I see everyone talking about Packer people. I know that this is usually about the good, maybe blue collar-like, players. The one with good characters and not a whole lot of problems.
Can't Packer people be about giving someone a second chance either, though? Wouldn't Vick be 'packer people' if he comes in and shows a good work ethic? I think that with packer people come the packer fans. One thing that makes a fanbase great is to not shoot down a player on one mistake and stand behind the team at all times. Now, yes, this was a major mistake, but I think that being open for his return to the NFL and mainly GB, would show some real character from the fans.
Besides, everyone will be praising the team and Ted Thompson after Vick completes a play action pass out of the wildcat or when he runs it in for a TD of a 5-wide QB draw.
"Rockmolder" wrote:
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.
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)