All things offseason discussion part II

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Tony Dungy should have just kept his mouth shut.

Yeah I agree.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

Your example would be different though, because someone saying he didn't want a black player in this era would be straight race discrimination. Dungy didn't say he wouldn't have drafted Sam because he was gay, it's because of the attention he would have brought.

With Vick, that's a different kind of attention. We don't really know how these NFL players accepted Vick's return versus how they'll accept Sam, but I would guess the latter will cause quite a bit more attention, both negative and neutral. Edit: And I believe Sam will certainly have more potential for locker room problems.

Like someone else said, I don't think Dungy is wrong, but he comes across as a jerk for saying those things out loud.


In other news:

Norv Turner: Teddy Bridgewater worth a top-10 pick - NFL.com

I hope this dude can become a legit QB. AP deserves better in his last elite years than the likes of Cassell, Freeman, or Ponder.

Really rooting for Bridgewater to have a monster rookie year. You'd think that the scouts would learn that a good or bad pro day really should not hurt or help someone's draft status.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Really rooting for Bridgewater to have a monster rookie year. You'd think that the scouts would learn that a good or bad pro day really should not hurt or help someone's draft status.

Same here. I'm a huge fan of his game.

From what I've heard, pro scouts were never that high on Bridgewater. Supposedly it was merely the media that had a huge crush on Teddy, which evaporated after his less-than-spectacular workout. Who knows if that's true or not. But either way, if Pro Days and Combines were indicative of a player's talents, JaMarcus Russell would be tearing it up in the pros. But they're not and he's not, so suck it, Teddy haters.

Honestly, I wasn't impressed with any of the QBs in this year's draft except for Bridgewater, Aaron Murray(who has a smoking hot GF, by the way), and Johhny Manziel(although to a lesser degree than the other two).

[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.

[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

[over the mountain]

[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 SirLK26

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.

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

[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.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

To both of your questions( Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you?", and "Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?"), absolutely. You can do whatever the heck you want to improve your football team, as long as it's within the NFL rules. Sort of like how kids on the playground always pick certain kids last because there are other kids who will ultimately help them win more. It may not be the kindest, or in Sam's case if he had remained unsigned or gets cut, the most popular by public opinion, but if you think a player will bring more distractions than he's worth, you can absolutely cut him or not sign him, gay or straight.

Your post leads me to believe that you think that if Sam is one of the best 53 on the Rams' team, he should remain on the team even if the distractions become so fierce that their locker room divides(unlikely, I know, but play along.) And the only reason you would keep him is because he's gay and it would be discriminatory to cut him. If Sam were straight and he became that big of a distraction, you would cut him immediately, even if he were one of the best 53, am I right?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, I get the "teamwork, camaraderie" aspect and its importance. Also, I understand your premise that refusal to draft a black player b/c their blackness would allegedly create distraction is an obvious ruse. However, neither of these alters the fundamental question: Is it okay to make roster decisions based gender-preference. Can I cut a more talented player who will cause a distraction based on their gender-preference to retain a lesser talented player who creates no such distraction?

I think it a given that, but for his homosexuality, Sam was a draft worthy player. Thus, the question remains: Is it permissible to say "You're gay, I won't draft you b/c you're a marginal talent and your gender-preference is likely to be a distraction."

For Dungy the distraction preventing Sam's drafting is his homosexuality. Dungy is discriminating based on gender-preference because it is the "but-for" causation of the alleged distraction. If Sam is not gay, no distraction and no prohibition on drafting a marginal player. Sam is gay, so deemed a distraction, and, thus, prohibition on drafting a marginal player.

Again, you can couch it however you want, but Dungy's reasoning for saying he wouldn't draft Sam ultimately turns on Sam's gender-preference and nothing else. To assert it is anything other than is "straight-up discrimination," is a denial of reality ["The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights."].

As for your statement: "If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him." As it applies to Sam, it is a logical fallacy.
The logical statement: "If x, but not y, then z."
In your statement: x= Sam is gay; y= a distraction; z= gets drafted

The logical fallacy is that the only way that Sam is "not a distraction" is if he is "not gay". Thus:

1. not y (not a distraction) = not x (not gay); consequently
2. y (distraction) = x (gay); thus,
3. If x, but not x, then z.

A result cannot occur conditioned on the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of "x". Because Sam is gay, Dungy will always assume he will be a distraction. [Again, if Sam were a first round talent, superstar then no gender based discrimination occurs. The gender based discrimination occurs only because Sam's talent does not outweigh the distraction caused by his gayness].

Discrimination is not inherently illegal - we could not function if we did not discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong. The question is not "Is Dungy discriminating based on gender preference?" b/c he is. The onlyquestion is whether this type of discrimination is permissible.

In the NFL is gender-preference based discrimination right or wrong in your book? Simple question. Is it okay to say, "Your homosexuality will be a distraction that outweighs your talent so I will not sign you"? [Again, from a different era - under this reasoning, it was fine to discriminate against marginal black players in the era of segregation b/c their distraction caused by their skin color outweighed their talent level].

I'm going to purchase Joe one of these. He can wear it under a sport coat into court or something, or during times like these.