Greg Bedard was right in predicting that there would be some noise about Ted Thompson’s recent non-comments on Michael Vick. Here’s what TT said. (si, pft, nfl.com others have already run with this story). For most Packer fans, this looks like very typical TT rhetoric – non-committal, saying mostly nothing. But it seems to me that if 24 other teams have already weighed in stating convincingly that Vick is not in their plans, if TT were not interested, it would have been far less of a headache for him to just do the same. Now, he’s let loose the hounds. While this may all mean absolutely nothing, I guess I was a little surprised that he chose to handle it this way.
This is an intriguing question and one I hadn’t considered much before now. Not sure what exactly I would do as GM. I suppose if I were forced to render an opinion at this moment, I would say we should definitely consider it (because I actually do agree with TT, we should consider lots of possibilities all the time), but in the end I would say no. The major reason I think we shouldn’t pursue Vick much further is that the smoke is just now clearing from a very high profile/media-hyped divorce with Favre. We don’t need any more fire/smoke right now and the fact is, wherever Vick goes he will carry with him some degree of flammability (to continue on way too far with this whole fire/smoke metaphor). I also don’t think Vick would be a huge contributor on this particular offense (though that may not be giving McCarthy enough credit – he could probably figure out some creative things to do with an athlete like Vick).
Now, if the Favre situation hadn’t just happened, I might be more inclined to consider Vick, but I’m still not sure I’d sign him. Some reasons for considering him seriously follow. First of all, the salary he’ll command likely won’t match his talent level – he just went through bankruptcy and he’s desperate for money/an opportunity. Second, he is one of the more gifted players out there. Third, we all know he can play at Lambeau. Fourth, though I’d have some misgivings about signing a convicted felon, and his crimes were vicious and profoundly stupid, I do believe he has served his time (unlike Donte Stallworth). Fifth, he would be a great player to have on the roster in case something happened to Aaron Rodgers. Sixth, even if he we couldn’t find a huge role for him on our offense, if he made some plays and proved to the world that he avoid getting involved in inane activities off the field, he could become good trade bait – especially for a team desperate for a QB.
Regardless of the real meaning behind TT’s comments, I put the question to you all: should the Packers consider signing Michael Vick?