All things offseason discussion part II

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

did i hear right that training camp opens in 2 days?

lol...Skins name issue and Dungy comments need to be vetted first. Training camp on hold til then

[HoustonSkinsFan]

It's completely effed up that the perception is a gay guy would cause more problems/distractions than a guy running a dog fighting ring, a guy doing blow in Vegas bathrooms, guys beating their wives, guys MURDERING people (yeah, Ray Ray is guilty, we all know it). It's absurd, to be honest, and Dungy is a total idiot for saying anything at all. Whether you agree with it or not, there are already gay dudes in the NFL. Probably some who've gotten married, what with the laws changing rapidly from state to state.

[SirLK26]

Derrick Brooks, for the win.

Tony Dungy clarifies comments on Michael Sam of St. Louis Rams - ESPN

Speaking on a conference call with the national media Tuesday to discuss his entry into the Hall, Brooks was asked about the Dungy comments. He prefaced his answer by saying he would reserve judgment because he hadn't spoken with Dungy.

"I just generally feel that he's probably saying what 31 other teams were probably thinking in that regard," Brooks said. "They didn't draft him, for whatever reason. He was just saying, if he were a head coach, this is how he would have approached the situation, or approached the player's situation."

[MTK]

Thing is if Sam was a first rd pick none of this would be an issue. The fact he's a marginal player is what makes him not worth the media baggage he brings.

[JoeRedskin]

Dungy's remark, in light of his past statements about other "distraction" players, strikes me as incredibly hypocritical. As SS said, if it is performance based, fine - just say that. To couch it the way he did, however, certainly creates more than a mere inference of gender preference discrimination.

@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" not impermissible discrimination.

Based on his statement, juxtaposed against the statements Dungy has made about other "distraction" players, the only reason Dungy wouldn't draft Sam is b/c of his homosexuality. You can couch it any way you like, but that is the crux of it. Alleging Sam's homosexuality brings "a different kind of attention," is the type of evasive arguments used in racial discrimination for years - football has seen similar disguised discrimination before: intelligent QB's v. athletic QB's, Dungy himself faced similar hidden discrimination - "Sure, he's qualified but I've known Coach X for years."

Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?

[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]

Dungy is free to speak his mind. Others are free to agree or disagree with him. Bottom line, is it okay "in this era" to permit discrimination based on gender preference in a football locker room setting? You (and Dungy) apparently believe it is. Others believe it is not. Quite frankly, I find neither side's argument particularly persuasive of any imperative answer.

Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.

[skinsguy]

I think some of you guys are being absolutely ridiculous. Tony Dungy elaborates on his comments made on Monday:

Tony Dungy Elaborates on his remark about Michael Sam

"The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.

I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."


And this was the comment I was about the make until I saw the statement. Some of you guys were very quick to judge Tony Dungy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think some of you guys are being absolutely ridiculous. Tony Dungy elaborates on his comments made on Monday:

Tony Dungy Elaborates on his remark about Michael Sam

"The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.

I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."


And this was the comment I was about the make until I saw the statement. Some of you guys were very quick to judge Tony Dungy.

I read the same thing, it does not alter the fact that Dungy is saying "I wouldn't draft him b/c the distraction his sexual orientation causes." If Dungy became coach of the Rams tomorrow(hypothetically), would it be acceptable for him to cut Sam b/c Sam's sexual orientation "will be a distraction" due to the "the media attention that comes with it"?

I understand Dungy's statement and accept his sentiment. I do not believe he has any ill-will. ("Hey, gay people are some of my best friends"). However, it does not change the fact that he is ultimately making a roster decision about Sam (i.e. denying Sam the opportunity for employment) based on Sam's sexual orientation.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think some of you guys are being absolutely ridiculous. Tony Dungy elaborates on his comments made on Monday:

Tony Dungy Elaborates on his remark about Michael Sam

"The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.

I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.

I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction."


And this was the comment I was about the make until I saw the statement. Some of you guys were very quick to judge Tony Dungy.

Not changing my opinion. Here's a guy who preaches giving everyone a chance, who calls teams on behalf of players to get them second, third, fourth chances even when they are known "distractions" but it's too much for him to handle? Maybe it is, maybe that's why he's sitting in a studio on Sunday nights now

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Not changing my opinion. Here's a guy who preaches giving everyone a chance, who calls teams on behalf of players to get them second, third, fourth chances even when they are known "distractions" but it's too much for him to handle? Maybe it is, maybe that's why he's sitting in a studio on Sunday nights now

Hiyoooo!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Not changing my opinion. Here's a guy who preaches giving everyone a chance, who calls teams on behalf of players to get them second, third, fourth chances even when they are known "distractions" but it's too much for him to handle? Maybe it is, maybe that's why he's sitting in a studio on Sunday nights now

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

(logically speaking that is.)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Not changing my opinion. Here's a guy who preaches giving everyone a chance, who calls teams on behalf of players to get them second, third, fourth chances even when they are known "distractions" but it's too much for him to handle? Maybe it is, maybe that's why he's sitting in a studio on Sunday nights now

What, exactly, are the other known distractions that Tony Dungy has allowed on his team? I can't name any right off the top of my head. You have a player who had signed a deal with the Opera Network to have a reality TV show which will follow him around during his first year as a pro. Just him, not the whole team. All because of his sexuality. I can see how this would be a distraction for not only the team, but Sam himself. This is much different from Hard Knocks. Look, my take on it is, if his sexuality is not a big deal, why is Michael Sam making it a big deal? Better yet, why is the media making it such a big deal? If it truly was one of these, "Oh, your gay, that's cool...go on about my business" sort of deal, then I see the point against what Dungy said. Even I said I thought he sounded a bit hypocritical. But at the same time, everybody associated with Michael Sam, himself, Opera, the media - they're all treating it like it's a big deal. And that is where the distraction comes in. How many times did I have to hear, during the draft, about which team is going to make the "historic" draft pick of a gay player? Honestly, I think it's a bit hypocritical to for people to say that gay players should be treated like any other player entering the NFL draft, yet they celebrate such a "historic" event. Can't have it both ways.

As a coach, you can temper other types of distractions, such as the situation with Vick, or if a player was involved in some off field legal manners. A coach can easily say, "Don't talk to the media about this stuff, say no comment, say you're focus is only on football, etc...." But obviously someone's sexuality is such a hyper sensitive subject that if a coach tells his gay player the same thing about his homosexuality, that coach is labeled homophobic and bigot because the player can't be "free" to express his sexuality. It's a whole different distraction. So I can see it from Dungy's point of view. Maybe he is homophobic. Who knows? Just find it quite hypocritical for people to give Tim Tebow such a hard time because he was so up front about his Christian faith, and then think it's great for Michael Sam to be out about his sexuality. Guarantee that if you have gotten tired of hearing about Tebow, it's going to be the same deal with Sam.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

What, exactly, are the other known distractions that Tony Dungy has allowed on his team? I can't name any right off the top of my head. You have a player who had signed a deal with the Opera Network to have a reality TV show which will follow him around during his first year as a pro. Just him, not the whole team. All because of his sexuality. I can see how this would be a distraction for not only the team, but Sam himself. This is much different from Hard Knocks. Look, my take on it is, if his sexuality is not a big deal, why is Michael Sam making it a big deal? Better yet, why is the media making it such a big deal? If it truly was one of these, "Oh, your gay, that's cool...go on about my business" sort of deal, then I see the point against what Dungy said. Even I said I thought he sounded a bit hypocritical. But at the same time, everybody associated with Michael Sam, himself, Opera, the media - they're all treating it like it's a big deal. And that is where the distraction comes in. How many times did I have to hear, during the draft, about which team is going to make the "historic" draft pick of a gay player? Honestly, I think it's a bit hypocritical to for people to say that gay players should be treated like any other player entering the NFL draft, yet they celebrate such a "historic" event. Can't have it both ways.

As a coach, you can temper other types of distractions, such as the situation with Vick, or if a player was involved in some off field legal manners. A coach can easily say, "Don't talk to the media about this stuff, say no comment, say you're focus is only on football, etc...." But obviously someone's sexuality is such a hyper sensitive subject that if a coach tells his gay player the same thing about his homosexuality, that coach is labeled homophobic and bigot because the player can't be "free" to express his sexuality. It's a whole different distraction. So I can see it from Dungy's point of view. Maybe he is homophobic. Who knows? Just find it quite hypocritical for people to give Tim Tebow such a hard time because he was so up front about his Christian faith, and then think it's great for Michael Sam to be out about his sexuality. Guarantee that if you have gotten tired of hearing about Tebow, it's going to be the same deal with Sam.

Michael Vick had a reality show too during his first year back with the NFL for what it's worth

Anyway, I think you and I just disagree on this and that's ok. I'm ready to move on to some actual football

Also, Opera Network...lol

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

As a coach, you can temper other types of distractions, such as the situation with Vick, or if a player was involved in some off field legal manners. A coach can easily say, "Don't talk to the media about this stuff, say no comment, say you're focus is only on football, etc...." But obviously someone's sexuality is such a hyper sensitive subject that if a coach tells his gay player the same thing about his homosexuality, that coach is labeled homophobic and bigot because the player can't be "free" to express his sexuality. It's a whole different distraction. So I can see it from Dungy's point of view. Maybe he is homophobic. Who knows? Just find it quite hypocritical for people to give Tim Tebow such a hard time because he was so up front about his Christian faith, and then think it's great for Michael Sam to be out about his sexuality. Guarantee that if you have gotten tired of hearing about Tebow, it's going to be the same deal with Sam.

Using your Vick example, even if Dungy said to Vick "don't talk to the media", there's still going to be distractions brought on by that player. Vick may not say anything, but that's not going to stop PETA from protesting or the media from keep asking Vick and other players about Vick's situation. Sam can just as easily not make a comment about his personal life and sexual preference.

Tony Dungy is a religious guy so his comments (sadly) don't surprise me. But he's a public figure and has been a coach in the past, and he should know better about making these comments.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

<snip>

@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" not impermissible discrimination.

<snip>

Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?

[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]

<snip>

Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.

Because if someone were to say they wouldn't draft a black player in this day and age, it would be straight up racial discrimination. What distraction would a straight male black player who played college ball at a high level bring?

If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.

Jackie Robinson was worth every bit of distraction he brought, being one of the best major league players ever and all. Sam might not even make the Rams' roster. I think the distraction versus what you get out of the distraction should definitely play a part.

I think if you were an NFL coach, you would have a different view. Football isn't all about talent. It's about teamwork, camaraderie, and all that good stuff. Not saying definitively the Rams won't play well together because of Sam, but Dungy apparently thinks things might not work so well over there. And, according to Derrick Brooks, it's likely that's a near-unanimous consensus among NFL teams.

[HoustonSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.

But the "distraction" he would bring is because he is gay, you can't disassociate the two. This is ridiculous for two reasons; one, it implies the most blatant homophobia possible, and two, it implies that talent does not outweigh his being gay.

This is not just on Dungy; it's the entire NFL. DeAndre Hopkins covered his combine hotel room in shit and piss, which to me makes him certifiably insane. Shit and piss!!! He was drafted 27th overall.

The SEC defensive player of the year should've gone higher than he did. Only one other SEC defensive player of the year was drafted outside the top 33, Chad Lavalais from LSU. Absurd.

Michael Sam: Only One Other SEC Defensive Player of the Year Has Been Drafted Outside the First Two Rounds | The Big Lead