciting QB. Just not in a good way.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Trust me, Joey Harrington is a very exciting QB. Just not in a good way.

LOL

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think if somebody takes a chance on Michael Vick in 3 or 4 years, he will still be a quarterback. If he's a wide receiver, he's not the most exciting player on the field. Falcons fans have loved having him on the field because he touches the ball on every single offensive play. Every play is an opportunity for him to create a highlight. I've never been to a Falcons game, but I would imagine that it's been pretty hard to get Falcons fans to leave their seats while their team has the ball. If he converts to wide receiver, he gets maybe six touches a game? People have watched Vick from the moment the ball is snapped. Who's out there watching Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens run routes? Nobody cares about those guys - two of the most exciting receivers in the NFL - until the football goes in their direction.

Michael Vick doesn't have any value as a receiver. I'm not saying that he has above-average value as a quarterback (especially in a few years), but as a guy whose career has been built around getting fans into the seats, I don't see why anybody would bother signing him after years away from the game and then teach him a position that limits his biggest asset. Now, maybe if they also used him as a kick returner, it would help somewhat. Still, if some team is going to take a chance on him, I think they would want him taking snaps. Why take on the inevitable backlash from fans to sign a guy who's only going to have an impact on 5% of the plays in the game?