But researching him and signing him are two completely different marks on the level-of-interest scale and, as of right now, sources say, the Packers are in a holding pattern, intrigued by the possibility of adding a premier athlete but nowhere near the stage where they feel it necessary to pursue him.
"RainX" wrote:
This is what I've been saying for days, but now that a journalist backed by anonymous sources says it, it suddenly has perceived credibility. š All right, all right, enough whining.
Woodson said he does not condone what Vick did, but he said he has no preconceived notions about what kind of person he is or whether he would be poison in the Packers' locker room.
Blah, this is the kind of limp-wristed, afraid-to-offend-anyone kind of platitudinous political correctness I despise most. I firmly believe in the adage that you are what you do. Yes, we all make mistakes, but mistakes are lapses in judgment stemming from a lack of knowledge. Investing in the wrong stock before it takes a nosedive is a mistake; engaging in insider trading to the detriment of other investors is not a mistake. Likewise, running an interstate dogfighting ring over more than half a decade is not a mistake -- it's a deliberate, concerted choice.
If you believe that dog fighting is wrong, then have the moral courage to come out and state so plainly. Don't try to couch your disapproval in a way calculated not to offend anyone.
Again, if Vick makes the Packers better, bring him in. If he doesn't, then let him rot on the free-agent market. But for heaven's sake, don't be afraid to be frank and candid with him. He's a grown-ass man. If he's not man enough to take your disapproval, he's not man enough to play on the frozen tundra.