ESPN contributor rips Eagles Michael Vick

[picappgallerysingle id="10296306"]

After the reports of former quarterback Joe Theismann saying that Philadelphia Eagles QB Michael Vick was not a MVP candidate, special contributor Nils Lofgren added his opinion this afternoon about Vick. Based on Lofgren’s comments posted on the ESPN website this afternoon, I feel as I must comment.

I will start by saying that I am not a Philadelphia Eagles fan, I am not or ever was a fan of Michael Vick when he played for the Atlanta Falcons, and I have no vested interest in seeing Vick continue to succeed in the NFL. The author of this article I linked above wishes to try to tie MLB player Josh Hamilton’s problems to Michael Vick at the start of the column.

It is obvious that Nils Lofgren does not wish to extend any sort of second chance to Michael Vick, unless Vick returned to society as some sort of pedestrian worker. Lofgren does not think that Vick, after spending his time in federal prison, should be able to return to the NFL playing field. Lofgren writes that a second chance should never be granted to someone like Vick , who filed bankruptcy and is playing for much less than his ability can generate on the open market.

I happen to love animals. We adopted our recent addition to the family, a 13 pound Bengal cat, just before she was going to be put down. I can understand Mr. Lofgren’s concern regarding how animals are treated. No one can call our family hypocritical, there is always a tray of food outside for our neighborhood cats. But, for as much as I dislike what Michael Vick was involved with prior to his incarceration, he has served his time and needs to be allowed a second chance.

Lofgren states his desire that the NFL should have banned him for life from the league based on his involvement in dog fighting, reprehensible, yes. But exactly at what point do you draw the line?

Vick was charged for interstate gambling on his federal charge, convicted and served his time. Baltimore Ravens WR Donte Stallworth struck a man, killed him, while driving drunk, served 30 days in jail and is back playing in the league. So what is the difference? Vick served exponentially more time than Stallworth who kills a human being, and that charge is simply dismissed by those who view Vick currently? Is Mr. Lofgren another animal rights activist who thinks that animals should have more rights than humans? Again, I don’t excuse anything that Vick has done in his past, but at what point does his penance for his crimes become past history?

Somehow Stallworth did his 30 days and his return to the league is different than Vick’s? I don’t think so. Both players did something egregiously wrong. Both players have been given a second chance, and I think that is what the right choice should have been. I hope that Mr. Lofgren never needs a second chance in this life, because in his column, he built a seriously high glass house around himself.

As I stated, I am not a Michael Vick fan, but as a NFL football fan, I realize just how committed he is to having his second chance in the NFL and that is something I applaud.


Around the Web

  • Average_Joseph

    I cannot say strongly enough how much I agree with you. When is a man allowed to serve his punishment, regret his previous actions and move on with his life? I’m not saying forget what he did but there comes a time to forgive. I have my own open letter to Mr. Lofgren:

    Mr. Lofgren,

    Who cares what your opinion is; you are a musician and that is all. Also, who are you to decide what person should be given a second chance? The man has done his time, lost millions and seems genuinely remorseful. Please send your open letters to people who care what over-indulgent celebrities think.

    Sincerely,
    Average_Joseph

    If people find this too harsh, too bad, I am sick and tired of hearing from “know nothing do good” celebrities.