Can we just agree that he's a lousy QB and leave all the righteous indignation to twitter and facebook?
Wow, Michael Vick a Steeler?!?!
- Thread starter The Spin Meister
- Start date
Can we just agree that he's a lousy QB and leave all the righteous indignation to twitter and facebook?
I agree that he is a lousy QB! And a piece of sh$t as a human! not being "righteous" just stating my view point which I think is ok Maybe not
not really directed at you more of a general comment. Yea we all know what he did and everyone has an opinion on it but I think thats all getting lost in the fact that he's not a very good QB and has a penchant for getting hurt. I can't believe there weren't better options out there.
Full disclosure, I am not a Steelers fan. I am an Eagles fan. But I definitely don't hate the Steelers.
I am a dog lover. I have a golden retriever. I can't watch those commercials about pet abuse, I literally have to change the channel when they are on.
I think Michael Vick's acts towards dogs were deplorable. There is no excuse for what he did and those poor dogs suffered greatly.
That being said, he was caught, charged and convicted. I would guess that he got one of the stuffest sentences ever for dog abuse.
Since he was released Vick has been a model citizen. This does not mean tbT he is excused for his prior actions. It means that he has made a change and has done everything asked of him and more since he was released. He was a leader for the Eagles and really worked to be a positive influence in Philadelphia. Again, this does not make what he did ok. But it is the best he can do since that point in his life.
When the Eagles signed him I was luke warm about it. It had little to do with his on field abilities. More to do with whether he would be a distraction and a trouble maker. He was neither of these things.
When the Eagles had locker room problems, Vick was someone who helped solved them. When the Riley Cooper incident occurred, I believe Vick was a major reason why it didn't escalate.
By the way on the field he played at a mvp level at times with the Eagles. He also threw a lot of ints at other times. I dont think its fair to judge his abilities on the field by his performance with the Jets. The Jets were an absolute dumpster fire and no one on the offense looked like they belonged in the NFL.
I think Steelers fans are being somewhat hypocritical and very short sighted.
It is your perogatice to dislike the signing of Vick and to dislike Vick in general. But it is silly to pretend that you are not going to watch the Steelers becausw they signed an ex con.
This gut reaction completely ignores the fact that Ben Rothlisberger was accussed of raping a 20 year old girl at a bar. Yeah I know that no charges were pressed. But read the statements of witnesses at that bar and tell me if you would leave your daughter with Ben. He was also sued for sexual assault in Nevada in 2008. He paid "less than a game check" to settle the case. I am a lawyer and I know cases are settled for all srts of reasons. But it is just another allegation of sexual assault against Big Ben.
Had these allegations occured in 2013-14 as opposed to 08-10, there is no doubt Ben woul have recieved a suspension from the commissioner.
Chris Rainey was arrested for domestic violence in 2013, James Harrison was arrested for domestic violence in 2008, Najeh Davenport was arrested for domestic violence in 2007, Santonio Holmes was arrested multiple times and once for domestic violence. The list goes on.
I am not listing the players to say the Steelers are all criminals. My point is that they have had players (some high profile) who have had run ins with the law for relatively major issues. I did not include alcohol and drug related offenses because they don't seem relevant to this issue.
My point is this - if you are canceling your sunday ticket subscription or no longer watching the Steelers because they signed a criminal, you are a bit misguided. You have likely been cheering for Big Ben for the past few years and he had some big smudges on his record. You cheered for Harrison who had some issues.
This isnt a knock against the Steelers in any way. The Eagles and every other NFL team have players who have criminal records and who are less than stellar human beings. My point is if you think Michael Vick is the first guy on the Steelers with legal issues, you have had your head in the sand.
I am a dog lover. I have a golden retriever. I can't watch those commercials about pet abuse, I literally have to change the channel when they are on.
I think Michael Vick's acts towards dogs were deplorable. There is no excuse for what he did and those poor dogs suffered greatly.
That being said, he was caught, charged and convicted. I would guess that he got one of the stuffest sentences ever for dog abuse.
Since he was released Vick has been a model citizen. This does not mean tbT he is excused for his prior actions. It means that he has made a change and has done everything asked of him and more since he was released. He was a leader for the Eagles and really worked to be a positive influence in Philadelphia. Again, this does not make what he did ok. But it is the best he can do since that point in his life.
When the Eagles signed him I was luke warm about it. It had little to do with his on field abilities. More to do with whether he would be a distraction and a trouble maker. He was neither of these things.
When the Eagles had locker room problems, Vick was someone who helped solved them. When the Riley Cooper incident occurred, I believe Vick was a major reason why it didn't escalate.
By the way on the field he played at a mvp level at times with the Eagles. He also threw a lot of ints at other times. I dont think its fair to judge his abilities on the field by his performance with the Jets. The Jets were an absolute dumpster fire and no one on the offense looked like they belonged in the NFL.
I think Steelers fans are being somewhat hypocritical and very short sighted.
It is your perogatice to dislike the signing of Vick and to dislike Vick in general. But it is silly to pretend that you are not going to watch the Steelers becausw they signed an ex con.
This gut reaction completely ignores the fact that Ben Rothlisberger was accussed of raping a 20 year old girl at a bar. Yeah I know that no charges were pressed. But read the statements of witnesses at that bar and tell me if you would leave your daughter with Ben. He was also sued for sexual assault in Nevada in 2008. He paid "less than a game check" to settle the case. I am a lawyer and I know cases are settled for all srts of reasons. But it is just another allegation of sexual assault against Big Ben.
Had these allegations occured in 2013-14 as opposed to 08-10, there is no doubt Ben woul have recieved a suspension from the commissioner.
Chris Rainey was arrested for domestic violence in 2013, James Harrison was arrested for domestic violence in 2008, Najeh Davenport was arrested for domestic violence in 2007, Santonio Holmes was arrested multiple times and once for domestic violence. The list goes on.
I am not listing the players to say the Steelers are all criminals. My point is that they have had players (some high profile) who have had run ins with the law for relatively major issues. I did not include alcohol and drug related offenses because they don't seem relevant to this issue.
My point is this - if you are canceling your sunday ticket subscription or no longer watching the Steelers because they signed a criminal, you are a bit misguided. You have likely been cheering for Big Ben for the past few years and he had some big smudges on his record. You cheered for Harrison who had some issues.
This isnt a knock against the Steelers in any way. The Eagles and every other NFL team have players who have criminal records and who are less than stellar human beings. My point is if you think Michael Vick is the first guy on the Steelers with legal issues, you have had your head in the sand.
----
Nice first post. The Steelers are a little better than most but certainly not saints They cut a back (Morris?) that was #2 in rushing after he was caught with several pounds of grass. They got rid of Buress when he had too many issues. Let Santanio Holmes go as a free agent. They do get rid of bad people. They do give second chances and try to help a player in need but will ship out one that fails to comply with societal expectations.
But Ben went way over the line and got off easy. He is just one reason that I watch less and less sports as time goes by. Too many of these clowns aren't worthy of the rewards bestowed on them.
Good reasonable post. And i am a Steeler fan. Some of the Yinzers need to get over themselves.
But Ben went way over the line and got off easy? WTF are you talking about?
I can only speak for myself, but for me, this isn't a conscious protest. This isn't a moral stand I'm making. I cannot control the way I feel about this. This is my gut. Trust me, I was super excited about watching this offense this year. I haven't been anticipating a Steeler season this much in at least five or six years. If I could block this out and still watch/support, I would love to do that. My brain has no say in this case.
The thought of seeing Mike Vick in a Steeler uniform standing there on the sideline makes me want to puke.
Ben was suspended for 6 games intially and reduced to 4 (not that this is germane to the discussion)
=======
Saw the police interview of the victim. Read police reports of witnesses, read medical exam of victim. He did it....accept the truth.
Have you "accepted the truth" that Paterno knew Sandusky raped a kid in the locker room shower but then made sure it was covered up to protect the football team?
-------
Equating Ben and Joe is just another example of the lack of logic and reasoning you have consistently showed on this forum many times before. There was no victim statement implicating Joe There was no physical evidence implicating Joe. There was no eyewitness statements implicating Joe.
Do you really believe that no one ever committed a crime without being charged or convicted? Have you ever read all the police reports on Ben and this incident? Or did you just not want to know the truth about a big sports hero of yours?
If you can't see the similarities, then you're hopeless and I'm done wasting my time with you. You'll never get it (or, never admit that you get it). Have a good day.
------
Ha, I point out all the dramatic differences and you run away and hide. Never answered whether you read all the police reports and medial exam records. Yet I am the hopeless one.
The DA must not have felt it was very compelling as he chose not to file. Nothing a DA likes more than getting a celebrity to make them famous.
She was still heavily intoxicated during her statement and was confused at times. Would not have made a good witness.
Nothing a DA fears more than losing a high-profile case against celebrity.
The victim has been very quiet since. Guessing she was paid a handsome settlement to make all go away.
Nothing a DA fears more than losing a high-profile case against celebrity.
The victim has been very quiet since. Guessing she was paid a handsome settlement to make all go away.
"Guessing" she got a big settlement. But after reviewing the evidence I do not have 'reasonable doubt' about what happened that night.
I know you or I would have been charged and went bankrupt on legal bills. He got off because it wasn't a shut and closed case and the DA knew Ben would have had top attorneys to fight it. He didn't want to risk the high profile loss.
If it had gone to trial and he was acquitted I would be more forgiving. But he got off without any trial and that is not justice.
I know you or I would have been charged and went bankrupt on legal bills. He got off because it wasn't a shut and closed case and the DA knew Ben would have had top attorneys to fight it. He didn't want to risk the high profile loss.
If it had gone to trial and he was acquitted I would be more forgiving. But he got off without any trial and that is not justice.
plus one.........how anyone could possibly play the moral card and then not have a problem with ben Roethlisberger is beyond me....they are either in complete denial or their browsers don't support search engines
No reasonable doubt? Wow....So to you he is guilty for not getting charged. You are living in the wrong century.
You choose to only believe the witnesses and evidence you want....the reason he didn't get charged is because the case is full of reasonable doubt....there were reports of her flirting and being sexually suggestive with ben, seeking his attention, following him from bar to bar, she was the first one to go into the bathroom, When first asked by police if she was raped she said no, when asked if she had sex she said I'm not sure, not to mention why would he have chosen to rape a girl with many girls around partying with his entourage.
I'm not saying he didn't rape her but you can't even prove the two had sex and yet you have no reasonable doubt he raped her? Again Wow
Last edited:
There is more evidence against Big Ben then there is against James Winston yet just about everyone here says Winston is guilty. Go figure.....
"The crime of rape has three elements: sexual intercourse, which requires penetration, forcibly, and against her will. All three elements, I’ve got a problem proving all three of those."
-Georgia DA Fred Bright
Are you calling Fred Bright a liar, or do you have evidence Mr Bright didn't have?
I agree the cases are similar. I'm certainly not stating that Winston is guilty. The biggest differences in the cases are in the Winston case the girl didn't seem to know him, and of course the girl saying that his roommate tried to stop it because she was saying no. Then his Facebook message, that could mean anything, but does indicate he was upset about something. He of course denies this happened. Also the police didn't seem to investigate at all.
Anyhow if you are trying to point out people's general hypocrisy when it is "their" guy then I'm in total agreement. I Just can't believe you don't see reasonable doubt in the Roethlisberger case.
If the discussion becomes about being sober enough to consent that is an entirely different conversation. It certainly seems like the girl in ben's case was incredibly intoxicated and probably past any standard that is applied to intoxication and consent. However, that opens a whole other can of worms as to whether or not Ben was guilty of rape.
To be perfectly clear from everything I have been told Ben was an ahole back in those days. Especially when he was drinking. Is it the most far fetched thing to think he crossed a line? No. In fact he probably did. Did it amount to rape. I can't make that conclusion
Anyhow if you are trying to point out people's general hypocrisy when it is "their" guy then I'm in total agreement. I Just can't believe you don't see reasonable doubt in the Roethlisberger case.
If the discussion becomes about being sober enough to consent that is an entirely different conversation. It certainly seems like the girl in ben's case was incredibly intoxicated and probably past any standard that is applied to intoxication and consent. However, that opens a whole other can of worms as to whether or not Ben was guilty of rape.
To be perfectly clear from everything I have been told Ben was an ahole back in those days. Especially when he was drinking. Is it the most far fetched thing to think he crossed a line? No. In fact he probably did. Did it amount to rape. I can't make that conclusion
The girl certainly was beyond the intoxication level to make consent. If it was me or you, that would be considered rape.
It might be considered rape if there was evidence of sex. There wasn't - unless the DA was lying.
I will state the obvious - Winston does not play for their favorite team.
------
IIRC, there was evidence. Med exam said there were abrasions consistent with sex and traces of latex indicating use of a condom. The question was was it consensual.
Just like the Penn State / Sandusky mess, you (and the rest of the public) has only heard a prosecution side, and are basing your "decision" based on one side of the case. Because he never needed to, you never got to hear the defense's side.
How many court cases do you think would result in a "not guilty" verdict if the jury only got to hear the prosecution's side? Hint: Somewhere close to 0%.
It's very short-sighted of you, and like the PSU case, many others, to draw conclusions based on the "evidence" (from only one side) that is out there.
I know if you just feel a certain way you can't help it, but I'm surprised you're unable to allow him to fully atone for these crimes. I get it, if the crime were abuse against a child, I'd feel the same as you, so I'm not saying it's absurd to feel that way.
I think what he did was disgusting, but I also think he didn't know it was disgusting. It's all he'd grown up around, so it was just normal to him. It's amazing what people can find completely normal if it's all they've been exposed to all their life. You just have to look at the vast differences in cultures around the world to see that. So I'd have trouble holding Vick's upbringing against him when he's done all he can to atone for his crimes, beyond what was required of him and going into voluntary efforts on his part.
Yeah, athletes having sex with drunken groupies is such a new and novel thing. I miss the good ole days of straight-laced, clean cut guys like Wilt Chamberlain and Arnold Palmer.
As I've said other places, I consider him as fully atoned as he can be. My position isn't that he should still be in jail (even though I do think the penalty for what he did was weak). I had no problem with the NFL letting him back in, and I have no problem with him being on a roster. I *personally* just don't want him wearing the jersey -- being a representative of -- my team. I wouldn't have cared if they hired him to sweep floors or do accounting work -- But the thought of him standing on the sidelines wearing the black and gold is repulsive to me.
There is a reason that retailers aren't knocking down his door begging him to endorse their products.
It's a personal decision though. As I've said (and may have said here), I have many Eagle-fan friends that didn't seem to have a problem with him playing for their team, and I didn't judge them for that. To each their own. I understand the other point of view too. It's just not one I share.
I can't help but wonder if those folks would be reacting differently if Vick was white and Ben was black
Oh for the love of God stop it. One has never so much as been charged with a crime. The other admitted his crimes and spent nearly two years in prison for it. When the situations differ that greatly, anyone acting like race must the reason is doing so because they want to believe that, not because of any rational thought.
---
Can we grow up and drop the racist crap?
Ask any Steeler fan who is favorite all-time player is and most will say Joe Greene or Franco. You could add Bettis, Hines, Swanny/Stallworth......
Ask any Bucco fan who is the fave and it will be Clemente followed by Stargel. You could add Sanguein, Cutch.....
Ask any hockey fan....ummmm ........never mind.
The question you should have asked is would the reaction to Vick's signing be different if Vick had won a couple of SBs and was still in his prime? No doubt it would.
I have to believe this is just some poor, stupid troll job attempt. Weak.
I actually owned a Georges Laraque shirt at one time, so you dont even have to 'never mind' the hockey part!
Similar threads
