8 comments Bill Simmons Tells Us What We Thought of the Mike Vick Era

One of the biggest trends I have noticed in Bill Simmons' writing is his ability to use the proverbial "we" when talking about an athlete. Bill often says "we" thought this or "we" thought that when discussing an athlete. He tends to take what he believes, and because he has such a high amount of respect for his own opinion, will decide that everyone else thought this as well. He doesn't always sum up an athlete's legacy in terms of what he thought about that athlete, but feels the need to throw quite a few "we" statements in the article. Bill wants to talk about Mike Vick's legacy. So let's find out what we thought about the Mike Vick era. 

Michael Vick's career is like football Play-Doh — an amorphous hunk that you can shape however you want. You could craft a Vick-centric essay about redemption just as easily as one about squandered potential.

I personally would go with an essay about redemption for a player who squandered his potential. That's just me. Bill is correct about this. There are several ways to view Mike Vick. 

Even the process of drafting Vick was polarizing. When Vick declared for 2001's NFL draft after just two Virginia Tech seasons, Peter King wrote a Sports Illustrated piece headlined "Risky Business," with the subhead "Snakebitten San Diego will likely cast its lot with Michael Vick, who's making a perilous leap from college sophomore to No. 1 pick in the NFL draft."

In a pure coincidence fellow Virginian Allen Iverson was on the cover of this issue. Both players are from Virginia and were fairly polarizing.

It's an uncanny piece to reread, like someone sneaked into SI's Vault and updated the piece to foreshadow what happened. Certain experts like Phil Simms, Bill Walsh and Steve Young openly worried about Vick's lack of accuracy, lack of patience, lack of maturity, and his ability to hold up physically throughout an NFL season.

Of course Bill Walsh liked Brian Griese the best out of all the players in this draft, so let's keep that in mind. This column also contains some money quotes about the 2001 draft like,

What's more, with the draft less than a week away, San Diego had not received a single trade offer for the top pick, so the club has opened contract negotiations with Vick. What's inhibiting the trade market is the fact that, after Vick, no one in the draft has much sizzle.

Naturally, the Chargers ended up trading the first pick and receiving two Hall of Fame players in return. So much for worrying about players with sizzle.

What's inhibiting the trade market is the fact that, after Vick, no one in the draft has much sizzle.

While true, this is a lesson as to why a team shouldn't just look for "sizzle." Here's a list of players who were available in this draft and ended up being Hall of Famers or very good players:

Justin Smith
Drew Brees
LaDainian Tomlinson
Richard Seymour
Casey Hampton
Reggie Wayne
Chad Johnson
Matt Light
Steve Smith

I'm even leaving a few players out who may deserve a mention, like Kris Jenkins/TJ Houshmandzadeh. So there wasn't much sizzle, but I count 3-4 Hall of Famers in there after the first pick.

The second player picked could be Gerard Warren, a defensive tackle from Florida who, arguably, would be the most unheralded No. 2 of all time.

And for good reason...he wasn't very good.

"The real question you have to ask yourself," says Simms, "is whether any person in this draft can change your franchise. There's one: Michael Vick."

Sorry Drew Brees and LaDainian Tomlinson, Phil Simms no like you very much. Clearly you can see the expertise Simms now shows as CBS' top NFL analyst take shape in his analysis of the players in the 2001 draft that could change a franchise.

That leaves one question for the Chargers to investigate: What about Vick's personality, work ethic and desire?..Chargers quarterbacks coach Mike Johnson has spent more than two weeks on the Blacksburg campus, interviewing Vick and his coaches and teammates. "Mike's been there so much the whole athletic department calls him by his first name," Riley says. "He swears by Michael."

Mike Vick (and his teammates) admitted that many times with the Atlanta Falcons he was the last one to practice and the first one to leave practice. His work ethic wasn't always the best many times in Atlanta. Shockingly, the Virginia Tech coaches swore by Mike Vick and didn't mention any issues with his work ethic. College coaches standing by one of their athletes when it comes to evaluating their pro prospects, what crazy turn of events will happen next?

Back to Bill telling us what we thought about Mike Vick...

When Vick couldn't agree to contract terms with the Chargers, they flipped that pick to Atlanta for the no. 5 and no. 67 picks, a 2002 second-rounder and receiver Tim Dwight, then rebuilt by using no. 5 on LaDainian Tomlinson and a second-rounder on Purdue's Drew Brees. At the time, we thought Atlanta fleeced the Chargers.

"We" actually didn't think this. I thought it was an even trade because I loved Drew Brees/Tomlinson and absolutely hated Mike Vick because I hated Virginia Tech. So my bias helped me end up being correct. I shouldn't be shocked that Bill with Bill's usage of "we" and how he believes his opinion represents the opinion of an entire group. After all, he does believe himself to be the voice of the fan and the Celtics/Patriots/Red Sox media representative. In fact, he is probably to blame for some of the Boston hatred in sports and Bill did want to be President of Red Sox Nation at one point as well. 

I thought the Chargers did well in this trade because I hated Vick, but I guess I am learning that Bill knows I truly thought the Chargers got fleeced.

Within a few years, we thought San Diego fleeced the Falcons.

I am not sure I agree with this either. Of course Bill does know what "we" thought better than "we" do, so who am I to argue with him? Vick led the Falcons to the NFC Championship Game in 2004, the NFC Divisional Players in 2002, and brought the team a lot of attention during his time in Atlanta. I wouldn't say the Falcons got fleeced in this trade really.

Really, that was par for the course this century — thanks to sports blogs, message boards, Internet columns, 24-hour radio stations, talking-head shows, three-hour pregame shows and instant tweets, we've entered something of an Instant Flip-Flop Era. It doesn't matter what you thought, just what you think right now (and how swiftly and aggressively you can express that opinion).

Who boldly helped lead us into this era with shows like "Around the Horn," "Cold Pizza/First Take," and by giving Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, and other announcing columnists a forum? Bill's employer, ESPN. So Bill is basically commenting on a trade that his employer helped start. Thanks ESPN!

Take me, for example.

Bill has flip-flopped continuously on the subject of Mike Vick, but it isn't his fault because everyone was doing it. The proverbial "everyone" has flip-flopped on Mike Vick, so Bill is just following the crowd. This doesn't make Bill less credible or indicate that he changes his opinion with the tide of public opinion in a way that his opinion of Mike Vick should reflect negatively on him because everyone was doing it. So by lumping the entire sports-loving general public together into one group it means Bill wasn't ever wrong about Mike Vick. His ego stays intact and that's the important thing.

I probably changed my opinion on Vick 10 times, and only because Vick's ceiling dramatically dwarfed the actual results.

It isn't Bill's fault he changed his opinion on Vick, it is the fault of Vick's ceiling. Plus we live in an age where everyone changes their mind constantly on every sports topic. Bill can't emphasize this enough, but his flip-flopping on the subject of Mike Vick is not his fault nor does it reflect poorly on Bill in any way. Bill is the official voice of the fan and because he changed his mind on Mike Vick that means everyone else did too. After all, how can the guy who believes he speaks for every sports fan be wrong? What Bill believes, everyone believes. His ego can't accept the alternative that he truly doesn't speak for the entire sports-loving world and his SimmonsClones are glad to uphold him as their leader because they treat him with a cult-like form of respect.

Two years ago, a reader e-mailed that a friend had texted during a Giants game, "Michael Vick is Michael Vicking. If you turned off the Eagles game, turn it back on now." The reader added, "That's all it took for us to switch the channel in time to see a ridiculous comeback. What other athletes could have their name turn into a verb?"

One of Bill's readers says Vick was "Michael Vicking" and now this observation has turned into an example which supports Bill's argument that no other athlete could have their name turned into a verb...which isn't even accurate.

Tim Tebow? Remember "Tebowing?"

Robert Griffin? There was a "Griffining" trend earlier in the year.

Any time Tony Romo does something negative in a game, you read a bunch of Tweets that say something to the effect of "That's so Romo."

I am sure there are other examples, but I try not to analyze the words of SimmonsClones too much. The relationship between Bill and his SimmonsClones is such a co-dependent relationship. They think he is very creative and funny, so they tell him that in an effort to get recognition in the mailbag of ESPN's most popular columnist, while Bill sees how these people worship him and it feeds his ego and reminds him that he is indeed the funniest, most creative guy in the room at all times...which simply reinforces what his ego already tells him. His SimmonsClones get recognition and attention from Bill Simmons, while Bill Simmons gets his ego massaged by followers who worship his every move.

You used the word "if" with him more than most.

Oh, I did? I didn't know I did that. Thanks for knowing me better than I know myself. Actually, thanks for knowing a million people better than they knew themselves.

Because of his prodigious athletic gifts, we judged Vick by a higher standard — like we did with Barry Sanders before him, or even Josh Hamilton and Russell Westbrook right now.

Oh, I guess "we" did do that didn't we? Or did "we" do that? I simply wanted Vick to be more accurate in passing the football and if that is judging him by a higher standard than consider me guilty. Since Bill knows me better than I know me I guess I don't judge any quarterbacks other than Vick on their accuracy.

After a profoundly unhappy 2006 season marred by a bizarre airport incident — Vick tossing away a water bottle that had a secret marijuana compartment in it — everyone acknowledged that something had gone drastically wrong.

Everyone acknowledged this. Everyone.

We had no way of knowing one of the worst sports scandals ever was looming.

Well, this "we" is probably fairly accurate. I give Bill no credit for using "we" here since he uses it through this entire column though.

Either you considered him a game-breaking, franchise-altering talent or (waving hands robotically) someone who cannot help you contend consistently in the National Football League.

Oh, thanks for telling me. I didn't know I had to fall into one of those two groups. Thanks for clearing that up for me about the fact I fell into one of two groups. And here I was under the mistaken impression in my brain that I really thought Mike Vick was a franchise-altering talent who didn't have the work ethic or accuracy to ever achieve the potential I thought he could reach, but he could have games where he would be the best NFL quarterback in the NFL and games where is lack of accuracy and bad decision-making would hurt his team. I guess I didn't think that. I'm learning so much about me today.

Race hovered over Vick's career more than we ever wanted to admit.

What? Mind. Blown. I've never read this angle before. Next thing you will know Bill will tell us race affected how Allen Iverson was perceived.

Fellow Newport News native Allen Iverson pushed similar boundaries in the NBA, where certain fans struggled to identify with an African American iconoclast who covered himself in tattoos (a radical look in the late 1990s), braided his hair (that too) and carried himself so defiantly during games.

Bill, I just want to say that "we" think this is brilliant insight. Everyone does.

You know what happened next: Vick's life turned into a walking 30 for 30 episode.

So this is a Bill Simmons pop culture reference referring to a series of sports documentaries that Bill himself helped to create. Is this the same as a humblebrag or is this just a self-referential pop culture reference. Either way, I like the way Bill creates brand synergy. I'm just surprised this sentence isn't sponsored by Subway.

But what if that porous Saints defense gets Vick going? Would you rule it out? The reason Reid should definitely start Foles is the same reason Vick might save his career. He might throw for three scores and run for two more.

It turns out Vick completed 53.7% of his passes, threw for 272 yards with a touchdown pass and threw an interception.

What will this mean? What will you say to yourself as Vick limps off the field, still untwisting his skinny body from the two 275-pound guys who fell on him? Was he not nearly good as we thought? Was he better than we thought? Was he both?

What's with Bill and his need over the past few months to eulogize a player's career? He did this with LaDainian Tomlinson and now he is doing it with Mike Vick. 

I don't know what "we" will say. Perhaps since Bill knows what everyone is thinking he can just go ahead and tell me what I will be thinking. I think I know what I will be thinking. I will be thinking that Mike Vick was a game-changing player who committed too many turnovers and wasn't always accurate enough to be the quarterback I thought he could be. I just hope what Bill knows I think is the same thing as I think I think.

Before you answer that question, just for the hell of it, here are 20 things you may or may not know about Michael Vick:

6. Vick's career passer rating? 80.7 … good for 53rd all time. And yet, 18 current starting QBs have a higher career QB rating than 80.7, including Matt Hasselbeck (82.3), Josh Freeman (81.1) and Matt Cassel (80.9).

Passer rating is a flawed system in some ways. I'm just happy Bill didn't use Total QBR as part of ESPN's attempt to create new statistics they want us to use, even though it's sort of a mystery how ESPN calculates Total QBR.

11. Vick never threw for 3,000 yards during an Atlanta season. Which seems inconceivable until you remember …

12. Vick's leading Atlanta receivers by season: Brian Finneran (2002: 838 yards, 6 TDs), Peerless Price (2003: 838 yards, 3 TDs), Alge Crumpler (2004: 774 yards, 8 TDs), Crumpler (2005: 877 yards, 5 TDs) and Crumpler (2006: 780 yards, 8 TDs). In 2010, DeSean Jackson (1,056 yards, 6 TDs) and Jeremy Maclin (964 yards, 10 TDs) were the best receiving targets Michael Vick has EVER had.

There is a somewhat symbiotic relationship between a quarterback and his receivers. They can work to make each other better or worse. Considering Vick had a completion percentage of 53.8% in Atlanta, I would venture to say it wasn't completely the fault of Falcons receivers they didn't put up better numbers. Granted, Vick wasn't blessed with great receivers, but a quarterback can make his receivers look better by being accurate with his passes. It's no coincidence a guy like Jacob Tamme has had his two best seasons with Peyton Manning throwing him the football. I get Bill's point, though I would add Jackson had his best year receiving in 2009 when Vick wasn't his quarterback and both Jackson and Maclin didn't play as well in 2011 with Vick as the quarterback. Vick never had great receivers prior to Jackson/Maclin, but a great quarterback can make his receivers better by being accurate.

14. Those 19,735 career yards rank him 97th overall, less than Jay Cutler, Aaron Brooks, Gus Frerotte, Bobby Hebert and Jake Delhomme, and a few thousand yards less than Bernie Kosar, Brian Sipe, Jeff Garcia and Culpepper.

I understand these numbers and their purpose, but Vick wasn't really a passing quarterback like these guys were. Vick could pass the football, but his running ability is what set him apart. So it doesn't shock me he isn't high on the career passing yards list.

17. Of everyone since 1960, Vick ranks 87th in "Game-Winning Drives" with 14, trailing the likes of Jeff Blake (16), Hebert (16), David Garrard (18), O'Donnell (19), Jon Kitna (22) and Jake Delhomme (25).

19. Just for fun …

Delhomme: 96 career starts, 56-40 record, 81.3 QB rating, 20,975 passing yards, 126 TDs, 101 INTs, 5-3 playoff record, 1 Super Bowl appearance.

Vick: 99 starts, 56-41-1 record, 80.7 QB rating, 19,375 passing yards, 120 passing TDs, 80 INTs, 2-3 playoff record, 0 Super Bowl appearances.

I actually made a comparison like this a few years ago when I was having an argument with a friend over how Mike Vick was more glitz than substance. This comparison shows me what I already figured. Both quarterbacks were mistake-prone, but when it came down to it, their core numbers weren't that different. It is important to remember that Vick is only 32 years old so if he starts or plays for another couple of years he will probably surpass Delhomme in terms of passing yardage and touchdown passes. Still, at 99 starts his numbers are similar to Jake Delhomme, but Vick is considered much more of an exciting player than Delhomme was. The glitz and ability of Vick running with the football is what sets him apart from Delhomme.

20. In Vick's two playoff wins, he threw for 199 yards combined. Michael Vick hasn't won a playoff game since January 15, 2005, the same month Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston separated.

And we all know the only effective way to measure time is through the Pitt-Aniston method of time measurement. Personally, I chart all sports accomplishments based on what Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston's relationship was like at that time.

So it's all a matter of perception. Comparing him to other no. 1 overall picks, he comes off surprisingly well: If you made a list of the top-five picks from 1986 through 2010, Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, Eli Manning and Drew Bledsoe would be the first four (in that order), but Vick might actually beat Orlando Pace, Keyshawn Johnson, Vinny Testaverde, Matt Stafford and Jake Long for the fifth spot.

No, Mike Vick would not beat Orlando Pace for a place on this list. Orlando Pace is a Hall of Fame offensive lineman. So no, I wouldn't think Vick beats Pace at all.

Vick also accomplished something relatively dubious that remains somewhat amazing: spending nearly two years in jail, not starting a professional football game for four solid years, then shaking off the rust for his greatest season. When will we see THAT again?

We will probably never see that specific situation again. In fact, Mike Vick didn't even do this. He started 16 games during the 2006 season and started during the first game of the 2010 season. By my calculations he didn't start an NFL game for three entire seasons, which isn't four years. To be more precise, though I won't use the Pitt-Aniston calculation of time measurement so you can feel free to question my methods, Vick's last start in 2006 was on December 31, 2006. His next start was on September 12, 2010. That is not four solid years. I'm nitpicking, but that span between starts is less than four years and Vick was in the NFL and throwing passes in regular season games during the 2009 season. His 2010 season was great, but Bill is exaggerating a little bit.

I loved the symmetry of Robert Griffin III entering the NFL during the same season as Vick's possible farewell,

This isn't necessarily Vick's farewell season. He will at least be a backup somewhere. Bill seems to be trying to reach for a contrived storyline.

a mulligan of sorts for everything we ever loved about Vick.

Not really.

Back when I played Madden seasons, I always played the Patriots — always, always, without fail — except for one time in 2004 when I couldn't resist playing one Falcons season. I wanted to be Michael Vick. And it was like opening up a whole new world. You could throw the ball 60 yards, run like the wind, escape four defenders at once, save any play. You were never out of the game. You could score from anywhere on the field. I remember playing six or seven Falcons games and putting up absolutely outrageous Vick stats —

If no one cares to hear about another person's fantasy team, then people care even less to hear about how another person's game of "Madden" went or what happened while playing a game of "Madden."

After the game, they told me Video Mike was out for the year. I sulked for about 20 seconds, eventually pressing the RESET button and pretending the game never happened. 

Thanks for updating us on a "Madden" season that you played eight years ago. I can't fathom why Bill believes (a) a video game should have any relevance on how Mike Vick will be considered as an NFL player or (b) why Bill believes we care about the results of the video game he played eight years ago. 

You're probably wondering why I remember something this mundane, 

Because for some reason you equate a player's video game legacy to his legacy on the football field? Because you are truly ridiculous enough to believe a player can be judged in real life on his exploits when you control that player on a video game?

and here's the answer: You always remember being immortal, even when it isn't real.

Here's another answer: This makes not of sense.

And no, the real Vick doesn't get a RESET button on Monday.

What a way to circle back and make a valiant attempt at a deep thought. Rick Reilly would be impressed.

"And yes, while Vick has spent part of his life torturing dogs as part of his legacy, maybe these dogs can be a part of the redemption Vick never had because of our own out-sized expectations for him."

Like everything else that happened during the Michael Vick era, you will be prepared for anything and everything. Maybe it's not the greatest legacy, but it's something.

One thing I dislike about a Bill Simmons attempt at a serious column is that he can't help but include some sense of vapidness when trying to be serious. As part of his "I'm now being serious about Vick's legacy" portion of the column, he includes observations about Vick as it pertains to video games. This is just like when he was eulogizing LaDainian Tomlinson, he couldn't help but factor in Tomlinson's fantasy football numbers as if they were apart of his NFL legacy. It's like he can't help but include some sense of stupid reasoning into what he writes.

This column has been updated.

Of course we don't know what exactly was updated, but that shouldn't shock us. Just like how Bill won't allow comments on his columns, Bill can't ruin the illusion he is always correct.

9 comments ...Our Pets' Heads are Falling Off!: Week 3

Pretty exciting week in the NFL this week. The best part was that I got NFL Network added to my cable package (thanks again Time Warner Cable) the day AFTER the Panthers and Giants played on Thursday night. Then on Sunday when three of the early games went to overtime I was informed I no longer had NFL Red Zone because I need a different sports package, even though Time Warner Cable sent me an email saying I had NFL Red Zone as part of the NFL Network package. So in summary, I had to turn the channel in order to watch football and didn't have the highlights handed to me on one channel. Life is hard.


New York Giants 36 Carolina Panthers 7

I'll start with the worst game of the week that was unfortunately given a primetime spot. The Giants didn't need Nicks, didn't need Bradshaw, and didn't need David Diehl. I always say, "that's why you have backups" when a key player goes down and the Giants exemplify this. Had the Panthers showed up and had a good showing, I'm still not sure they would have won the game. This is what happens when a quarterback in his prime goes against a defense that clearly isn't capable of giving a full, consistent effort. Cam Newton did score a touchdown and then get to do the Superman routine he loves so much. It was pretty much performance art at that point since the game was already decided. If the fans are going to waste their Thursday night on a team that clearly doesn't give a shit, then he may as well have given them 5-10 seconds of excitement. It seemed the only ones who couldn't catch an Eli Manning pass was the Panthers secondary, while the Panthers defense decided they prefer to watch the offense to play from behind for the third consecutive game. It's become a tradition now and they don't want to break tradition. The idiotic talking heads tried to design this game as Newton's "coming out party" while forgetting he is still a second year quarterback learning. It's fun to set unfair high expectations and then thrash a player when he can't reach those expectations. Eli Manning had those high expectations, was seen by many as sort of a game manager for a couple of seasons at the beginning of his career (lowering the expectations), and now everyone realizes he is actually a great quarterback. Quarterbacks have to have help and the Giants did a great job of getting players ready to go when Manning needed that help.

Oakland Raiders 34 Pittsburgh Steelers 31

It's weird, but it seems like every time the Steelers are missing a key defensive member they lose a road game. They were missing Ryan Clark and lost to Denver twice in Denver (once in the playoffs last year and the first game of the year this year) and in this game against the Raiders they were missing Troy Polamalu and James Harrison, so they lost to Oakland in Oakland. Oakland didn't move the ball very well in the first half, but in the second half Carson Palmer seemed to forget it is not 2005 and he started playing incredibly well. Of course Roethlisberger played very well also, as usual, and putting up 31 points should absolutely have won the game. It's a good thing they don't give out "Wins" for NFL quarterbacks like they do for MLB pitchers. If they did, I am sure Murray Chass would have said Roethlisberger needed to play to the score better than he did. Roethlisberger did the equivalent of pitching 8 shutout innings only to have his bullpen blow the lead in the ninth inning. In all seriousness, I am a bit surprised at how well the Raiders played offensively. After all he did during this game, I will not be surprised if Darren McFadden takes off either next week or the next two weeks due to an injury. An 18 carry game for McFadden has to cause him an injury in some way, right? He's like Mr. Glass.

Houston Texans 31 Denver Broncos 25

I used to always say when a John Fox coached team got down early in the game, that team had no chance to come back. I guess the one caveat to my line of thinking is who the quarterback for that John Fox coached team is Peyton Manning. I picked the Texans to win 9 games this year and they are already 33% there, which further proves I am an idiot and never pick a team's record correctly. I'm guessing the Broncos strategy of getting down early and trying to come back by throwing the ball to get back in the game is not working. They may want to switch this strategy around. This would never be happening if Tim Tebow was still the Broncos quarterback. If Tim Tebow was still the Broncos quarterback the Broncos would have somehow managed to not only come back against the Texans, but win the game and somehow manage to negate points the Texans had scored until that point. Anything is possible with ex-backup QB punt protector Jets. Obviously the Texans didn't feel they had a choice, but the Texans seemed to struggle defensively once they backed off being very aggressive and playing a softer defense. I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook will have something to say about that on Tuesday. Tracy Porter was benched in this game because the Texans figured out early what the NFC figured out a couple of seasons ago, that Porter isn't really that great of a cornerback. He did pick off a pass in the first game of the year to help the Broncos beat the Steelers, but it is hard to pick off a pass if the opposing team doesn't feel comfortable throwing in your direction. So the Broncos are now 1-2 and I wonder if this will cause sportswriters to prematurely write off the Broncos, just like they will prematurely write off the Steelers because they are 1-2.

Atlanta Falcons 27 San Diego Chargers 3

The Falcons are really on a roll right now. Remembering what a roll they are on right now, let's also remember they are only three and a half short months away from nearly getting shutout in a playoff game, so look forward to that. What's so impressive about the Falcons over the first three games of the season is the way the defense is playing. They are creating turnovers and looked very good overall, especially in this game against the Chargers. The Chargers continued to be that team no one can figure out. They are either (a) a good team who had a bad day or (b) an average team who had an easy schedule in the first two games and their true colors showed through in this game. The Chargers haven't done an excellent job of surrounding Rivers with talent. His best running back is Jackie Battle and his receivers are Floyd and Meachem, two guys who look great as the #2 receiver on a team. I'm still surprised about this whole new "big play" offense run by the Falcons. They have the horses to do it in White/Rodgers/Jones, but I always pegged Matt Ryan as a cerebral Peyton Manning-lite. He never seemed like the kind of quarterback who wants to chuck the ball all over the field. It feels like the Falcons are the team to beat in the NFC right now. We will find out more about them this weekend when they have to play Carolina. I'm just kidding, we won't find out anything about the Falcons in that game. Maybe this year the Falcons will win a playoff game!

Chicago Bears 23 St. Louis Rams 6

It seems the Bears have figured out a strategy to win games. Don't let Jay Cutler try to win the game with his arm and have the defense provide as many points as possible. Mr. Cavallari only got sacked two times in this game and was on his best behavior, thereby being an excellent role model for the demon spawn he procreated. I'm still concerned his child will end up being a moody cokehead with diabetes, but at least Mr. Cavallari is being a great role model at this point. The Bears offense offensively was going to struggle in some areas of the game without Matt Forte, but the Bears defense was able to take advantage of Sam Bradford turning back into the below average quarterback who is only able to connect on short passes. The Rams offensive line obviously studied too much tape from the Bears-Packers game because they showed the offensive line sturdiness against the Bears pass rush that the Bears showed in the Packers game. Bradford got sacked six times, yet because he is already dead inside and has no emotions, he did not yell at his offensive linemen. Cortland Finnegan took a shot at Cutler's performance after the game, because why the hell not? Kick him while he is down. Perhaps Finnegan was talking about when Cutler missed a wide-open Devin Hester in the end zone. Now if the Bears can just replicate this defensive game 13 more times.

Buffalo Bills 24 Cleveland Browns 14

Apparently the key to getting Ryan Fitzpatrick to play well is to begin to take away his strong offensive weapons. After C.J. Spiller went out of the game with an injury, Fitzpatrick stopped polite and started getting real. It did help Tashard Choice ran the ball well and Ryan Fitzpatrick started throwing the football like he did last year when he got the nice contract extension from Bills' management. I am sure this is just a tease and Bills fans can expect the average Fitzpatrick showing next week. The Bills' defensive strategy, which is a strategy that may be duplicated repeatedly this year, was to stop Trent Richardson and make the Browns throw the ball. Fortunately, Brandon Weeden is super-mature and made the Bills pay for this strategy by---I'm just kidding, he didn't make them pay for this strategy. It wasn't completely his fault because the Browns dropped passes and with Muhammad Massaquoi out after the second quarter he had even fewer offensive weapons to work with. If this game were a gun fight, after losing Massaquoi and having Richardson bottled up, Weeden came to this gun fight with a Super Soaker 50. Pat Shurmur did confirm to reporters after the game there are indeed "no magical answers" so it seems the Browns can cross that hope off their list when playing for the first win of the season. There are no "magical answers" but I am noticing the Browns do have what I would consider "obvious answers" on how to win games. The first thing I would have done is not draft a quarterback who is closer to 30 years old than to 25 years old when you have needs all over the roster and lack offensive playmakers. 

Dallas Cowboys 16 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10

Did anyone ever figure out why the official (I'm not going to use "replacement official" as their name anymore because it is clear they are going to be around for a while) threw his hat on the field when Kevin Ogletree fell over it? Ogletree wasn't out of bounds, so why the official throw his hat in that situation? More importantly, if he was supposed to throw his hat, why didn't he just drop it? This is one thing that unnerves me about every official on every level. Why do they have to throw the penalty flags on the field as close to the play as possible? Sometimes it seems like the officials are aiming for the players when they throw those penalty flags, but wouldn't it make more sense to throw them just a few feet away from their body so the flag doesn't hit a player (like it did hit Orlando Brown a few years ago)? When I'm watching a Cowboys-Buccaneers game, these are the thoughts that go through my mind. I'm always afraid a player is going to take another penalty flag to the face. Josh Freeman looked terrible and Doug Martin had another "Eddie George special" type of game, where he had 58 yards rushing, but it took him 19 carries to get to that point. Tony Romo was sacked four time and fumbled three times and the Cowboys offense didn't look great. It's all Tony Romo's fault naturally. There were no victory kneel-down issues in this game, though Greg Schiano did call two timeouts during the kneel-downs in the hopes the Cowboys would fumble the snap. Schiano must believe a fumbled snap in a kneel-down situation happens a lot.

Tennessee Titans 44 Detroit Lions 41

If you hate defense, this was a great game to watch. Jake Locker was accurate and threw for 378 yards against an "improved" Lions secondary and Shaun Hill led the Lions' semi-comeback. With Locker being accurate and Shaun Hill rallying the Lions to an almost-victory all was upside down in my world, but the world seemed right knowing Matthew Stafford got injured. An NFL season doesn't truly start until Matthew Stafford gets injured. The Lions threw a Hail Mary which Titus Young caught for a touchdown that led to overtime. I always love it when analysts yell "just knock the ball down" in that situation, like the Titans weren't trying to knock the ball down. Then in overtime, the Lions were going to kick a field goal, but decided to attempt to draw the Titans offsides first. Due to a "communication issue," that I don't fully understand, Shaun Hill decided to try to sneak for one yard on fourth down rather than call timeout and kick the field goal. Jim Schwartz called it a "communication issue" but it sounded more like "I'm covering for my stupid asshole backup quarterback" issue. I'm not sure how the instructions "try to draw them offsides and then call timeout" can be miscommunicated into "try to draw them offsides, but then once the play clock is running down dive forward to sneak it for one yard," but that's the story we are supposed to believe. The media is getting their shorts all shit-stained in believing a Titans trick play used in this game is similar to the Music City Miracle in 2000. They are very similar plays, as long as you don't count that the stakes around the Music City Miracle in 2000 involved a playoff game and if the Titans didn't get at touchdown on that very play they were going to lose the game. But hey, a trick play in Week 3 of the 2012 season where there aren't even close to stakes that high deserves a really catchy nickname too.

Jacksonville Jaguars 22 Indianapolis Colts 17

I swear I thought these two teams had played already this year. They have not played. This was another exciting game where somehow future Hall of Famer and greatest quarterback to ever put on an NFL helmet Andrew Luck lost a game to future mutual fund manager Blaine Gabbert. Taking away the 80 yard pass to Cecil Shorts, Gabbert would have thrown for 75 yards in this game. The Jaguars should thank goodness for Maurice Jones-Drew who ran for 177 yards in this game. If Jones-Drew doesn't demand a trade after this season I am going to be very surprised. Prior to the 80 yards pass to Shorts, Gabbert went into the huddle with full confidence the Jaguars were going to win the game. Kudos to the Jaguars offensive players for not laughing. I probably would have. Andrew Luck claims he made bad decisions in this game, which we all know isn't true. He was only 22-46 on the day, but if we check the box score I am sure we will see Luck's receivers had 24 drops on the day. It would be nice if the Colts had made an effort to give Luck a running game. I'm still surprised Donald Brown is getting 18 carries in a game. In fact, I have a trade I would like the Browns and Colts to think about. Trent Richardson for Donald Brown, Reggie Wayne, and a third round pick. It gives the Browns a veteran receiver who can still catch the ball, a decent running back, and a third round pick to use on a really, really old position player in next year's draft. Who says "no" to that?

I'm kidding clearly.

New York Jets 23 Miami Dolphins 20

The two starting quarterbacks in this game combined to go 36-81 with one touchdown and three interceptions. After saying the Jets won't score 48 points in their next two games after Week 1, the Jets have scored 33 points in that time. I sort of said the Jets wouldn't score 48 points in their next three games the week after that, so I'm really counting on the 49ers defense to hold the Jets to 14 or less points next week. Of course, the Jets have the Texans the week after that, so maybe it will take four weeks for the Jets to score 48 points? In ex-backup QB punt protector Jets news, ESPN told me the following:

Tim Tebow called a fake punt and ran for 5 yards and a first down,

I wasn't even aware that ex-backup QB punt protector Jets was the offensive coordinator or special teams coordinator for the Jets. Who knew? It seems ex-backup QB punt protector Jets can call his own fakes, which is something I did not know. It's like giving a gun to a child. He also had a pass bounce off his helmet, but I'm not concerned and neither is ex-backup QB punt protector Jets. He's going to learn to catch a football one day, he swears. He said:

"I was not expecting it that quick, but I guess I'll learn," Tebow said.

Yes, maybe one day he will learn to catch a football. At this point, with his ability to throw a football I am deeply concerned that perhaps ex-backup QB punt protector Jets' father didn't spend enough time throwing and catching the football with a son who ended up playing football in high school. But someday, he will learn to catch.

Darrelle Revis also went out with a non-contact football injury, which I originally concluded was only a more covert attempt to hold out for a new contract. It turns out he has a torn ACL, which if I believed in karma, would sort of be karma for threatening to hold out of training camp. Revis was going to choose to not play football and now he can't play football. Ryan Tannehill had another "bleh" game as an NFL quarterback and the Dolphins running game kept them in this game. Joe Philbin called timeout at the end of the game to ice the Jets kicker, which negated a blocked punt by the Dolphins and then the Jets' Nick Folk made the second try. I'm one of those people who may never get why coaches call these timeouts. Maybe I just don't believe enough that icing the kicker is necessary or even a real thing. It just seems these last-second timeouts give the opposing kicker a chance to practice from the exact distance he will be making the kick and allows the kicking team to see how the opposing team will line up to block the kick.

Minnesota Vikings 24 San Francisco 49ers 13

The Vikings managed to get ahead of the 49ers and force the 49ers offense to try and comeback in a game. This strategy seemed to work for one week. Of course, getting ahead of the 49ers isn't an easy thing to do, but watching Alex Smith throw the ball around the field in an attempt to come back is a much better sight for opposing teams than having the 49ers control the ball and clock with a 7-10 point lead. So all NFL teams out there, try this new strategy...try to get ahead of the opposing team as quickly as possible. This is a strategy that may work. Spirits were so high in Minnesota after this game that Brett Favre announced he was looking to come out of retirement and join the Vikings team this season. Favre stated he would only do this as long as he was handed the starting quarterback job. The Vikings didn't even bother to return Favre's repeated phone calls. Christian Ponder played really well and provided us with this Ryan Lochte-like quote:

"There was a big running lane, and I figured that if my ... legs were fast enough, maybe I'd get there," Ponder said. "And I got there, so it was good."

Jeah. It was good.

The officials in this game gave the 49ers two chances to withdraw a timeout in order to challenge a play. I used to think the NFL was going to stick to these new officials until they manage to change the outcome of a game, but now I'm not so sure. At this point, I think the NFL won't budge on negotiations with the old officials until a blunder by the new officials actually ends up with a coach having a heart attack or a player being severely injured. Speaking of NFL coaches having heart attacks and wanting to smack a bitch...

Baltimore Ravens 31 New England Patriots 30

Torrey Smith played a great game. I will hold back on the snark to say that. What a tough game under tough circumstances. I'm shocked he even played. Bill Belichick shouldn't be in trouble for touching the official. Officials aren't the Pope and he simply grabbed the officials arm in order to get his attention and then gave up as the official ran off the field as fast as he could. I thought the officiating in this game wasn't very good. What I think gets lost in this disgust towards the new officials is that the old officials didn't always get things right, but the perception is the new officials are incompetent so they are being held to the standard that even a close call that is the correct call will be seen as wrong. I think players are acting out a little harder on calls to play to the idea the officials are incompetent. What used to be a small amount of frustration at a call turns to the player jumping around and acting like it was the single worst call in the history of the NFL. Having said that...there were some really fishy pass interference calls in this game. I didn't hate the last call (which I think was on McCourty for interfering with Jacoby Jones) because I thought McCourty had Jones' shoulder as the ball was in the air, but otherwise, there were some bad calls leading up to that point. The Ravens had 14 penalties for 135 yards. As much as I bash Joe Flacco, he looked very good against the Ravens and outplayed Tom Brady...or maybe it was a draw, which is still a credit to Flacco. Of course Flacco has an actual running game with Ray Rice leading the way, which always helps.

Kansas City Chiefs 27 New Orleans Saints 24

Drew Brees promises the Saints are going to turn this all around (of course Brees also promises he didn't know of any bounties being placed on opposing players by the Saints defense). I'm sure he means it. Unless he knows how to play defense, I'm not sure that is happening. It's taken two or three seasons, but my insistence the Saints can't stop the run is coming true. The Saints defense has never been that great, but they never had to be great when the Saints offense could put up points and put pressure on the opposing team's defense and offense to score points quickly. Now that the Saints aren't piling up the yardage on offense (288 yards in this game), the opposing team (the Chiefs in this game) can focus on establishing the run. The Chiefs had 510 yards of offense in this game, which is an incredible amount, even if the Chiefs had the ball for 42 out of 68 minutes in this game. I don't think the issue is that difficult for the Saints personally, but there isn't an easy solution. They rely so much on Drew Brees, they can't run the ball and they can't stop the run. Pierre Thomas had 6 carries for 11 yards and Darren Sproles had 7 carries for 62 yards, but 47 of those yards came on one play. Peter King's favorite future NFL head coaching candidate Aaron Kromer isn't exactly wowing the NFL with the job he is doing right now. The Saints defense did a good job of keeping the Chiefs out of the end zone, so that is a positive, but the blueprint is out right now on how to beat the Saints. Run the ball, don't turn the ball over (which the Chiefs did and still won the game) and get pressure on Brees.

Cincinnati Bengals 38 Washington Redskins 31

Robert Griffin (I'm leaving off the "III" because I don't like writing it) got sacked six times in this game and the Redskins defense gave up a lot of big plays. I thought coming into this year the Redskins defense would be a source of strength, but in this game it seemed like a liability. I wonder if Griffin thought all that hard tackling by the Bengals was dirty play, like he thought last week about the Rams. These NFL players sure do hit hard, so that must be considered dirty play to Griffin. Griffin still almost led the Redskins to victory and the end of the game was weird. The new officials called an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the Redskins because they were on the field after what they thought was the final snap, even though the Bengals were also on the field. It was pretty bizarre to watch. The officials then decided to push the Redskins back 25 yards instead of 20 yards they were supposed to push the Redskins back. I'm not sure why the officials tacked on an extra five yards to the penalty. I'm sort of enjoying these new officials. Watching them is like a game in itself. You never know what they are going to do next. It seems this game came down to Andy Dalton being able to throw deep for quick scores, while Griffin had trouble getting the ball downfield to get big plays. Griffin did lead the Redskins in rushing and had 12 rushes for the game. I still worry he won't be able to hold up over an NFL season since he isn't the sturdiest-built quarterback.

Arizona Cardinals 27 Philadelphia Eagles 6

Mike Vick fumbled twice in this game, which continues a trend we have seen all year. Kevin Kolb got his "revenge" for the Eagles trading him away to a place where he can have a starting job. I'm not entirely sure why Kolb is angry he was traded away so that he could be the starting quarterback in Arizona, but sometimes athletes get motivated by some of the strangest things. It's not like Kolb would have gotten a $60 million contract staying in Philadelphia and he hasn't exactly earned that money in Arizona, so he should be thanking the Eagles for trading him, which helped Kolb get a chance at a starting quarterback job and a large contract. The Cardinals can expect Kolb to keep playing well as long as they don't name him the starting quarterback. He doesn't need that kind of pressure. The Eagles couldn't protect Vick and Vick couldn't get away from the Cardinals defense. The Cardinals had five sacks on the day and the defense looks really strong, which is something I didn't expect. I very much underrated the Cardinals this year. It can't be long before Eagles fans are tired of Mike Vick and his turnovers. He can be really fun to watch, but I feel like his progression as a quarterback is discussed more than it actually has occurred on the field. He looks sort of like the same quarterback today, except a little slower, as he was almost ten years ago.

7 comments Jemele Hill Writes a Column Saying a QB's Race Is Still a Factor, Thereby Helping To Make Race for a QB Still a Factor

JemeHill, as we all know, enjoys talking about race factors in her columns. Sometimes she is pretty good in what she writes, other times she is less than good with what she writes. Today I think she is less than good. She talks about a quarterback's race is still a factor in the NFL. Of course by writing this, she helps to make sure race is still an issue for a quarterback. I don't think all discussions of race should be swept under the rug because they are still relevant, but too many of the discussions are intellectually lazy. JemeHill's discussion on Cam Newton and Mike Vick is an example of one of these intellectually lazy discussions.

I feel like there are times JemeHill wants there to be a double standard for black quarterbacks so she will have something to write about. In the article I am about to cover she is complaining that Mike Vick, a quarterback who has gotten two $100 million dollar contracts in his career is treated differently because of the color of his skin. Maybe that’s true in some parts of the United States, but he is also treated differently in the NFL because of his immense skill set.

The reason Touré's ESPN The Magazine piece entitled "What if Michael Vick were white?" is stirring such an emotional debate

Is because it is race-baiting at its absolute worst?

Is because it takes a complicated issue and intentionally introduces controversy in the debate simply to sell magazines?

Is because it is a lazy way to discuss a complicated issue?

Is because most sports journalists would be ashamed to put their name to a column that so obviously tries to be controversial by initiating an irrelevant and ridiculous discussion that is based purely on speculation?

is that a lot of African-Americans just innately believe that white people's actions -- whether they are failures or successes -- are perceived differently by the mainstream.

Ben Roethlisberger will be called a rapist by opposing fans for a good portion of his NFL career and he has never been convicted of rape. He definitely isn’t beloved by NFL fans for a crime he wasn’t convicted of, yet this stigma continues to follow him. So Vick isn’t the only quarterback who got in trouble with the NFL and isn’t beloved by fans. The difference is that Vick actually got convicted for his crime and Roethlisberger did not, but both got convicted in the court of public opinion. I understand African Americans can believe Vick gets treated differently, but the fact he was convicted for a crime he admitted to doing and wasn’t immediately forgiven doesn’t mean the mainstream is racist. Besides, if you are indicating mainstream opinion is an intelligent and well-thought out position then you haven’t looked at the Top 40 music chart in the United States from to week-to-week.

When Tim Tebow bowls over a couple of defensive players for a touchdown in a meaningless preseason game, it's considered a display of his toughness and leadership. But when Vick launches himself at Troy Polamalu after throwing a costly interception, it's considered risky and stupid.

This is why I call JemeHill’s point of view to be intellectually lazy. She takes two hypothetical incidents like this and creates racial undertones where they may not be any present. She reaches a conclusion without looking at the entire incident.

The first biggest difference in these two incidences is that Tebow is a much bigger guy than Vick, so running over a defensive player is something his body could better handle.

The second biggest difference in these two incidences is that Tebow is on offense trying to score, so using his big body to score is using his skill as a quarterback on offense for his team’s benefit. Mike Vick launching himself at Troy Polamalu after throwing an interception is Vick playing defense (essentially) and he is launching himself in the air at a defender who is bigger or of equal size to him.

The third biggest difference isn’t even a difference because it is an incident that JemeHill conveniently ignores for the sake of making her point. In the Panthers third preseason game, Cam Newton, who from all appearances is not a white quarterback ran over two Bengal defenders on the way to scoring a touchdown. This was a highlight plastered all across ESPN and Newton was lauded for his ability to score like this.

This is exactly why JemeHill is being absurdly lazy in an effort to try and prove a point that doesn’t exist. Take “Tim Tebow” out of the sentence above and put “Cam Newton” into the sentence and that is exactly what happened in real life. Exactly the same. It was a meaningless preseason game. He launched himself at defenders to score a touchdown and was lauded for toughness and leadership. Newton isn’t white and JemeHill ignores this in an effort to have reality achieve what she wants people reading her column to believe.

The same goes for appearance. The Denver Nuggets' Chris "Birdman" Anderson, who is white, has so many tattoos that you can barely see his actual skin. And despite a troubled past that includes serious drug abuse, he's a fan favorite who is characterized as a free spirit.

But that wasn't the way a lot of people felt about Allen Iverson, whose tattoos and diamond necklace were airbrushed out when he appeared in the NBA's publication, HOOP magazine, in 2000.

So we are going 11 years back to find a time when a magazine airbrushed out Allen Iverson’s tattoos and diamond necklace in order to prove a point? Yet again, these aren’t necessarily similar situations. JemeHill tells there is a double standard because Chris Anderson is treated well by fans, while Allen Iverson one time had his body and jewelry airbrushed by a magazine.

Much like the Vick/Tebow example above, JemeHill is using two different sets of criteria to attempt and point out a double standard. She compares Chris Anderson's treatment by the fans to Allen Iverson's treatment by a magazine. HOOP magazine doesn't speak for NBA fans as a whole, especially since Iverson long had one of the best-selling jerseys among NBA players and was loved, even more so than Chris Anderson, by fans.

We try to pretend these double standards don't exist, hurling the phrase "race card" at one another that cheapens any kind of contextual racial discussion.

Hurling the “race card” seems to be what the first couple paragraphs of this column were all about. I come to this conclusion based on the fact JemeHill tried to prove a double standard by using two situations between white and black players that weren’t analogous to each other. Her first example was disproven to be true just a week or so ago and her second example basically consisted of saying, “Fans like a white player with tattoos, but one time a black player with tattoos was treated badly,” while ignoring the black player with tattoos is probably more beloved than the white player with tattoos.

There was an understandable outcry after Richardson proclaimed on "The Charlie Rose Show" that before he made Cam Newton his franchise quarterback-in-waiting and the NFL's No. 1 overall pick this year, he asked Newton if he has any tattoos or piercings.

Oh yes, the story that people knew back in April but the media just picked up a few weeks ago. As a Panthers fan I don’t care if Cam Newton has tattoos and understanding the business side of the NFL I can see why Jerry Richardson proclaimed his dislike of tattoos to (the possible) face of his franchise. The idea an employer can tell his employees what to look like, what to wear and how to behave isn’t foreign to most of the citizens in the United States. To JemeHill and anyone else who needs fodder for a column this is a huge story that needs to be addressed right now.

Clearly, Jerry Richardson as the owner is close-minded for not wanting Cam Newton to get tattoos or piercings. Quite possibly Richardson is close-minded, but when the Panthers signed Jeremy Shockey he expressed his displeasure at Shockey’s tattoos. One of Richardson’s favorite Panthers of all-time from a personal perspective is Steve Smith, who also has tattoos. I think Richardson in his “old man who was born before World War II” way was trying to say he doesn’t like tattoos to a player who currently did not have any, not make a statement on race relations in the NFL.

Depending on what you've read, Richardson is either just a concerned capitalist or an outright racist.

There is absolutely no in-between. Jerry Richardson is either an outright capitalist or huge racist. Way to draw a line in the sand when it isn't required.

In his column addressing the flap, my good friend Dave Zirin wrote, "No word if he then checked Newton's gums" -- a pointed reference to how blacks were physically appraised by prospective owners at slave auctions.

By saying that, Dave Zirin has managed to perform a journalistic feat that is the envy of JemeHill. Zirin managed to make a classless comment which reflected as poorly on him as it did the subject he was talking about in a pathetic attempt to increase his pageviews by further sensationalizing a story. That's what frustrating is there can't even be an honest discussion about a column that says shit like this. He's taken a situation where the owner of a football team said he would rather his quarterback not have tattoos or piercings and turned it into an example of a slave auction. All for publicity of course, which is funny because I had not read this comment until now, but apparently it worked because JemeHill linked her good friend's column on ESPN.com.

But Richardson wasn't being a racist. He was doing Newton, who will start the Panthers' final preseason game Thursday, a favor.

Here comes the part where JemeHill creates a fake argument and then disproves it.

"Everyone thinks Andrew Luck won't be a quality NFL quarterback without Jim Harbaugh as his coach but here is why he will be."

If you've been listening to any of the discussion generated by Touré's piece on Vick, it's obvious that some people will never forgive Vick for operating and financing a dogfighting operation despite the two years he served in federal prison for the crimes.

THAT is the takeaway for JemeHill on the "what if Mike Vick were white" discussion? Some people will never forgive Vick for operating and financing a dogfighting ring? She read the article, which had a ridiculous premise in the first place, and thought, "Boy, people certainly won't forgive Mike Vick for financing a dogfighting operation." Perhaps I give her too much credit.

There are white players the public will never forgive for their crimes as well. Ben Roethlisberger is a great example. He's not beloved by many fans, outside of Steelers fans.

I love that very nearly the same day JemeHill posted this article, Vick got a $100 million dollar extension. It's hard to argue he gets a bad rap or is held to a different standard when he gets handed an 8 figures contract...for the second time in his career. Regardless, it doesn't matter because JemeHill isn't interested in an honest discussion about black quarterbacks and how they are perceived. She is interested in pushing through her point of view, no matter what other realities may say.

Now, the primary reason Vick has reclaimed fans and generated another $100 million contract is that he's one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.

I am pretty sure this part of the article was edited in after it was announced Vick got the $100 million contract so JemeHill could stammer around and explain how a quarterback who is receiving his second $100 million contract is held to a different standard.

So Vick is held to a different standard than white quarterbacks, but not really because his performance level on the field is so high? So is there a double standard or not? If JemeHill is arguing there is a double standard for black quarterbacks based on their level of performance, this goes for every quarterback in the NFL. If Matt Schaub gets arrested next week for hitting a woman in the face, he will be much more beloved in one year if his performance stays at a high level. That's just sports.

But let's credit Vick's image overhaul for assisting in his career resurgence, too. Perhaps he's been coached by a public relations professional; but in his interviews now, Vick appears much more polished than he was in his Atlanta Falcons days. He is saying the right things and seems more thoughtful.

So again, is there a double standard for Vick? Because that was the argument JemeHill is attempting to further, but now she is stammering around saying, "Well yeah, but he's a great player and he's changed the public's opinion of him...he's more polished now."

Don't say there is a double standard and use Vick as an example of this double standard and then back your way off using him as an example. So we are to believe a black quarterback who has a great public image and performs at a high level won't be treated differently than a white quarterback? That goes as well when comparing a white quarterback to a white quarterback. Just think about the perception of Matt Ryan compared to that of Jay Cutler. Cutler doesn't give a shit what people think, while Ryan doesn't have the chip on his shoulder that Cutler does. So Ryan gets more of the benefit of the doubt from fans and the press.

Whether his willingness to be a spokesperson for PETA is genuine or a well-crafted ruse, it likely factored into Nike's decision to reinvest in an endorsement contract with Vick.

I think JemeHill destroying her own argument right now.

Not that Newton has done anything as heinous as Vick -- it'll garner a big shoulder shrug from me even if it is one day revealed that he took money while a player at Auburn -- but Newton nonetheless should be taking notes on Vick's transformation and heeding Richardson's words.

Why would Newton take notes on Vick's transformation? They are completely different players and Newton hasn't been arrested (lately) for a crime nor has he been to jail. I'm confused.

It isn't clear if the Panthers owner ever asked Jimmy Clausen, the team's incumbent starter, or any other white quarterback, about having tattoos or piercings.

That's because Richardson doesn't have to.

Oh I get it! There isn't really a double standard, but in the absence of proof let's just assume there is one. Let's also ignore that Clausen has outperformed Newton in the preseason and Newton has been handed the starting job. JemeHill doesn't want that to be relevant.

Does it count if Richardson had called Clausen "doughboy" in reference to his weight? Well, he did. I wonder if Dave Zirin and JemeHill chalk this up to Richardson's slave auction tendencies?

Clausen could get "thug life" tatted on his stomach like Tupac and it would either go largely unnoticed or just be fodder for a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

Again, JemeHill didn't do all of her research to know Richardson is very outspoken at times about his players. He called Clausen "doughboy" for his physical appearance. So we just ignore that when discussing comments Richardson made on Newton's physical appearance?

But if a prominent black athlete -- especially a high-profile quarterback, the No. 1 overall pick and the de facto leader of the team -- has tattoos or piercings, it takes on an entirely different connotation.

Maybe it does for some people, but Richardson's comments to Jeremy Shockey about his tattoos and his comments about Clausen's physical appearance show to Jerry Richardson it doesn't matter what color a player is or what position he plays, he pays attention to a player's physical appearance.

Newton's first goal is to help the Panthers win games, of course. But his next one should be to take advantage of all the opportunities that come with being the franchise guy.

In asking Newton about his tattoos and piercings, Richardson wasn't subjugating him. He certainly was looking out for the best interests of his franchise, but he also was approaching Newton businessman-to-businessman.

Wait, wait, wait. So there is a double standard for black quarterbacks in the NFL, as seen how Jerry Richardson treated Cam Newton and how Mike Vick is treated fans, except there isn't really a double standard?

There's a reason the majority of franchise quarterbacks in the NFL carry themselves a certain way,

This is what I don't enjoy about reading JemeHill's columns. So is there a double standard or not? It seems like JemeHill is saying there isn't a double standard and Richardson treated Newton the same way he would treat another franchise quarterback in regard to his image.

Richardson supposedly told the heavily tatted Jeremy Shockey he could "do without the tattoos," but last I checked, teams weren't hinging their franchises on tight ends.

So knowing this, perhaps it is overreacting a bit when a comparing Richardson to a slave owner at an auction? Of course, I am sure Dave Zirin didn't care to do any research and wrote a column he thought would cause the most controversy and could get his name in the mouths of the public.

More is expected of a quarterback. And more is given to a quarterback, too.

So basically JemeHill has talked her way around this issue so much we have no clue what she actually believes. One minute she is talking about a double standard for black quarterbacks, the next minute she is saying there isn't a double standard, then she doesn't seem to disagree with an article comparing Richardson to a slave owner, and finally she is saying a lot is expected of a franchise quarterback so it comes with the territory.

Richardson already is a successful businessman. He understands that how you present yourself is as important as what you know and how you perform.

Especially if you're black.

What? I'm not saying there hasn't been some sort of double standard in the past, nor may there be one in the future, for black quarterbacks. Nearly everything JemeHill wrote towards the end of this column when discussing Cam Newton discusses how franchise quarterbacks are held to a different standard than other NFL players, so Newton is also held to that standard. Then in the last sentence, she makes a statement that Newton will be held to a higher standard without really describing to us how this is true.

A franchise quarterback is supposed to hold himself publicly to a certain standard, so if there is any double standard JemeHill has shown, it is for quarterbacks, not just black quarterbacks. I think JemeHill has failed to really provide any evidence in this column that Vick and Newton are being held to a different standard from white quarterbacks. She may be on the right track, but she has possibly chosen the wrong way quarterbacks to prove her theory.