Not very often do I utter a word... but when I think I should have a new toy.. I use it to my advantage.. doesn't work often though.

However.. I was able to wrangle a couple items out of Cabela's though... figuring it is going to be a chilly season this year.. also.. put the trail camera's out.. we have a decent 8 or better hanging around the pond... fresh tenderloins sound tasty.

Oh.. Mike Vick... I would love to be a fly on the wall in some of these discussions.. just to see how folks inside react to the questions..

---

Three responses:
1. I hate the term "Packer people." Perhaps because I've spent too much time with organizations that use such phrases to drumbeat people into conformity. Churches. A certain employer that will remain nameless.
2. Despite what some might think from my earlier posts in this thread, I'm a big fan of second chances. And thirds. And fourths. I don't think the decision should be based on what Vick did in the past, even though what he did was despicable and disgusting and heinous IMO. The decision should be based on what he is now and will be tomorrow.
3. OTOH I don't think second chances should be granted just because the past is past and he offers me a benefit. I think giving someone a second chance depends on how one sees the person's character at the moment of the second-chance giving. How much are they trying to keep their demons under control? How repentent are they? How much are they changing/trying to change their bad habits? Etc.
To my mind it's not about how ethical Vick is or isn't; it's about how serious he is about striving to be ethical.
If I might be permitted an extended analogy by way of personal story: Several years ago, I caught a student submitting a plagiarized paper for a senior project (the senior project here is important -- you cannot graduate without it). It was, in my opinion, one of the two most blatant cases of cheating I've seen in 20 years of teaching. Suffice it to say that the student failed the project and didn't graduate on time as the student and family had expected. A year later, I'm asked whether I'll supervise the student's project again and give another chance at the degree. I know many colleagues, and many students, who I am pretty sure would say, "no way in hell". Especially since there's a good probablilty that this wasn't the student's first offense.) I know others who would say, "of course. The studen has paid the price we imposed on him (year's suspension, embarassment during senior's week, etc.) and deserves another chance. My position was in between: I had to talk to the student one-on-one and assess whether he had changed in his approach. IMO he had, and so I said okay. And the student went on to write a solid paper, one that reflected substantial intellectual skills, one of (relatively few) that I actually found myself learning something new from. The sort that professors want coming from "their team."

But had he not convinced me of his sincerity and his commitment to changing those parts of his old character that needed changing, I would have said no. And I would have forgone the what I might have learned.

---

Very tasty, especially with the bacon we smoked in hickory wrapped around them.

---

To me it boils down to this.

The nature of the crimes he committed are indicative of an individual lacking a moral compass. They were not only cruel, but extremely hedonistic in nature. He didn't need the money from the gambling revenue, or the prestige of having a superior animal, or whatever else those people in that culture derive from their "sport". He didn't need to kill any dogs, or to revel in his cruel acts to act "tough" or whatever.

By all indications, he absolutely enjoyed what he was doing.

Here is the "boil down" part for me.

Is Michael Vick truly remorseful for the acts he committed or truly remorseful for the fact that he got caught doing them?

I do not know the answer.

The fact that he went to prison, that he lost all those tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars, that he jeopardized his career...None of that answers my fundamental question.

His value to the Packers as a player (I feel it isn't all that much-taking all factors into consideration) is not relevant to me.

I'm also aware of the fact that I cannot answer my question...ultimately, only he can, and sorry...saying he's sorry just isn't good enough...regarding answering my question.

As I said many, many posts ago, I am a forgiving man. I will just have to trust in the best judgment of others, and further hope that their motivations are not swayed by other considerations.

"Legitimate discussions" is a hollow phrase with absolutely no meaning. It's a poker player's empty platitude. Good poker players never reveal their strategy publicly. Likewise, my wife and I have legitimate discussions about a variety of topics everyday that never come to fruition.

I predicted that a certain quarterback wouldn't play in the NFL this year. I'm going to predict with even greater confidence that Michael Vick won't play on the Packers this year. Meanwhile our front office is keeping other teams guessing, which is a great strategy to take. With respect to his skills as a tactician, I love Ted Thompson.

---

I won't be upset if Vick plays for the Packers this year, and I won't be upset if he doesn't. I'm much more concerned with how our cornerbacks are adjusting to more zone coverage, if Atari Bigby can turn into a devastating hitter, if Nick Collins can cover enough ground to make up for Atari being a coverage liability, if our d-line can eat up the offensive line, if our inside backers can shed blockers, if our outside backers effectively stop the run, drop into zones, and rush the passer, if we can get consistency out of the o-line, if 2008 was a fluke for Ryan Grant, if 2007 was a fluke for Ryan Grant, if our other young RBs can catch, block, and run effectively, if Jennings continues to get better, if Driver can shoo away Father Time for another year, if Jones and Nelson can begin to play to their potential, if Lee can become more of a red-zone threat, and if Finley can be the lightning to Lee's thunder. These are the things that are on my mind right now, not Mike Vick.

---

and the packershome.com award for longest sentence in a thread goes to:

envelope please,



bozz!

---

Congratulations. (adding applaud point to bozz)

But don't give yourself too hard a pat on the back. After all, the Welsh have a *word* almost that long:
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

Translation: St Mary's Church in the hollow of the white hazel near to the rapid whirlpool of Llantysilio of the red cave.

Pronounciation: Haven't a clue.

Pedantically yours,
Iowan avoiding work

---

I guess it all boils down to a simple question: Whose sources do you want to believe? We have a couple of writers whose sources swear it's on, and at least one writer (Mortensen) whose sources swear it's definitely not.

That's what annoys me about anonymous sources: no one can be held accountable for their words.

---

I think that it matters little. Obviously, they're talking. The big man said that himself. I think that none of the reporters actually know what's currently going on. It surprises me that they don't hold their meetings in some sort of bat cave, with the amount of secrecy that Thompson holds.

Great posts by both Wade and Foster, btw. I don't know if his moral compass is good. I do, however, think that after such a long and hard fall he'll go about his business in a more legal manner. His moral compass has deeper psychological effects. Especially if you know that he didn't do it for the money. Holding on to his regained money and what not might be more interesting for him. Then again, I'm quite nave.

And what if he goes and makes some mistakes again? Shouldn't the Packers be the good guys and victims in that scenario, because they gave him another chance? I doubt that it'll cost us a ridiculous amount of money. I asume that we can sign him to a decent 1-2 year deal. Knowing Ted, it'll have a lot of incentives, meaning that he won't just be sitting on his ass getting the money, either.