Should Kansas City (or anyone else) sign Michael Vick?

Sounds like Michael Vick could be free in July. Which means someone is going to give him a shot, assuming the league reinstates him. But should they?

First of all, they'll have to reinstate him. If they try not to, Vick's lawyers should only need to utter one word: Pacman. They've given a gun-toting criminal chance after chance, setting a really bad precedent.

Either way, being eligible to play doesn't guarantee you'll be signed. Ask Barry Bonds! But knowing football's past, I'd bet someone will do it. I wish they wouldn't. How humbling would it be for Vick to have to seek employment in the CFL or Arena League? But that's not going to happen.

So who will sign him? Kansas City? Detroit? I guess it's easy for me to say no one should take a chance on him, as my team sits pretty with Drew Brees. But if I were a Detroit fan, would I feel differently?

Statistics tell me maybe not. The fact that Matt Ryan posted a higher QB rating last year than Vick ever has must have felt great for Falcons fans and should be a sign to these teams to think draft first. Then again, the Lions probably did not make a ton of good decisions leading up to an 0-16 season. So maybe they will take a chance on a dog-fighting QB! If they need help with defense, I know a DB looking for work as well...