NFL MVP Race: Michael Vick Does Not Deserve Credit For His Hollywood Comeback
Let me start off by saying that I do like Mike Vick; he is one of the most electrifying quarterbacks to step on an NFL football field. I have forgiven him for the dog-fighting indiscretions as well, I'm over it. However, I don't think that his comeback story and triumph over this adversity should be factored into the discussion for the league's MVP.
A lot of people, including myself, give Vick a ton of credit for what he's done in coming back into the league after serving his sentence and rising into the league's elite, again. But, while this is a great story and most certainly a tough journey for Vick, it still shouldn't count in is his favor when debating him as the top MVP candidate.
Tom Brady and Phillip Rivers shouldn't be hindered in their chances because they never broke the law, and were never forced to come back from it. Neither of them ever bank-rolled a dog-fighting operation and went to prison. So, when comparing them to Vick, they should not lose an edge because they have been law abiding citizens.
Let's say it comes down between Brady and Vick (that's the likely scenario right now) and Brady has an ever-so-slim lead, but the voters decide that Vick deserves because of his Hollywood-esque comeback story. It doesn't seem logical that a player would lose an award race because he hadn't been convicted of a crime and had the opportunity to triumphantly return.
A example where this scenario hits close to home is at my work place. There is a policy where smokers get free classes to help them quit, and a $200 bonus if they are successful in quitting. While I see that this is a good way to get people to make themselves healthier, I would like $200 as well. However, I don't have the chance to get this reward because I avoided making a negative decision in the first place. Doesn't seem fair.
This is essentially the same as the Vick-Brady debate, where Brady should not be boxed out of a reward for making better decisions in his past.
Now, I'm not going to comment on who I think actually deserves the MVP, that's a entirely different discussion. The point is that in this discussion about the MVP, Vick overcoming this adversity he brought upon himself should not benefit him in comparison to the other candidates.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?