Quick, somebody revoke his "twitter " membership. Barnett should worry about passing his physical and leave personell management to TT. Wait a minute.....

I think he just remembers ... that game ... all too well is all.

Like to see Vick run all over the Vikngs like he did when he was will the Falcons.He served his time let him play.he's cheap too.

Ain't happening. Not even as a kick returner.

Not the backup QB we need.

I dont think we'd bringing Vick in to be just a backup QB to have just in case Rodgers went down, but to be a weapon like nick LOL barnett says.

And I dont buy any of that make him play some WR or have him return kicks crap. THe mans fast for a QB not fast for a WR. And just cause he can run away from linemen and LBs doesnt mean he can return kicks.. thats TOtal BS.

I think he'd definitely be worth taking a look at. MM turned Aaron Brooks into a decent quarterback which means he can turn just about anyone into one. We would probably need/want him to sign a three year deal for cheap. You'd be able to see how he progresses while giving flynn(im guessing)another couple years to learn the system without much pressure. If vick shows anything in preseason games or heaven forbid game time because rodgers went down you'd be able to pick up a pretty good pick for him in a trade after the first or second season. He would definitely add another dimension to the Big 5 formation at least. If the front office doesnt think brohm is gonna ever get it then it could make alot of sense. Seems highly unlikely but it does make sense.
If the price is right and TT and MM think this team is ready to handle the media circus that will undoubtedly ensue i think his signing would be just the kind of low risk high reward gamble that id like to see made.

didn't last year show us what a "media circus" during camp can do to a team?
-
there is no way this happens.
-
for all his faults, one thing tt has shown is that he's about "Packer people". he would never even entertain the possibility of adding a lightning rod player like this.
-
the risk outweighs the possible reward.

I'm all for bringing in Vick.
1. He gives us a backup QB that could actually win us a game. Unless Flynn or Brohm improve by leaps and bonds, I am not comfortable with either one of them in an injury situation.
2. He adds a versatile weapon. He would be better than Ruvell/Swain at our #5.
3. We could add a Wildcat formation, making us a more dynamic team.

The only real downside is the media circus, but really how long can that last? It will only be a big deal before his first preseason game and if he ever has to start. I think the majority of the public is willing to give him a second chance.
With everything being said, I would say there is only a 20 percent chance of this happening though

Even without the additional baggage (and there is a lot of it) I do not think Vick would be a good fit here. As I have said before, if TT was adamant about not signing a vet last year, why would he jump to get one now that his backup QBs have a little more experience? Not only that, but I don't think Vick is the best FA QB out there.

If a quarterback gets hurt, an offer to Vick will happen quickly. Do you really think TT would bring back Brent??

Basically, aa-rodg_is_cool is right. Vick would be extremely effective 5-6 times per game in the shotgun spread, or the "Fab 5" as Driver likes to call it. Last season, it seemed like the defense blitzed every single time that the Pack had 5 receivers on the field. This caused Rodgers to throw the ball quickly, negating the effectiveness of having 5 receivers. With Vick in the backfield and his strength and speed, blitzing him would be next to useless and he would be deadly. But that's it. That's the only time I would want to see him on the field.
---
I don't see him coming to GB, especially in training camp because of the circus it would cause. If he did come to Green Bay at the end of the preseason, though, I wouldn't be against it, so long as he was willing to do a considerable amount of volunteering with the Humane Society, PETA, NEW Zoo, Wildlife Sanctuary, etc. He's done the time, now let him get back to earning a living.

he cannot play until after week 6 anyway.

The Circus wont even be an issue for camp I don't think. The only way I see it happening is after camp when TT or MM are completely sold on the fact that Brohm wont ever "get it". Then I don't really see how anyone could be against the move. If in fact, Brohm has tiny carny hands and zero leadership ability. How could it possibly be negative to bring in Vick as the 3rd string QB option/wildcat extraordinaire?

Or hows this as an option: Package Brian Brohm and Aaron Kampman to Carolina in exchange for Julius Peppers. We get our 3-4 end and a spot for Vick without losing a 2nd rounder (Brohm) for nothing. They get their 4-3 end and a project QB to put behind Delhomme. EVERYBODY HAPPY!

Carolina probably would not go for that trade. I think the Packers would be very lucky to get a 7th round draft choice for Brohm.
***
Vick was not a good passer, but he was a very good rusher. He's built like a running back and his rushing numbers were very very good, with a 7.3 yd average. Could the Packers use an outstanding rusher? Hmmm...

Do. Not. Want.

Barnett needs to be more concerned about Bishop over taking him to start at ILB. Seems like Nick has too much time on his hands on the PUP. He's playing the 'camp clown' role.
_____
Vick has always been over rated & now on the 30+ side. Why deviate from your plans with a 'Vick Experiment' ??

No "LOL"? Wow...he must be serious!

WoodyG... overrated doesn't come in and beat the Packers at Lambeau in the winter. that sure sounds like someone who was properly or underrated to me. Sure there is a lot of hype, but the guy can play football, and he's won in college and the pros. I think its silly to say that he isn't better than at least Brohm right now.

He may be a good weapon, but is he really that good of a fit for Green Bay? I wish he'd just sign with someone already.

<a href="http://realfakesports.blogspot.com/2009/08/michael-vick-rumored-to-sign-... rel="nofollow">Michael Vick Rumored to Sign With Every NFL Team, the UFL, Canadian League, Arena Football 2, and Somehow the USFL</a>

Packnic - sure he WAS better than Brohm two years ago, but now you can't be too sure. As Mr Optimistic said earlier, Vick's strength was the threat of the rush; he was never the most accurate of passers and so I can't see him thriving in a west coast offence even if he still had the skills.

That 'he came into Lambeau' game was in season 2002. Vick's career completion is 53.8%. A good WC offense requires 60% +.
_____
All Vick would be to the Pack is an 'experiment'. Who would be thrilled to see Vick rush out of the wildcat for a whopping 5 yards while AR, Jennings, DD, etc. are watching from the sidelines ??

I want to clarify my stance. I don't think vick is a good quarterback or a good fit for the packers. What I do think is that with a year or two under MM he is a much more valuable commodity than brohm is if they don't feel he will ever ''get it''. A lot of people are saying vick is overrated. I'd agree for the most part. That is EXACTLY what you would want a player to be if he is not a major part of your future plans though. Sign him for cheap, improve him for a year or two with coaching and trade him to someone who overrates him for more than he's really worth. Minimal risk (we'd probably have to cut brohm who has no trade value as of now...not a big deal in my book).High reward (since he was already ''overrated'' he could easily be worth a second round pick if not a lot more if he shows anything on the field and behaves off it in the next couple years). Sounds like a good investment to me.

Nick Barnett does not have a future as a general manager. Or an English teacher.