Michael Vick named starter

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
damn now he quoted steve young

yay! we passed on some talented player because we were afraid of what the sf hipsters might think, even though they could give two s**ts about football.

ughh

Several teams had a chance to take Vick - only Eagles did. It's not because of what SF "hipsters" might think - everyone had reservations about him - whether it's SF or Tennessee.

I remember many people saying they didn't want a "dog killer" on the team, and a lot was said about oh it's san francisco, it has a bunch of liberals, if they bring him on the team, it'll be bad for the image and all this s**t. after all that, we quickly went on the media and said we had no interest in him.

what other possible reservations might we have had about him? he was never known as a cancer in the football field or in the locker room. i'm pretty sure the "image" was the deciding, if not the only factor for our refusal to even show interest.

i think even sing praised him before we closed the book on him.

He fell into a much better situation in Philly. He got to sit behind McNabb for year, has one of the best offensive minds to work with Reid, and has receivers that can get open deep and get RAC.

I don't think he would have flopped with us, but I think he would much closer to the Atlanta Vick than he is the Philly Vick if we signed him.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
damn now he quoted steve young

yay! we passed on some talented player because we were afraid of what the sf hipsters might think, even though they could give two s**ts about football.

ughh

Several teams had a chance to take Vick - only Eagles did. It's not because of what SF "hipsters" might think - everyone had reservations about him - whether it's SF or Tennessee.

I remember many people saying they didn't want a "dog killer" on the team, and a lot was said about oh it's san francisco, it has a bunch of liberals, if they bring him on the team, it'll be bad for the image and all this s**t. after all that, we quickly went on the media and said we had no interest in him.

what other possible reservations might we have had about him? he was never known as a cancer in the football field or in the locker room. i'm pretty sure the "image" was the deciding, if not the only factor for our refusal to even show interest.

i think even sing praised him before we closed the book on him.

He fell into a much better situation in Philly. He got to sit behind McNabb for year, has one of the best offensive minds to work with Reid, and has receivers that can get open deep and get RAC.

I don't think he would have flopped with us, but I think he would much closer to the Atlanta Vick than he is the Philly Vick if we signed him.

I'd gladly take the ATL Vick over our current situation, he vastly improved that team and took them to a couple of playoffs. Just ask Dan Reeves how big a difference Vick made.

all those in the nation which includes the 4th branch of the government...i meant the media are now lining up to lick MV's top dog nuts.

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
damn now he quoted steve young

yay! we passed on some talented player because we were afraid of what the sf hipsters might think, even though they could give two s**ts about football.

ughh

Several teams had a chance to take Vick - only Eagles did. It's not because of what SF "hipsters" might think - everyone had reservations about him - whether it's SF or Tennessee.

I remember many people saying they didn't want a "dog killer" on the team, and a lot was said about oh it's san francisco, it has a bunch of liberals, if they bring him on the team, it'll be bad for the image and all this s**t. after all that, we quickly went on the media and said we had no interest in him.

what other possible reservations might we have had about him? he was never known as a cancer in the football field or in the locker room. i'm pretty sure the "image" was the deciding, if not the only factor for our refusal to even show interest.

i think even sing praised him before we closed the book on him.

What I mean is - it wasn't just SF. Even Eagles were criticized by media, NFL fans and their own fans for signing him. Every team (except the Eagles) felt that it will be bad for their teams image - not just the Niners. The local Philadelphia media was shocked when Eagles signed Vick and were pretty upset with the team. Eagles owner had to explain and defend their choice. So, let's not make this into something the San Francisco "liberals or hipersters" didn't want. Majority of the country didn't want Vick to be on their team.

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
damn now he quoted steve young

yay! we passed on some talented player because we were afraid of what the sf hipsters might think, even though they could give two s**ts about football.

ughh

Several teams had a chance to take Vick - only Eagles did. It's not because of what SF "hipsters" might think - everyone had reservations about him - whether it's SF or Tennessee.

I remember many people saying they didn't want a "dog killer" on the team, and a lot was said about oh it's san francisco, it has a bunch of liberals, if they bring him on the team, it'll be bad for the image and all this s**t. after all that, we quickly went on the media and said we had no interest in him.

what other possible reservations might we have had about him? he was never known as a cancer in the football field or in the locker room. i'm pretty sure the "image" was the deciding, if not the only factor for our refusal to even show interest.

i think even sing praised him before we closed the book on him.

What I mean is - it wasn't just SF. Even Eagles were criticized by media, NFL fans and their own fans for signing him. Every team (except the Eagles) felt that it will be bad for their teams image - not just the Niners. The local Philadelphia media was shocked when Eagles signed Vick and were pretty upset with the team. Eagles owner had to explain and defend their choice. So, let's not make this into something the San Francisco "liberals or hipersters" didn't want. Majority of the country didn't want Vick to be on their team.

Boy am I glad we don't have Vick. All those td passes and td runs we don't need that.

Originally posted by susweel:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

Originally posted by ads_2006:
damn now he quoted steve young

yay! we passed on some talented player because we were afraid of what the sf hipsters might think, even though they could give two s**ts about football.

ughh

Several teams had a chance to take Vick - only Eagles did. It's not because of what SF "hipsters" might think - everyone had reservations about him - whether it's SF or Tennessee.

I remember many people saying they didn't want a "dog killer" on the team, and a lot was said about oh it's san francisco, it has a bunch of liberals, if they bring him on the team, it'll be bad for the image and all this s**t. after all that, we quickly went on the media and said we had no interest in him.

what other possible reservations might we have had about him? he was never known as a cancer in the football field or in the locker room. i'm pretty sure the "image" was the deciding, if not the only factor for our refusal to even show interest.

i think even sing praised him before we closed the book on him.

What I mean is - it wasn't just SF. Even Eagles were criticized by media, NFL fans and their own fans for signing him. Every team (except the Eagles) felt that it will be bad for their teams image - not just the Niners. The local Philadelphia media was shocked when Eagles signed Vick and were pretty upset with the team. Eagles owner had to explain and defend their choice. So, let's not make this into something the San Francisco "liberals or hipersters" didn't want. Majority of the country didn't want Vick to be on their team.

Boy am I glad we don't have Vick. All those td passes and td runs we don't need that.

I would have loved Vick on my team - but no one predicted Vick to play this well (not even Andy Reid). Hindsight is 20-20.