Page 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 162

Thread: Tomlin wanted Vick in Pgh

  1. #81
    Maybe it's been pointed out already, but something to consider is that Mike Tomlin and Michael Vick are both from the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Maybe they're both familiar with each other.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v437/DBR96/PGH061Asmall.jpg
    Pittsburgh, PA: City of Champions.

  2. #82
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by DBR96A View Post
    Maybe it's been pointed out already, but something to consider is that Mike Tomlin and Michael Vick are both from the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Maybe they're both familiar with each other.
    Familiar with each other? Like MT attended the same dog fights?

  3. #83
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by steelz09 View Post
    The reason they were killed is important. That is the fundamental difference. If you don't put that into consideration this isn't even worth discussing. Think of the below analogy....

    1) A "favored" boxer loses a boxing match. Afterwards, the MGM Grand executes the "favored" boxer in the electric chair because the boxer performed poorly and likewise, bets were lost, TV ratings were poor and future attendance will suffer.

    2) A hiker in Alaska was attacked, killed and eaten by a Grizzly bear for no other reason than food.

    Both suffered a very unfortunate, unnecessary and cruel death.

    Basically, what you're saying is (1) is just as acceptable as (2) because they both suffered a cruel death. The fundamental difference is one harsh death is specifically geared around food and the food chain. The other is a senseless act of executing someone or something for not performing well. Vick did that to dogs. He didn't kill for the sake of food. If you can lump those 2 killings in the same category, I think that is messed up but thats your opinion. Are they both cruel killings? Yes. However, they were done for 2 COMPLETELY different reasons and they are not created equal in my mind
    Hmmm, logic and reason. Now those are 2 things I can appreciate.

  4. #84
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by stopplayn View Post
    Dogs are so important that God doesnt even mention them in the Bible. Nor does he mention them in His kingdom in Heaven. Not to diminish dogs in this realm but I find it ironic that they will play no role in the next realm Hmmmmm
    Excuse me. But not everyone is going to assume the Bible is the word of God. Who decided that? Because dogs are not mentioned in the Bible means we can torture them? My GOD, that's crazy. The Bible was written by men, and it was edited and changes 100s of times. And the story of Jesus is almost exactly the same as the story of Horus, supposedly lived 1000s of years before Jesus, had 12 disciples, born of a virgin mother, was son of God, etc.

  5. #85
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadman View Post
    If we question Tomlin's judgement, then we must question Tony Dungy's judgement. Dungy is generally regarded as a well-respected & thoughful man- he took Mike Vick under his wing & worked with him to get Vick back into the NFL community.

    Is it condoning Vick's actions?

    No.

    But it's giving him a second chance. We let criminals, murderers, rapists & what-not, walk from jail after they serve their time in punishment. Why should Vick be treated differently?
    The Steelers try hard to not have players with bad character issues; they are a clean image club. (Not saying they only have angels on the team, as we all know, but they do TRY to keep an image of a clean cut team, within reason. The gave Holmes away for peanuts just for hippie lettuce, and were close to dumping Ben for being a pig, etc.) There is no way in hell the Rooneys would consider adding a felon who killed dogs to the team; not saying that they wished Vick didn't get a 2nd chance, but it wasn't going to be on their team. For Tomlin not to automatically know this is mind boggling. Then again, maybe he did and was just giving Vick his support so another team would be more likely to give him a shot. That is possible.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by steelz09 View Post
    The reason they were killed is important. That is the fundamental difference. If you don't put that into consideration this isn't even worth discussing. Think of the below analogy....

    1) A "favored" boxer loses a boxing match. Afterwards, the MGM Grand executes the "favored" boxer in the electric chair because the boxer performed poorly and likewise, bets were lost, TV ratings were poor and future attendance will suffer.

    2) A hiker in Alaska was attacked, killed and eaten by a Grizzly bear for no other reason than food.

    Both suffered a very unfortunate, unnecessary and cruel death.

    Basically, what you're saying is (1) is just as acceptable as (2) because they both suffered a cruel death. The fundamental difference is one harsh death is specifically geared around food and the food chain. The other is a senseless act of executing someone or something for not performing well. Vick did that to dogs. He didn't kill for the sake of food. If you can lump those 2 killings in the same category, I think that is messed up but thats your opinion. Are they both cruel killings? Yes. However, they were done for 2 COMPLETELY different reasons and they are not created equal in my mind
    I'm not saying that what Vick did is somehow more acceptable...

    I'm saying that, if you are truly against the mistreatment of animals, than both are unacceptable...

    Your bear analogy would make more sense if the Grizzly bears kept a stable of humans locked up in inhumane conditions and then periodically slaughtered some of them in a cruel manner for food...

    It may be part of the food chain, but there is nothing sportsmanlike or accidental about the meat industry...

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by lloydroid View Post
    The Steelers try hard to not have players with bad character issues; they are a clean image club. (Not saying they only have angels on the team, as we all know, but they do TRY to keep an image of a clean cut team, within reason. The gave Holmes away for peanuts just for hippie lettuce, and were close to dumping Ben for being a pig, etc.) There is no way in hell the Rooneys would consider adding a felon who killed dogs to the team; not saying that they wished Vick didn't get a 2nd chance, but it wasn't going to be on their team. For Tomlin not to automatically know this is mind boggling. Then again, maybe he did and was just giving Vick his support so another team would be more likely to give him a shot. That is possible.
    If Tomlin had truly decided that he wanted Vick on the team, I believe that Vick would have been a Steeler...

    But, I think that, after careful consideration of all of the factors (Vick's record, Dungy's endorsement, Roethlisberger's legal problems and the Rooneys' opinion), Tomlin decided to pass...

    The HC considered every option to make the team better and came to the decision that the Vick option was not the right one at that time...

    That's pretty much exactly what I want my HC and my organization to do...

  8. #88
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,341
    I heard Tonkin didn't want DeCastro because he was white but Colbert and Rooney over ruled him.

  9. #89
    Legend
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,341
    Quote Originally Posted by lloydroid View Post
    The Steelers try hard to not have players with bad character issues; they are a clean image club. (Not saying they only have angels on the team, as we all know, but they do TRY to keep an image of a clean cut team, within reason. The gave Holmes away for peanuts just for hippie lettuce, and were close to dumping Ben for being a pig, etc.) There is no way in hell the Rooneys would consider adding a felon who killed dogs to the team; not saying that they wished Vick didn't get a 2nd chance, but it wasn't going to be on their team. For Tomlin not to automatically know this is mind boggling. Then again, maybe he did and was just giving Vick his support so another team would be more likely to give him a shot. That is possible.
    They didn't dump Holmes for weed... they dumped him because we weren't going to be able to afford to keep him and this was the best way to get some value for him.

    We brought in Plaxico but he wanted more than we were willing to offer.

    I also thought it was done as a favor to Dungy.

  10. #90
    Legend hawaiiansteel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawaii 5-0
    Posts
    15,153
    Quote Originally Posted by feltdizz View Post
    They didn't dump Holmes for weed... they dumped him because we weren't going to be able to afford to keep him and this was the best way to get some value for him.

    We brought in Plaxico but he wanted more than we were willing to offer.

    I also thought it was done as a favor to Dungy.

    Sanstonio's tweets where he suggested to one fan that he go kill himself also factored into why we got rid of him.

    as for Plaxiglass, we had an offer on the table for him but he decided to take the Jets' higher offer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •