Watching Michael Vick

Earlier this week on Tony Kornheiser's radio show, Michael Wilbon said that so far, through the first three weeks of the NFL season, Michael Vick has been the best player in the NFL. He then went on to repeat this statement on PTI and in his Washington Post column. At first I didn't know why, but every time I heard or read that statement, it stuck with me. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it tugged at me because he's correct. The only player who might have as much impact on a game as Vick would be Peyton Manning. Yes, I just used Peyton Manning and Michael Vick's name in the same sentence. As Wilbon pointed out, only Manning and Jay Cutler have a higher passer rating than Vick, but they don't have his running ability that keeps open the possibility of a 30-yard gain even in the face of a surefire defensive sack. (If anyone's name doesn't belong in that sentence, it's Cutler's.)

Michael Vick is a little bit like Ken Griffey, Jr. in one way: he absolutely must be seen to fully appreciate his performances (which is why I included a highlight video in this post). His electrifying performances are what makes every broken tackle and 20-yard scramble pull me in two directions. It's impossible to ignore that the player who at times pulls off seemingly superhuman stunts is the same guy who operated that dogfighting organization. I'm not the only one who feels this way. There's talk of "the old Vick," a "new and improved Vick," and a Vick who is "finally playing up to his potential," all of which imply that Vick is playing out of his gourd while hinting at a man who has either left his past behind or learned from it. Some people are already jumping on the storyline of redemption while Vick's opponents will cling steadfastly to the thought that no amount of time in prison could make up for the cruelty he showed those dogs.

Here's the interesting thing: both of those responses are understandable. People tend to think in binaries, but Vick's presence on a football field occupies that gray area between right and wrong. One could argue that he should never have been allowed back on a football field because of the crimes he committed, because professional athletes are supposed to be role models, and a number of other reasons. That person would be correct. Someone else could argue that he paid his debt to society by serving the sentence given to him, that playing football is just a job provided by an employer, and that everyone deserves a second chance. That person would be correct, too. Both people might also be a little bit wrong. So what do we do? I don't know. I don't really have an answer. I can speak only for myself, and I all I can do is hope that this quiet, humble Michael Vick isn't just another act but is, in fact, a sign that people can learn from their mistakes. What it really comes down to might not be about Michael Vick at all, but instead is about applying my feelings about second chances and debts to society to any person.