Would the Lions take Vick?

Damian Penny (who is still pretending he's finished with blogging) sent out a link to this rather off-beat article arguing that the Detroit Lions might try to acquire Michael Vick:

Jamie Dukes recommends the Lions set their sights on Vick as soon as they legally can, and here are his three major reasons:
   • Rest assured the Lions would have one of the top three running
   games in the NFL next season with Vick under center.
   • Vick would help the defense because of ball control and his unusual
   propensity to keep the chains moving.
   • Most importantly for the Lions, Vick is "recession-proof" — he would
   sell out Ford Field.

I don't know about those reasons. There's still a weak offensive line there, so I don't know what makes him that confident about the running game. And when we're calling a guy who's been making 12 cents an hour washing the heavily-soiled whites of Stabface McAllister "recession-proof," I'm not sure we're talking about the most sound financial strategy in the world.

But that's not to say that there are no positives for the Lions being Vick's next home.

One, whoever signs Vick faces a big public backlash. If it turns out that it's the Lions, though . . . well, who could hate the Lions? You can't hate the Lions. That's like watching a newborn baby fight Rampage Jackson and rooting for Rampage.

You can say the risk would be too high . . . but that would only apply to a normal team. Detroit is an extraordinary team — extraordinarily bad, that is. The remaining fans are probably willing to put up with almost anything that might improve the franchise. Michael Vick's talents are undeniable, even if his ethical and moral instincts are shaky.