fair enough.

---

The thing is, the Packers aren't just a team. They're a business too, and ideally speaking for them, a lifestyle for many fans. There is more to consider. Taking a PR hit like this for a risky addition (he was risky even when he wasn't out of the game for years - a weapon but a risky weapon) right after you get the team all stacked with young players would be kind of a bad move in my eyes.

---

I have 1 problem. PETA. Oh God. The Packers get him, they come protesting outside Lambeau almost every other day. Do I forgive Vick? Yeah. But does PETA? No.

---

I wouldn't be averse to signing Vick if it were strictly as a backup/wildcat roll if McCarthy could successfully add a few wrinkles to the playbook to incorporate him. We brought Koren Robinson in to the fold in 2006 when probably no other NFL team would even touch him, and for all intents and purposes to this point, his year or so on the team seemed to help turn his life around.

McCarthy got to see plenty of Vick in the early 00's when he was the Saints OC, so he's probably got at least a taste of what Vick could bring to the team. I'd still have to think the team would need to bring him in for a tryout before beginning contract negotiations, so all these rumors and speculation flying around are pretty much just that.

---

For heaven's sake, at least try to understand my argument before bashing it so vehemently. I don't "get butthurt when players get cut" -- I've stated in many threads that I don't develop a personal attachment to players and that I welcome personnel moves that might not be popular if they benefit the team.

The point I was trying to make is that in order to take a flyer on a player who hasn't been in football for over two years, we'd have to cut one of our promising young prospects, probably for no compensation, to sign a guy who, in my opinion, amounts to a complete unknown at this point. Yes, he's done some impressive things in his career (as a runner, not a passer), but no one can know what kind of conditioning he's kept himself in while incarcerated, not to mention the fact that NFL offenses have evolved in the past two years, developments he's been completely out of the loop of. I'm not saying he couldn't pick up these nuances -- obviously he could -- but as far as I am concerned, he'd be as much of a developmental prospect as our current backups, but significantly older and with thus less potential upside.



Because that's how the system works. You can only have two QBs active on gameday, with a third QB listed as inactive but able to be activated if both of your first two QBs go down. (This is the only position, so far as I know, for which you can activate a third-string player in case of injury.) Therefore, if Vick were on the 53-man roster as the second-string QB and we kept four QBs around, both Flynn and Brohm would be inactive on gameday. If he were signed as a runningback, obviously this would not apply, as I stated in my original post. Again, understand the situation before bashing my statements.

I'll address your other points later, but we're off to the $2 cinema now.

---

I thought the rule was that you could "choose to have two active QBs (in the 47), but that you could still play the third if the first two got hurt", not "you can only keep two QBs among the 47." And since the likelihood of a team getting to a third quarterback in a game is pretty small (compared to the likelihood of needing whatever other player was #45 on the roster list), teams invariably kept the third QB "inactive".

Is there really a NFL rule that you can only have a max of 2 QBs on the list of 47 active players for a game? I mean, the NFL is okay with a team having two active punters, why in the world would they want to legislate the number of quarterbacks a coach could put on the game day roster.

On the other hand, who said what the NFL rules committee comes up with has to make sense. Never mind.

---

p.s. I still think Thompson's first question should be the character question. But I guess I'm in the minority here, too.
:sad: :shrug:

---

I totally agree with Marshall Faulk.  I don't know why people would see signing Vick as any sort of competition for Rodgers. Everyone knows that he's not a pure passer. Like I said in my previous post, he'd add a great wrinkle and a possibility for the most dangerous wildcat in the NFL, with Rodgers being able to move very well as well, if he'd be on the field.

One trivial thing that I was thinking about. What if Rodgers went down and they would put Vick in there as the back-up. He's left handed. That'd mean that, by he looks of it right now, Moll or Barbre would be protecting his blind side. I would in no way feel safe that way. Lol.

I'd take a guy who abused animals before I took a thug equivalent to the likes of Warren Sapp.

---

christ.

i think i'd feel safer with Vick replacing Moll.

*rolls eyes*

---