Vick Indictment via The Smoking Gun

by Fooch on Jul 18, 2007 10:30 AM PDT in News Comment 42 comments

Obviously this Michael Vick thing has nothing to do with the 49ers. However, as the details continue to emerge, this is clearly going to be the dominant story of the offseason and probably well into the season. If Goodell doesn't want to look like he's showing preference, Vick gets suspended.

The Smoking Gun has put the indictment up on their website and there is plenty of interesting information there. While there is definitely a decent amount of evidence in there, I'd prefer to not assume guilt quite yet. Based on past precedent I figure there are a couple ways this could go. I personally don't think a trial will happen with the case going as is, so the other options:

1) Vick pleas to lesser charges and gets off with probation/fines and/or maybe some light jail time, similar to what happened with Jamal Lewis

OR, the more interesting option

2) One or more of Vick's co-defendants turns on Vick and becomes a government witness in order to avoid jail time or reduce his own sentence.

I don't plan on making this a dominant story here at Niners Nation, but I definitely plan on keeping tabs on it. It's not often that the face of the league (or one of the faces of the league) is indicted on federal charges and faces a potential suspension.

In the meantime, please offer your condolences to our Falcons blogger Dave the Falconer at The Falcoholic.

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

suspend him!

First of all, I have to say that I HATE Michael Vick. Even before all this dog fighting stuff. I HATE the guy and would love it if he never played another down of football in his life. But...

I keep hearing people say that the NFL has to wait until Michael Vick is found guilty in the dog fighting case before they can take any disciplinary action against him. This is bull-crap! They can suspend him for a few games (in my opinion, 4-8 games) even before the season begins. Here's why...

At the very best for Michael Vick, lets say that he is not guilty of these charges and didn't, in fact, know that dog fighting was taking place on property that he owns (not likely but lets say this turns out to be true). This is the very best scenario right now for him. The NFL could, and should, still discipline him on the grounds on negligence for owning property where dog fighting did take place (which is a fact) and by doing that putting himself, the Atlanta Falcons, and the NFL, into a position where they are being associated with dog fighting.

At the very, very least he put himself in this position due, if in fact he didn't know about the dog fighting, to his own gross negligence. That, within itself, should be enough for the NFL to suspend him for at least part of the upcoming season...and even before his case goes to trial.

For something like this, I think that it would warrant at least a 4 game suspension, but certainly no more then 8 games. I'd love to see him suspended for the entire season, but that's not reasonable unless he is found guilty (a verdict that wouldn't come until after the season anyways).

This is really the first action the NFL should take. It would be the right thing to do and would also help the NFL in what has already become a PR mess.

by coachAJ on Jul 18, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Vick

While I do agree that he should be suspended simply because of the precedent Goodell has already set, I disagree in the hatred. I think it's because I've always been enamored by his talent. That or the 99 speed he had in his first edition of Madden...tough call.

I'm certainly not defending his actions (assuming guilt), but this is something I want to see play out more out of morbid curiosity than anything else. I'd like to hope he didn't know about any of these, but I just don't think that's the case. My own prediction as far as how the court stuff ends: Similar to Jamal Lewis, he serves some prison time in the offseason and gets some kind of probation. However, clearly this will leave a bigger mark than Jamal Lewis's drug deal stuff (which most people seem to have moved past). The big question is how this affects his relationship with the Falcons. I don't think they can just cut him or trade him due to his contract, so I'm not sure what they do now.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jul 18, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vick

I, too, like the guy's talent. Up until the recent rash of issues, he has (for the most part) been a pretty solid NFL citizen. If he weren't, he would never have been marketed as much as he has.

The guy is a good leader for his team. While he doesn't play the role of a "traditional" QB very well, he makes up for that with his amazing physical talents. No other QB EVER has been as elusive as Vick. Even in Steve Young's good days, he didn't have Vick's amazing speed, acceleration, and agility.

The guy is a good football player, and up until his recent brushes with the law, he really hasn't been a bad guy. In addition to playing a vital role to any of the Falcons' success, he has been a solid community icon in Atlanta for quite some time. So I ask you, coachAJ, why is it that you despise him?

by sfgfan on Jul 18, 2007 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OVER-RATED!!

Great athlete...Yes. Good football player..No. Overrated...hell ya.

Listen, when Vick first came into the league and after his 2002 season, I was on the Michael Vick bandwagon. However, I jumped off that a few years ago. Vick has proven time and time again that he is not mature enough to be a QB in the NFL. Yet everyone wants to give the guy a pass and make excuses for him. "His receivers can't catch the ball." "He's in the wrong offensive system." Enough! How about we all just be honest and realize that he's just not smart or mature enough to be a QB in the NFL?

I mean, look at Drew Brees. He's nowhere near the athlete Vick is (not as strong an arm, or as fast/quick) but he's 1000 times better QB. Why? Because he's a smart guy and understands how to play the QB position... things Vick doesn't get.

Yes, Mike Vick is an amazing athlete...no debating that. But as a QB, he really sucks. Sure he's had moments of brilliance, but those are few and far between and he's just not consistent (lifetime completion percentage of 53.8% and a QB rating of 75.7) or mature enough to be an effective QB in the NFL. Yet people still defend the guy. So called experts are always making these dumb excuses for him. I just can't take it anymore. Its about time that people wise up and stop over-rating this guy.

Ok, enough of that. That's my Vick rant for the day. Ummm...there must be something for me to do here in the office today. Ummmm...

by coachAJ on Jul 18, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I think Vick's probablem is that he's being held back. They wanted to limit his scrambling/rushing in order to extend his career. My personal take is the when the Falcon's took him they should have realize that they only had a quaterback that if they let go balls to the wall would have a career length expectancy of a running back, maybe eight good years in him instead of limitting him in order to get 15 years out of him.

With the reins cut, Vick can lead an offense that's dynamic enough to win enough football games to get into the playoffs. Part of Vick's problem lately is that he hasn't been gettin much help from the defense. If you fall behind early it's going to be hard for Vick to lead a comeback with his passing abilities.

by methodrampage on Jul 18, 2007 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Free pass? Overrated?

I don't think that anyone is giving him a free pass. Media pundits have always challenged Vick and asked him to step up and throw like a QB should. That just isn't the type of game Vick plays, and the Falcons, and the world, should have known that when they took him originally.

This criticism of Vick isn't just something that has come up last year or anything. People call him out EVERY July/August.

I mean c'mon. With the Falcons the way they are, offensively and defensively, it's amazing they've done as well as they have. Take the differences in their 2003, 2004, and 2005 seasons for example. In 2002, the Falcons went 9-6-1, upsetting the Packers AT Lambeau Field in the playoffs. In 2003, Vick only started four games and the team record was 5-11, with Vick going 3-1 in those four games. In 2004, with Vick back in the swing of things, the team goes 11-5 and makes it all the way to the NFC Championship Game. Michael Vick makes a huge impact on how well the Falcons play.

While he IS an unconventional QB, he's been a great leader for that team. He's very talented and just because he doesn't fit your mold of a QB, he shouldn't be hated. Overrated? I suppose he is, but don't hate him for being overrated, hate the media/NFL for telling you how great he is.

by sfgfan on Jul 18, 2007 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

Still over-rated. I don't know what NFL stuff you are reading and watching the past few years but all I see is praise and excuses for Michael Vick everywhere...and endorsements (funny side note spotted on deadspin today: apparently nike has a new vick shoe that is supposed to come out in a few weeks. Yikes. http://deadspin.com/sports/vick-update/your-afternoon-michael-vick-update-279786.php).

I've never seen him as a team leader. How could a guy with this questionable of judgment be a leader? I mean, seriously. And you forget, also, how good the falcons running game was during those seasons you mentioned. That's what carried them offensively. Sure, part of that was Vick running the ball, but his passing stats should be a lot, lot better when your running game is that good. I think the year their team got the NFC championship game (where they were blown out) the defense was in the top 10 that season too.

And finally...FINALLY...this Spring the media started saying that this was the "make or break" year for Vick. Really, they should have been saying that 2 years ago. I guess when you have that much athletic talent, you just get that many more opportunities then everyone else.

It doesn't matter now though. I really think this is the beginning of the end for Vick and if he is really guilty of what he is accused of then I hope he gets the book thrown at him and goes away for a long, long time.

OFF THE VICK TOPIC: Has anyone seen the 49ers 2007 Schedule Breakdown on realfootball365.com? They've done 2 of 3 parts so far and have the niners at 6-6 (optimistically) after 12 games, which means the niners would have to finish the season 3-1 to have a chance at making the playoffs. Interesting feature...

by coachAJ on Jul 18, 2007 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vick media critics

This is just from searching for NFL Previews on ESPN from the past few years (Note: I didn't bother searching for anyone else' as you know these big media networks usually regurgitate each other's "thoughts" and present them as their own):

2006 Previews
2005 Previews
2004 Previews
2002 Previews

I skipped the 2003 previews, as Vick was injured before ESPN even ran their team capsules. The general consensus on Vick has always been that he's great running but bad when it comes to QB-ing. Among other things, his completion percentage and his comprehension of offenses have always been Vick's bug-a-boos, and media pundits have always pointed it out.

The media isn't the one giving him multiple chances, its the Falcons. The media praises his unique ability but damns the passing aspect of it. The Falcons, on the other hand, extend his contract and make him wealthy, hog-tying their hands with him. This past offseason, they had yet another opportunity to just bite the bullet and perhaps go with Schaub, but they won't quit on Vick and went one step further in dealing Schaub away.

As for the argument that with a running game as good as the Falcons' had in the past few years, you have to remember that Vick has accounted for more than "part" of it. By accounting for that many rushing yards (as many as 1000 yards last season), he takes away yardage that would have normally gone to the passing game (if he has thrown instead of scrambled).

by sfgfan on Jul 18, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...duuuhhh...

when the guy has a 53% passing percentage for a career, of course the media outlets are going to say he needs to "improve in this area." that's the problem...people think he is actually going to improve in this area and be this great quarterback. he's not.

and in a lot of ways the media is very much responsible for all the opportunities he has gotten. with the way they hyped him early in his career adn the endorsements, they've built this guy up so much as the "next best thing" in the nfl so what are the falcons to do but sign him to a long term deal?

again, i was on the mike vick bandwagon a few years ago too as i bought into the hype and marveled at his athletic ability. i don't blame people for that. i blame people who STILL defend vick to this day. its over...he's done. he'll never even be a good NFL quarterback.

the schaub thing was dumb. D...U...M...dumb. it looks like that will really come back to haunt them.

by coachAJ on Jul 18, 2007 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh.

Well of course is someone is bad in some area of their work, people will say they need to improve on it. It doesn't mean they they think they're going to. If a writer says that Vick needs to improve on his completion percentage, it doesn't mean they think he will.

As for the media's hype being very much responsible for the chances he's gotten? Teams have their own experts. Teams have their own scouts, coaches and personnel evaluators. Why the heck would they listen to some ex-player, ex-coach, or ex-general manager that works for a TV network or newspaper? It's the team's money and the team's decision to believe a player has enough talent/potential to award him a long-term deal.

That's like saying just because the media touted Nate Clements as the #2 cover corner in the country, the 49ers HAD to go after him. Or the Patriots HAD to go after Adalius Thomas because he was the best linebacker. Teams dictate, pick, and choose who they sign, not the media.

It doesn't really matter what I say really, does it? You're just going to keep on believing what you do, and I'll keep on believing what I do. The discussion has gotten way off track, anyhow.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fooch...DPAR Question

Vick had a DPAR of -6.3 last year. So does this mean that the Falcons with Schaub (Vick's replacement) as their Quarterback they would have scored 6.3 more points on the season? So Vick is technically worse than a replacement player? Anyone know Shane Falco's number?

But seriously, I find it hard to beleive that Vick is the worst starting NFL QB in the league. So what's up with this -6.3?

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Falco

Considering how bad he was at times and the fact that they really used the running game, I'm gonna go with a DPAR in the 20s, similar to a Jeff Garcia or Jake Delhomme. Although, considering his season was cut short, would that cut into and move him down into the teens? They had some tough losses as I recall.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jul 19, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weird.

You're right, its hard to believe that Vick has a lower DPAR than 37 other QBs last season. His PAR value is 3.7 (good enough for 31st in rank), which still strikes me as low.

Perhaps PAR overvalues yards and completion percentage. It looks like there's a huge difference between the guys who complete 60% or more and guys who complete 55% or less. This is especially true if they don't make up for the difference in yards/pass or whatever.

Another possibility is that those PAR/DPAR calculations aren't factoring in the rushing yards he accumulates that would have otherwise (possibly) gone to the passing game. He rushed for 1000 yards last year (over 8 yards per carry) and two TDs. If you take 700 of those rushing yards and leave the TDs be, he would have had just over 3000 yards passing (on about 80 more attempts) with almost a 2:1 TD to INT ratio. It'd be interesting to calculate the DPAR of a QB that does that.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Passing & Rushing

Initially I thought that it had to do with his rushing totals not being considered. But per Football Outsiders

Quarterbacks are ranked according to DPAR, or Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement. This number represents the total number of points scored due to plays where this QB passed or carried the ball, compared to a replacement-level QB in the same game situations.

So I don't know. Seems a little weird to me. With a DPAR of -6.3 he has to be the worst quarterback money can buy, but I'm not buying the -6.3 DPAR.

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

I read that too, but when you look at the stats on that page, it makes no mention of his rushing totals. Of course they could have just left it off of the table, but -6.3 is just off.

I'm with you, I don't buy it.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That page...

does mention his rushing numbers, you just have to scroll down. Vick's rushing DPAR is 32.4, which is nearly three times anyone else (McNabb is 2nd, with 11).

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.

Is it possible to just add DPAR values together to come up with a "cumulative" value for DPAR? It seems to me that they should somehow combine both the rushing and passing aspects together somehow.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure they do

combine them for their preseason position previews. I can't remember though.

Passing DPAR + Rushing DPAR gives him like a 26.1, which would be good for about the 19th best QB in teh league, presuming ~0ish rushing DPAR for the rest of the quarterbacks, which is actually pretty accurate.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question concerning our gentleman's wager

So are we using Passing DPAR + Rushing DPAR for our final DPAR value?

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You pick, if it wasn't specified

though I would wager that Jason Campbell benefits more than Alex Smith on rushing DPAR.

As a favor to me, could you double check to see if I stipulated on rushing DPAR at all? I thought I was pretty exhaustive about the bet, but it is the kind of thing I could forget.

In any event, I'm fine either way. I think JC will be a better passer and rusher than Alex Smith next season.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I looked back

As show by my assumption that Vick had a total DPAR of -6.3 from rushing and passing combined I was unaware of a passing DPAR and a rushing DPAR. And it's probably true that Campbell benifits more from the addition of the rushing DPAR, Campbell has a rating of something like 3 and Smith was -0.6, I wouldn't just Vick as a quaterback based soley on his passing so I won't judge Campbell or Smith either.

So we're using combined DPAR (rushing and passing) plus the previous stips. I'll post this addendum in the original thread for reference.

BTW Jason Campbell is my super sleeper #2/#3 QB in fantasy football. Mainly because he never gets drafted prior to the 14th round when I take him.

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question concerning our gentleman's wager

So are we using Passing DPAR + Rushing DPAR for our final DPAR value?

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Er...

Sorry I misread your question. Yes, I think it is possible to add DPAR, since that is a gross rate. DPAR reflects the player's total value over the course of the season. You could not do that with DVOA, since that is a measurement of that player per play, and you'd have to correct for how many rushing players vs. passing plays Vick participated in.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense.

It's pretty neat that you hang out around these parts Skin Patrol. You help stimulate whatever discussion may be here.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also on that page....

Guess who ranks 6th in QB rushing DPAR...give up?

Peyton Manning.

I haven't really seen more of an awkward running quaterback than Manning but I guess he's pretty good at it when he does lumber down the field.

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2005

His 2005 DPAR was 12.9 with stats that are (in my opinion) worse than the ones last season). The following are stats according to FO:

2005:
422 passes
2232 yards (~5.29 yards/pass)

15 TD
13 INT (15 TO total, I think)

2006:
388 passes
2164 yards (~5.57 yards/pass)
20 TD
11 INT

The amazing thing to me is that his rushing numbers (from Pro Football Reference) was more effective (in the sense of averages) last season:

2005:
102 carries
597 yards (~5.85 yards/carry)
6 TD

2006:
123 carries
1039 yards (~8.45 yards/carry)
2 TD

Perhaps those additional 4 rushing TDs put his DPAR into the positives?

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Total Touchdowns

But his TD total in '05 was 21 and in '06 it was 22. His '06 numbers, overall, are much better than his '05 numbers. 1 more TD, 2 less INT, 442 more rushing yards and only 68 less passing yards in '06. So it beats me.

by methodrampage on Jul 19, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

It seems pretty weird. I wonder if the guys over FO have noticed this oddity.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

FO

I interviewed an FO writer for some Seahawks questions, so I'll email him and get his thoughts on the subject.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jul 19, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason

is because of the defenses he played against. If you play exclusively against the best defense in the land in Y1, and exclusively the worse in Y2, it's possible to have better stats in Y2 but technically have played a worse season.

Moving from that, just look at his NON-Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement for the two years (PAR). In 2005 his PAR was -.2, but that moves up to 12.9 because he played a bunch of really tough defenses. In 2006 his PAR was 3.7, better as a raw number than his 2005 PAR, but was moved down to -6.3 DPAR because he played against a bunch of weak defenses.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

... we understand the adjustment that DPAR makes on PAR. What is odd is that his PAR value is low. I suppose I understand now the reason why, as his rushing stats are calculated separately from the passing stats.

Even with that factored in, I still find the PAR value to be kind of low. It's almost like they place a HUGE emphasis (perhaps too big) on yards per pass and completion percentage.

2006 Romo:
337 passes (~65%)
2761 yards (~8.19 yards/pass)
19 TDs
13 INTs (~1.46 TD:INT)
63.8 PAR

2006 Leinart:
370 passes (~58%)
2761 yards (~6.41 yards/pass)
11 TDs
11 INTs (1.00 TD:INT)
24.9 PAR

2006 Vick:
388 passes (~53%)
2164 yards (~5.58 yards/pass)
20 TDs
11 INTs (~1.82 TD:INT)
3.7 PAR

There is no way someone could tell me that Matt Leinart's stats (unadjusted to defense) were better than Vick's.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That one I can't answer for you

though I would wager that it would require a pretty intensive look at the numbers. One possible explanation, though I've got no evidence for this, is that Mike Vick and Matt Leinart simply didn't face similar situations often. Leinart might've performed better given the situation(s), or else Vick could've accumulated stats without actually performing at replacement level. A 10 yard pass on 3rd and 30 isn't as valuable as a 9 yard pass on 3rd and 8.

As DPAR and DVOA are based on down and distance and situation, it's possible for a player to be statistically worse than another but have performed at a higher level. In the case above, it seems that difference is a bit more pointed than I would expect or anticipate, so I don't have any means of explaining it. Perhaps someone from FO could help.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PAR and DPAR

Aren't different except that DPAR corrects for defense (hence Defense-adjusted...). The formulas are the same.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 19, 2007 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I knew that. Thats why I used them interchangeably in the last paragraph. I guess my first couple of sentences didn't really depict that understanding.

by sfgfan on Jul 19, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd agree

I don't know how I got nominated as Vick's supporting poster boy but I do agree that Vick can and should be suspending for say 4 or so games. But then if he's found guilty do you come back and suspend him further? I'd imagine so, and he probably deserves a very severe suspension if he is guilty. But I don't think a year suspension would be justified just based on the indictment.

by methodrampage on Jul 18, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What a total waste of time

There are real problems caused by real criminals that need to be addressed by federal prosecutors and dog-fighting has to be near the bottom of the list. This affects very few people (or ZERO people) and while I do love dogs, these monster pit-bulls just don't seem like real dogs to me. If local communities want to outlaw it that's one thing, but let them prosecute the guy.

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Jul 18, 2007 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

state

I think Virginia is also going after him...or at least has their own investigation going, independent of the federal investigation.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by Fooch on Jul 18, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Something worth considering...

Virginia could still bring case. The Federal Government has not, as far as I can tell, brought up animal cruelty charges. I don't even know if there is a Federal animal cruelty law.

Bottom line is there are a lot of ways this thing can turn bad and then really bad for those involved.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 18, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Federal Government

isn't pursuing them for dog fighting. Rather the indictment is for "Conspiracy to Travel Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture." The activities described in the indictment describe over three years of subversive, criminal behavior. I posit that said behavior is habitual. Also, other illicit activities (such as homicide, for instance) has historically been linked to illegal gambling rings. Breaking them up is important.

Speaking to your personal feelings on how high or low dog fighting is in the realm of crimes committed, I think that's up to voters generally to determine. The Federal Government is not trying them for hurting poor wittle doggies, they're charging them with Conspiracy.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jul 18, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you have a comment?

Yes. I have a comment.... WHAT? Why everytime I turn on my TV I hear Vick's name like he has sent young Americans to fight in a stupid war. or fail to educate many underprivliledge youths in this country. or maybe refused to allow Haitians into the country but let the flood gates of Mexico open. Caused the price of Gas to go up.The reason how so many marriages end in divorce. Refuse to pay for a cure for AIDS or Cancer. Denied voters in Florida the right to vote. Are we Serious? I mean I knew the President Gallop poles number were down and we needed a distraction but Come on.

"Niners Are Back!!!"

by mississippininer on Jul 19, 2007 9:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs