Chicago Sun-Times Writer Wants Michael Vick as the Chicago Bears' 2009 Quarterback

Carol Slezak, a writer for the Chicago Sun-Times, is trying to start a push for the Bears to sign Michael Vick when he is released from prison on July 20. In what appears to be an effort to avoid the inevitable venom headed her way in initial reactions -- which most likely range from "you're kidding me," to profanity-laced tirades -- she loaded this sucker up with disclaimers. Here's an example:

Let's assume he will leave federal prison rehabilitated in every way. Let's assume he has learned the serious nature of his crimes and is repentant. Let's assume he is drug-free. Let's assume that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reinstates him. Under these circumstances, is there any reason why the Bears shouldn't be interested in him?

That's a ton of assumptions, but I'll be a good sport. There's nothing more frustrating in writing when people can't slice through all the technicalities and hear you out. To answer her last question, I have a few reasons.

1. He gets out of freaking federal prison on July 20. That means he'll have roughly six weeks to join the team, learn the offense, and develop a rapport with a sub-par, at best, receiving unit.

2. He's never been a good passer. Many times this season Devin Hester's ability to get loose downfield was negated by the inability of quarterbacks to connect with him. Vick won't solve that.

3. While it's true Vick is still only 28, we can't be sure his running ability is still there. Running backs start to wear down around age 30, and that's not following a sentence in the pen.

With the three above points in mind, I don't think signing him is worth the unbelievable P.R. disaster sure to ensue following a Michael Vick signing.

The 2004 version of Vick in this Bears offense would have a good shot at working, but he's not that same guy.

Finally, I can't wrap my head around how up in the arms the Chicago media would be about bringing in Vick, considering they about blew a gasket over the Cubs' signing of Milton Bradley. Bradley is a saint compared to Vick.

Addendum: After publishing, MDS pointed me to a piece from before my FanHouse days where Ms. Slezak destroyed the Bears for drafting Greg Olsen. Why? Because he used language in a rap song which was less than friendly towards women. So calling a woman a "ho" is worse than torturing and maiming dogs. Got it, Carol.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)

1-06-2009 @ 2:35PM

Dan said...

Ok. Let's assume this Carol Slezak is an experienced journalist. Let's assume she's seen a football game. Let's assume that she has watched the Chicago Bears and analyzed their needs. Let's assume she knows who Michael Vick is and even watched a game he played. Let's assume she's able to logically draw conclusions based on evidence and information....

She still suggested that a team sign Michael Vick and let him play quarterback so only two of those assumptions are founded. She's probably an experienced tabloid journalist who knows that Michael Vick is a lightning rod doomed to draw strikes until he's washed up and destitute. Being in Chicago while he draws attention would assure her any number of call-ins to national shows and boost her image.

1-06-2009 @ 2:47PM

Matt Snyder said...

Well played on the first paragraph, sir.

1-06-2009 @ 3:01PM

So I can't reply to your reply, I guess...

Can we expect a "What the Bears need this offseason" article from you once the season is over? I'm looking forward to something more than getting any nationally-recognized quarterback and wait for the wins to pile up. I have high hopes for you...

1-06-2009 @ 3:04PM

Definitely. We'll be doing offseason roadmaps after the Super Bowl for every team, and I'll have the Bears, you can be sure of that.

Thanks for the support.

1-06-2009 @ 2:46PM

T said...

Carol has always been subpar at best.The Vick of writers

1-06-2009 @ 2:40PM

jerry said...

I believe that the current NFL team owners have too much respect for the game (with the exception of Al Davis) to put the low-life convicted criminal Vick on their roster. We'll see what happens but the public and Fans are about fed up with the stupid hoods and gangsters infiltrating Professional Sports. There are way to many talented, moral and law abiding skilled atheletes to deal with the morons. Remember it isn't a game for these guys, it's a business>>big business..

1-06-2009 @ 2:56PM

dirtybirds4life said...

everybody has made their mistakes.some worse then others ,including you and me.the guy time almost up,give him a chance to work again.If he screws up again its on him not anyone else.

1-06-2009 @ 5:37PM

David said...

What's the difference with Vick? You have a bunch of unconvicted low lifes playing on Sunday anyway. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. Is dog fighting any worse than drug abuse? Let's be real! You finally got O.J. live with it.

1-06-2009 @ 7:23PM

Brian said...

Jerry,

Dallas Cowboys? Ethics? NFL? Come on, he will be a RB or WR for someone (which would be fun to watch!) other than the Raiders.

1-06-2009 @ 2:55PM

John said...

Not to mention the fact he would need to be reinstated by the NFL.

1-06-2009 @ 4:06PM

LA26 said...

If Pacman can get "unlimited" chances....why can't Vick get a second?

1-06-2009 @ 3:11PM

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa said...

what are you Redding from he is a redskin

1-06-2009 @ 3:18PM

Sully said...

Vick in the NFL? Let's see, how many players on the Bengals roster that got arrested are and convicted or plea-bargained are still playing? How many guys that took banned substances are still playing? What about PacMan Jones? The point is that everyone deserves a second chance, and has been already stated, some team should take a chance on him, with stipulations in his contract, and if he screws up even once, then bye, bye Michael? Don't forget what he did! Don't forgive what he did! Trust and respect are "earned" not assumed, and give him a chance to earn back the people's faith in him. Otherwise, the league is begin hypocritical after letting other convicted players continue to play. You can't have it both ways!

1-06-2009 @ 3:36PM

David W said...

Sully:
Great points. Let me respond.

Pacman should not be in the NFL. Period. He's gotten an extra chance too many. That being said....

..he didn't get convicted of anything to the extent that Vick has. He's in the league and Vick isn't simply because MICHAEL VICK IS IN JAIL AND HE ISN'T. That's a HUGE caveat. Don'tcha think?

I am all for giving people second chances but let's be honest: the rules for holding a "regular" job and QBing an NFL team are hugely different. NFL players - QBs in particular - are faces for their team. There is a calibre of character that is required, which is why people get suspended for minor legal infractions and even guilt-by-association. Second chances for gun possession, PED's and DUIs are one thing. Second chances for killing dogs and running an illegal criminal operation are an entirely different thing.

1-06-2009 @ 3:20PM

Gene said...

2 things.
1) "3. While it's true Vick is still only 28, we can't be sure his running ability is still there. Running backs start to wear down around age 30, and that's not following a sentence in the pen."

when you think about it the year in the slammer would actually be a good thing in terms of vicks wear-&-tear 2 years off of football to recouperate the body (which may or may not be true, i dont really know what goes on in prisons). The way i think of it is that with running backs its not really about age its about usage, some can take more of a beating than others but in the end they will reach a point where they can do no more. This is why i think that Mike Turner can play effectively until hes around 35 and why the giants dont give Jacobs that many carries, but thats a different story

2) there is a good chance vicks return is not as a QB, maybe as a reciever/return man
When Miami invented the wildcat Vicks career may have been revived

1-06-2009 @ 3:32PM

You can see it coming.....the racists and the pc lib guilters..you are an idiot..no you are an idiot...so let it begin

1-06-2009 @ 5:32PM

MSW said...

Can't wait to make a Carol Slezak doll and feed it to my dog!!!!!!

1-06-2009 @ 3:50PM

Hugh said...

The next time Vick gets a job, He'll be saying... Paper or plastic, Ma'am?

1-06-2009 @ 3:49PM

Skippy said...

Vick at QB? Oh, please. Look what Ryan did with the same (if not less) talent at WR? Vick just can't throw the football well. That's a fatal flaw for a QB!

I completely agree with Gene -- the best place for Vick is Miami. Make him a Slash type player. Imagine Vick running the wildcat?

1-06-2009 @ 3:58PM

Hey David W, under the law, he will have paid his dues and served his time. Whether or not he remains a criminal or not will be judged over time. Mike Tyson went to prison for three years for rape, and he was allowed to fight come back and fight for the title. Granted, that's boxing, but where does the NFL or any other sport draw the line? There is no rule that states that he cannot apply for reinstatement. If there was, end of discussion, because hsi NFL career would be done. However, the law said he has paid his dues and will be free next summer. The NFL says that he can apply for reinstatement. That decision is up to the commissioner. Those are the laws of the land and the NFL. Period. Whether anyone takes a chance on him remains to be seen, but if I were him, I would want to land somewhere like Seattle where he won't draw as much attention. Hey, I wouldn't want him or Pacman either (and I'm a Cowboys fan and I didn't want Pacman when we got him and then he screwed up again and is still on the team!), but that is not the issue. The fact remains that he deserves a chance. Suppose it was you in his shoes! Wouldn't you want a second chance to redeem yourself? In fact, if I were him, I would sign a contract and give all the money to the ASPCA. It won't make up for what he did, but it would be a step in the right direction.