My feelings on Michael Vick are known to readers of this site. I'm not a fan of his at all, don't like the fact that he's making millions of dollars after what he did. I don't like the "redemption story" that's been all over the football press this season. I don't think playing very well and not doing anything stupid redeems a person from running a multi-state criminal organization that involved killing dogs, and I think the redemotion angle is an easy one for sports writers to take. But he is playing insanely good football this year. Can't take that away from him. And then, the New York Post uncorks this cover today:
What gets to me isn't the appropriateness of the cover. I'm a dog person, so you know how I feel.
What gets to me is that the cover doesn't make any sense.
The story of the game wasn't Vick. It was the punt return at the end of the game, a true "Holy (bleep)" moment at a time when sports seems to suck all of those dry. It was the Giants' soiling themselves in the final eight minutes. Vick played a part in that, but his play was probably the third biggest storyline of the day.
Granted, it's the Post. They go for shock value. It's what they do. That's fine. I love them for it.
But this just seemed like a stretch, like a copy editor had it in his mind to do this all day, or all week, and was going to do it no matter what. And it was a "shocking" cover that didn't have much shock value - and, to me, undercut the stories of the day.
What does everyone else think?