so, if you have the slightest inkling that there will be non-football questions or even questions about an insignificant person, at the expense of your time, information about your team that you want to convey, altered focus of other players...even if it's true only in your head, then why bother? You can get another equally insignificant person without disturbing your imagination at all. Isn't that the smarter route?
This assumes that these players won't have their own issues that you will have to deal with.
People always forget that Michael Sam played at a large SEC conference school and won several awards for being a premier player. That has to factor in compared to some special-teams player from a lesser-known school.
You can't simplify a cost-benefit analysis of these issues simply because they lesson the argument that Sam will be a huge impediment to you as a coach.
so, if you have the slightest inkling that there will be non-football questions or even questions about an insignificant person, at the expense of your time, information about your team that you want to convey, altered focus of other players...even if it's true only in your head, then why bother? You can get another equally insignificant person without disturbing your imagination at all. Isn't that the smarter route?
Also the supposed wart that Sam has is well known to the coach. Whereas the issues with other comparable players maybe not known at this point. That's an advantage for Sam in an analysis.
I don't know why being deeply religious equals nutjob. Â
would give a press conference and tell the media something to the extent of
"We believe in equal rights and we do not discriminate in the LOCATION MASCOT organization. As such, Michael Sam will be evaluated purely as a football player. Not as a gay football player, not as a black football player, but as a football player wearing #96. Mr. Sam's personal life, as with any other player, will only be relevant should he violate the team's or league's personal conduct policy.
We hope that the media will share in our respect for Mr. Sam's equal rights and will treat him accordingly, evaluating him and his place on the team purely from a football perspective. As such, the team will not answer questions regarding Michael Sam's sexuality as doing so would be singling him out for his identity and not treating him as we would any other player.
for Dungy to just lie and say he'd love Sam on his team and then just not draft him like most GM's did/would have done.
On one hand his honesty is commendable, but on the other hand it's a little sad he feels that way.
And it's also ironic that he is honest with this particular issue and get blasted for being a phony. If he were being phony he probably would have done what I suggested. He might be a phony in some areas, but he can hardly be accused of that with regards to this topic.
you won't get an answer on that..Same way i wouldn't get an answeer on whether anyone would ask Tebow that question..because if was deeply as his persona says he is, he would have the same view of Dungy..
you won't get an answer on that..Same way i wouldn't get an answeer on whether anyone would ask Tebow that question..because if was deeply as his persona says he is, he would have the same view of Dungy..
I think Tebow has been associated with anti-gay groups, but there are a number of religious people who are tolerant and it's a bit unfair to homogenize religious people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, though, and you intended something differently than the way I read it.
I think Dungy's religious views may be the reason he would not put up with Sam, not necessarily the possible distractions, although if Sam were as good as Peyton Manning, I wonder if he would waiver and be fine with him on the team.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
I think there is a huge distinction many on this thread seem to be missing.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
I think Dungy's religious views may be the reason he would not put up with Sam, not necessarily the possible distractions, although if Sam were as good as Peyton Manning, I wonder if he would waiver and be fine with him on the team.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
Sam could be a HOF player. Nobody knows at this point. Adams is camp fodder, however.
I think there is a huge distinction many on this thread seem to be missing.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It's not missing. People with higher critical thinking skills have figured it out.
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
Kicker, for someone touting such high critical thinking skills Â
You put virtually no thought into the final line of your post:
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
If Sam is a HoF player that would be a great thing Â
You put virtually no thought into the final line of your post:
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Mike.
The fact that you think so poorly of me actually makes me happy.
I won't address the fluff in your post, because, frankly, I should always remember you've never been worth responding to. I apologize for doing that.
The reason I asked that is some here are being labeled as intolerant because they are somehow thought to be agreeing with his religious views. I don't agree with his religious views but he is free to have them. My opinions come from a different direction. My comments on this thread have little to do with his being gay. I am pretty much indifferent to that and I have said before here I consider gays in the same way I consider left handed people.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You can take that route if you want. You're not coming off any better for calling someone a bigot for "wanting to avoid a distraction." That's the bottom line. That is, actually, the opposite of critical thinking. That's cowardly (much like Dungy seems to be with his comments). It shows you put literally no thought into your statement, took an easy leap (he's religious so he must be a bigot!) and removed yourself from any discussion when your point was actually challenged.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
You can take that route if you want. You're not coming off any better for calling someone a bigot for "wanting to avoid a distraction." That's the bottom line. That is, actually, the opposite of critical thinking. That's cowardly (much like Dungy seems to be with his comments). It shows you put literally no thought into your statement, took an easy leap (he's religious so he must be a bigot!) and removed yourself from any discussion when your point was actually challenged.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
Fantastic. Really, fantastic. A lack of an answer is not backing off, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.
I'll choose my track record on this website, and everything I've said. Stand by every single point. And try to remember never to address anything substantive your way.
The reason I asked that is some here are being labeled as intolerant because they are somehow thought to be agreeing with his religious views. I don't agree with his religious views but he is free to have them. My opinions come from a different direction. My comments on this thread have little to do with his being gay. I am pretty much indifferent to that and I have said before here I consider gays in the same way I consider left handed people.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You're right that the discourse on this subject immediately descends into a less than fruitful discussion.
I don't agree with Dungy's views and find his reasoning on this subject pathetic. But you're right, the fact someone agrees with his views on homosexuality doesn't automatically mean they're agreeing with his religion.
and saying he deserves a 2nd (or more) chance, well that's just what's great about the USA right Tony?
Not giving a kid a chance at all, just because he has a different lifestyle outside the workplace from you...not unexpected from Mr Dungy, but I think this is one of those cases where people who stick too close to certain Biblical interpretations find themselves turned around in circles and contradicting themselves.
In summary, it's fine to take a risk and invite all the drama of someone who has had discipline/law problems, but someone who has admitted to being gay is not worth all the drama...Man, I coulda sworn the whole Vick thing (and Dungy backing him) was a way bigger story than M Sam has been, so I call BS on 'not wanting to deal with all of it'. He has made a personal judgement of this man, and it has nothing to do with the extraneous BS - Tony has made it clear previously he doesn't agree with who M Sam is, and would not want him for that reason no matter how good he is (or how many dogs he can drown)...
Honest question. My only point is that because someone doesn't want a distraction in his locker room (caused by external bigotry and perhaps homophobia within the team) doesn't mean he is a bigot.
Do you disagree with this point? And this is a yes or no question. If you want to elaborate on why then sure, but I only request you also include a definitive yes or no as well.
As usual, you want the world to be black and white, when in reality, it's mostly gray.
Wuphat, well kicker used a black and white term. Bigot. So since you made a point about my compass, and considering I took issue with kicker referring to Dungy as a bigot, one would deduct that you agree with kicker's characterization.
If I'm wrong I do apologize. Please clarify. Do you agree with kicker that Dungy is a bigot?
It's the last 'acceptable' place from under which people feel like they can comfortably be bigots without having to offer any explanation further than, 'Hey, it's my religion.'
I just hope you understand the gravity of the word. I suspect you do, which is why I'm really surprised. Especially after your previous commentary (granted, on other matters) on wanting more information before forming a conclusion. From what I can tell (and yes this may be wrong , and you may want to elaborate further, though I suspect not), you've formed this opinion on him wanting to avoid distractions and also being a religious person.
Bigotry implies Dungy wouldn't draft Sam because of his sexual orientation.
I appreciate your straightforward response and disagree with you.
I haven't made a single comment regarding Dungy's religious Â
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
well said...
I hope Sam does well, but if the Giants has signed him, and I believe they had an offer ready, they would have likely made him sign something to preclude any TV shows, or distractions
has nothing to do with religion, has everything to do with Focus on the field
On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year’s NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
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.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
perhaps Dungy's other statements on the topic of homosexuality are relevant here (the ones that I could find).
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
Quote:
"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the family — family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be."
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
"I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...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."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
The distraction angle is a pretty transparent shield Â
This assumes that these players won't have their own issues that you will have to deal with.
People always forget that Michael Sam played at a large SEC conference school and won several awards for being a premier player. That has to factor in compared to some special-teams player from a lesser-known school.
You can't simplify a cost-benefit analysis of these issues simply because they lesson the argument that Sam will be a huge impediment to you as a coach.
As with Tebow and his distractions, all that mattered in the long run was whether or not he could play at the NFL level.
Also the supposed wart that Sam has is well known to the coach. Whereas the issues with other comparable players maybe not known at this point. That's an advantage for Sam in an analysis.
"We believe in equal rights and we do not discriminate in the LOCATION MASCOT organization. As such, Michael Sam will be evaluated purely as a football player. Not as a gay football player, not as a black football player, but as a football player wearing #96. Mr. Sam's personal life, as with any other player, will only be relevant should he violate the team's or league's personal conduct policy.
We hope that the media will share in our respect for Mr. Sam's equal rights and will treat him accordingly, evaluating him and his place on the team purely from a football perspective. As such, the team will not answer questions regarding Michael Sam's sexuality as doing so would be singling him out for his identity and not treating him as we would any other player.
Thank you and go LOCATION MASCOT"
Jelly?
On one hand his honesty is commendable, but on the other hand it's a little sad he feels that way.
And it's also ironic that he is honest with this particular issue and get blasted for being a phony. If he were being phony he probably would have done what I suggested. He might be a phony in some areas, but he can hardly be accused of that with regards to this topic.
I think Tebow has been associated with anti-gay groups, but there are a number of religious people who are tolerant and it's a bit unfair to homogenize religious people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Perhaps I'm misreading your last sentence, though, and you intended something differently than the way I read it.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It would be great if a HoF level player at the beginning of his career came out, although I do wonder why "coming out" matters because I believe the NFL players for the most part would be fine with it. The few stragglers won't make a difference. On any team, there will be players who dislike other players for any reason. I am sure some disliked Tebow for his views.
Sam could be a HOF player. Nobody knows at this point. Adams is camp fodder, however.
And that is: Dungy didn't say he we would avoid drafting Sam because he's gay. He said he'd avoid drafting him because of the distractions and issues that would follow his club.
Now, with that in mind, it's an idiotic statement. As the article noted, Dungy is the first African American head coach with a Super Bowl ring, so he of all people should push for every player getting an equal shot. If Sam was more than a 7th Round Draft pick, perhaps he would value the on-the-field contributions more than he detests the off-the-field distractions. I don't know. But to call him a bigot is dumber than his actual comments.
It's not missing. People with higher critical thinking skills have figured it out.
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Quote:
He's a bigot because he's discriminating against someone based on something that isn't a personal choice. The only reason that Sam could be a "distraction" is sexual preference.
This is just so idiotic I don't know where to begin. So let's say Player X is being bombarded with question after question about whether or not he has issues playing with a gay player. Let's also say Player X actually is a bigot but is doing his best to not make homophobic public statements. He'll likely eventually fuck up, then perhaps other players who were less likely to make the same statements now feel they can do so since someone else took that first leap. Then all of a sudden the media is portraying the team as a bunch of homophobic cavemen.
Let's also say this team's head coach/GM drafting Sam because he thought he'd make a good football player, but now his team is under extensive stress due to... wait for it... the distraction caused by Sam being gay.
So to simplify all of this for you so you don't have to use your unrivaled critical thinking, just because the rest of the world deems something unacceptable and creates a distraction doesn't make the person who wants to avoid the mess in his locker room a bigot.. you fucking idiot.
Weak-willed? Yes. Poor at controlling his locker room? Certainly. Bigoted. No. But keep using your expert critical thinking skills to throw around grotesque terms about people you've never met.
Mike.
The fact that you think so poorly of me actually makes me happy.
I won't address the fluff in your post, because, frankly, I should always remember you've never been worth responding to. I apologize for doing that.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
But for the record, I stated a reasonable point about the distinction between bigotry and (weakly) wanting to avoid a distraction, you responded with really nothing other than "he's a bigot" and then backed off when you had no logical response.
Enjoy not responding to this, as well.
Fantastic. Really, fantastic. A lack of an answer is not backing off, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.
I'll choose my track record on this website, and everything I've said. Stand by every single point. And try to remember never to address anything substantive your way.
People like you are what kept me from showing my left handedness until my 20's.
It isn't a choice.
However to some here, those distinctions can't be made. The name calling and self righteous glad you will die soon uglyness comes out. I would hope we were above the Buckyd style of discourse which you can see everyday on a certain other site.
You're right that the discourse on this subject immediately descends into a less than fruitful discussion.
I don't agree with Dungy's views and find his reasoning on this subject pathetic. But you're right, the fact someone agrees with his views on homosexuality doesn't automatically mean they're agreeing with his religion.
Not giving a kid a chance at all, just because he has a different lifestyle outside the workplace from you...not unexpected from Mr Dungy, but I think this is one of those cases where people who stick too close to certain Biblical interpretations find themselves turned around in circles and contradicting themselves.
In summary, it's fine to take a risk and invite all the drama of someone who has had discipline/law problems, but someone who has admitted to being gay is not worth all the drama...Man, I coulda sworn the whole Vick thing (and Dungy backing him) was a way bigger story than M Sam has been, so I call BS on 'not wanting to deal with all of it'. He has made a personal judgement of this man, and it has nothing to do with the extraneous BS - Tony has made it clear previously he doesn't agree with who M Sam is, and would not want him for that reason no matter how good he is (or how many dogs he can drown)...
Do you disagree with this point? And this is a yes or no question. If you want to elaborate on why then sure, but I only request you also include a definitive yes or no as well.
Wuphat, well kicker used a black and white term. Bigot. So since you made a point about my compass, and considering I took issue with kicker referring to Dungy as a bigot, one would deduct that you agree with kicker's characterization.
If I'm wrong I do apologize. Please clarify. Do you agree with kicker that Dungy is a bigot?
I would not suggest that bigotry is necessarily motivated by hatred.
Bigotry implies Dungy wouldn't draft Sam because of his sexual orientation.
I appreciate your straightforward response and disagree with you.
I'd like to know how you came to attribute such things to me.
Quote:
who makes a decision based on their faith is a religious nut job? You realize many of you are intolerant and hating on Dungy because he is expressing his belief. The public made this Michael Sam issue into a media circus. I would not want the media hounding the team.
Yeah. Better that NFL teams are allowed to operate in the total media vacuum in which they used to. No spotlight. No questions. No pressure. Why can't it be like it used to be?? Before that one guy came along and suddenly the Media got all interested.
well said...
I hope Sam does well, but if the Giants has signed him, and I believe they had an offer ready, they would have likely made him sign something to preclude any TV shows, or distractions
has nothing to do with religion, has everything to do with Focus on the field
Wait. Are you saying that there are people out there that like short people?
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
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.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
Dungy comments on his comments - ( New Window )
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/colts/2007-03-21-dungy-remarks_N.htm
2011: (tweet in response to the President's gay marriage stance)
http://www.dennyburk.com/tony-dungy-on-pres-obamas-gay-marriage-stance/
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
What's he talking about here? Sure sounds like the locker room to me.
Yet in the quotes posted above he says the opposite?
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...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."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
Ask MiLB. I'm sure he'll give you a nice yes or no answer.
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
So much for not jumping to conclusions.
He says he wouldn't want the distraction in his locker room... so you... you know.. he obviously hates the gays!
Again, nuance is not your strong suit.