Reactions to the Upcoming "Vick Confidential" ESPN Article
According to ESPN.com, its affiliated magazine is set to publish a story in their upcoming September 5th issue that has to do with the confidential results of a poll regarding how current NFL players feel about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback and infamous superstar Michael Vick.
The poll surveyed 44 current NFL players, who shall remain anonymous, in an effort to gauge the league-wide perception of the Eagles' leading man.
On Wednesday afternoon, SportsCenter displayed the hard stats of the poll, which discovered that 100 percent of those surveyed said that they "liked" Vick. This comes as a surprise to many because, even though the vast majority of the NFL community has forgiven Vick, there are still those out there that are not so easily moved. Yet in NFL players' circles, it seems as though most of Vick's peers do not hold any resentment toward him.
That is all well and good, because even though I personally cannot allow myself to ever like Vick, I guess it's okay that those he plays with are able to do so. After all, he has not committed any acts of deviance since his return to the NFL, and perhaps others are simply more forgiving than I am.
Look, it's no secret to those that know me that I am one of the biggest Michael Vick critics out there. Yet even I have deviated a bit from the hard-line "Vick doesn't deserve a second chance" stance that I had firmly held for quite some time.
Because even I must admit, he is a real treat to watch on the field and his incredible talent is simply unmatched. As long as he continues to repair his image and does not fall back into old habits, maybe I won't be so hard on him in the future.
But what really bothers me about this upcoming article is that many of the players said that they actually "felt bad" for Vick due to the way he is still treated by some in the media. Furthermore, 58.1 percent believed that he had been treated unfairly during his criminal proceedings, and that his prison sentence was far too severe.
Too severe? The guy only served 18 months in prison after being convicted of running an underground organization that endorsed the killing of dogs—hardly just deserts for such a heinous act.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Vick should have spent the rest of his life in jail, and I realize that there are players currently in the NFL who have committed more severe crimes. But to say that you actually "feel bad" for Michael Vick, in any way, is absolutely ridiculous.
The man got a second chance at playing a game in a league that every young boy in America dreams about, and this was after being incarcerated in a federal institution. Not only that, but most average citizens who get out of federal prison have a tough time landing a job at McDonald's after their release, but this guy got to play in the NFL again. Wow, tough break there.
Vick is also now the most talked about player in the game today, and his jersey sales have reached astronomical numbers over the past three seasons. Fans everywhere cannot stop raving about his electric playing style and MVP-like performance last season, and now he is set to receive even more praise this season with his team looking like the NFC favorite to reach the Super Bowl.
Also, I truly cannot remember the last time that I've seen a story published about the dog fighting scandal. It seems as though the vast majority of the public has either forgotten about it, or simply does not feel as though it is important any longer. So where is this incessant criticism that is being mentioned in this article? Because honestly, I just don't see it.
So spare me the sap story about how Michael Vick still gets a bad rap from some people in the media. Because quite frankly, most of the general public is actually treating him like the second coming of Christ. I have no problem with him trying to rebuild his life after such a dark time, but for people to feel any sympathy toward the guy at all is not only completely ignorant, but it is also downright pathetic.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?