[WARNING: Long pontification coming!!]
IMNSHO there are two, and only two questions, that Ted Thompson and company need to ask re: VIck:
1. What, deep down, is the state of his character right now.
2. Does he offer more as a backup QB than Flynn or Brohm?
The second question is by far the easier. It isn't a slam dunk either way, but there are certainly arguments to me made that, even with the "time off" and the "age" question, he offers more than one (or perhaps both) of our current backups.
Unfortunately, the first question is more important, and a lot harder to answer. And, if the first question can't be answered, the second should be irrelevant.
That Vick may have convinced Roger Goodell impresses me not at all -- Goodell is a politician and image consultant. That he has apparently convinced Tony Dungy, one of the highest character guys in sport, impresses me more.
Is it enough? I dunno. Frankly, I consider dog abusers as among the worst scum on the planet, and I'm cynical enough about pro athletes and their spin machines that I find it hard to believe in the depth of Vick's repentance.
I think the "he's done his time" argument completely off base. Jail time is for an offense against the law. Law and morality are not the same. And, in my opinion, character analysis neither starts nor stops with the law. Character analysis is about the moral quality of the person.
Why should this morality stuff come into play for Thompson, et al? Because we reveal our character by who *we* associate with. If I hang out with litterers and mother-rapers on the Group W bench (obscure Arlo Guthrie reference), then that says something about *my* character. If the Packers admit people they believe to be unreformed scum to the roster in the name of wins, that says something about *their* character.
And it doesn't say something good.
If the Packers truly believe that Vick has reformed his character, that he truly repents and is striving to treat animals the way a sentient being should because he now believes that no one should treat animals the way he used to treat dogs, that's one thing. If they are inverting the order of questions 1 and 2, however, then it's another.
If the Packers think Vick has truly reformed, not by "serving his time," but by digging deep inside and working to change his character, then they should be applauded if they decide to "forgive and give another chance". Not condemned.
I know they'd be better than me. Because, as a dog person (see my avatar), I doubt I'll be able to get past Vick's old character for awhile yet.
Perhaps it is because forgiveness has to be a person-to-person thing. Can you forgive someone in the abstract? Really forgive them? Or can you only forgive them when you're close enough to them that you can truly assess the reality of their character? I can, and have, forgiven family and friends many things. (And they, ahem, have forgiven me even more and worse things.) But forgive some random guy in Atlanta who I only "know of" because he's been on ESPN a zillion times, but who I've never talked with? I'm not sure that's possible.
So where do I stand on the question? As a Christian, I'm not particularly proud of this, but I don't believe Mr. Vick just yet. But were I Ted THompson, who probably knows Tony Dungy if not Vick himself, I'd like to think I'd ask myself, do I trust Tony (or someone else who knows Vick) enough to give Vick some time. And if I did trust Tony or that someone else, I'd like to think I'd give Vick an extended opportunity to reveal his character to me.
And, if during that extended opportunity, Vick convinced me he truly was "changed", then -- and only then -- I'd start thinking about him as a possible wearer of Green and Goal according to the criterion of Question #2.
If Ted's refusal to "reject out of hand" at the news conference was because he's already "behind the scenes, over the last N months" given that opportunity to Vick, if he isn't rejecting because he's in the process of asking question #1 (or if he's already done the Dungy thing and is thinking about question #2), then Ted should be applauded.
If the "process" Ted talked about was just question#2, however, then, IMO, he should be condemned.
Not because Vick is still a scumbag. But because he, Thompson, is willing to associate with unrepentent scumbags as long as it improves the bottom line.
And, IMO, that brings Ted's character into question.
So I believe.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)