Thompson won't rule out signing Vick
It wasn't an admission of interest, but Packers General Manager Ted Thompson had a chance this morning to shoot down the possibility of signing controversial quarterback Mike Vick.

And he passed.

Here's the exchange that ensued after I asked Thompson during today's press conference whether he'd entertain the possibility of signing Vick, who has completed his prison term for bankrolling a dogfighting ring and hopes to join an NFL team this year.

Thompson: (Long pause) "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 the percentages or anything like that."

So, you have looked at him then?

Thompson: "We look at everything. Or, not everything. We don't look at stuff from like across the ocean or something."

Have there been any discussions on whether it's worth pursuing Vick?

Thompson: "We've had discussions about a large number of things, and we're always talking personnel -- different scenarios and things like that."

But this is a pretty unique guy, a different situation ...

Thompson: "But the routine we go through is the same. It doesn't mean any more that we're likely to do it or less likely -- it's a routine we go through. It's automatic."

This was typical for Thompson, because he believes personnel is private business and in many cases his stance is justified. But considering roughly two-thirds of NFL teams have flat-out stated they want nothing to do with Vick, Thompson's refusal to follow suit is puzzling.

Unless the Packers actually are interested.

If they brought Vick in as a so-called "veteran backup," I'd be pissed off. We don't run that kind of offense, and thank God for that. I consider a run-first option defense to be an abomination and I hate watching it. If he was brought in for a limited role in a Wildcat package, I would not be opposed to that. The major problem I see with it is that it would seriously complicate our gameday roster. If he were active on gameday, that would mean both Brohm and Flynn would be inactive, which would make Vick our de facto backup if Rodgers went down. Ugh. If he were brought in as a running back, he would have to be incorporated into our regular progression as a running back (third down option, etc.), a development I think he would look at askance. So overall, bringing Vick in would either upset the balance in our locker room or necessitate a player being cut or traded.

So the question then becomes, which one of our current running backs or quarterbacks do you want to see go for an unproven backup who's eventually going to be bucking for the starting job? Remember, the chances are we'll get virtually nothing for them in a trade, so they'll probably have to be cut, meaning we'd not get compensated for their loss at all.

I'm not opposed to bringing Vick in, but I can see a lot of potential downsides as well.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

So now that the Packers are openly relieved to have the whole Favre distraction behind them, they're seriously considering signing Michael Vick? I don't believe it.

"Greg C." wrote:

and how is he in any way, shape or form "good for our team"??

"4PackGirl" wrote:

"4PackGirl" wrote:

this isn't an ethical debate, folks.

"TwinkieGorilla" wrote: