[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So the dogs didn't get a choice in the matter.

Did the dude "choose" to be hit by a drunk driver? By the logic you're leaning on, this becomes an apples-to-apples comparison, one in which Vick compares quite favorably to Stallworth, Little etc.

It's only a dumb business decision for the Eagles if it affects the bottom line - and "pain in the ass" or "PR nightmare" conjecture doesn't really indicate an automatic loss on the bottom line. However, winning a division, conference or (heaven forbid) Super Bowl title generally creates more than enough revenue to offset, well, anything - I'm not convinced this is even all that big of a deal from the Eagles' perspective. They can always walk away, and it's likely a one-year issue anyway. I don't see the risk/reward axis tilted as much as everyone else seems to.

I was starting to think that I was going crazy in the whole apples to oranges discussion. You've basically made the points I was making. And I agree that it was not a bad business decision because they've gotten a good quarterback as a back up for McNab and if he does bring results people will not care about the dogs.