Here’s a link to an Bay Area News Group poll about whether the Raiders or 49ers should sign Michael Vick.
Before the Raiders signed Jeff Garcia, I wrote that I thought signing Vick would be a good idea. He knows Tom Cable from Atlanta, could be used creatively along with Darren McFadden in a Wildcat formation and could be a classic Raiders reclamation project.
Not to mention the fact that the whole public relations problem everyone is so worried about wouldn’t exist with the Raiders because they don’t care about P.R. The Raiders do what the Raiders do. Deal with it.
With Garcia aboard, and assuming he’s not going anywhere, it’s hard to envision Vick considering the Raiders as an option because his chances at actually playing quarterback would be slim. If he was the backup to Russell, he’d be an injury away and could still do be used as a gimmick.
As for the 49ers, they’re so over-the-top image conscious it’s hard to imagine Vick coming to San Francisco, although once-upon-a-time it didn’t prevent them from signing Lawrence Phillips with the endorsement of both Bill Walsh and Dr. Harry Edwards.
And if you compare what Michael did to dogs against what Lawrence Phillips did to to the human race, Vick is the far more palatable option.
CCT columnist Cam Inman makes the case for why both teams shouldn’t consider Vick, although his point about Amy Trask being a dog lover is a reach.
If Al Davis was sold on the notion that Vick could help the team win, he’d have no trouble listening to the case made by Tony Dungy _ whom he once interviewed long ago as a head coaching candidate _ and signing him to a contract.