Gay

[bbgun]

That's because his statement is clearly bullshit.

Actually, the fact that some ambiguous comments caused so much uproar kinda proves his point.

Gay guy is too much of a distraction? Same guy who went to bat and advocated for Mike Vick. That wasn't a circus when he was seeking a team after release?

some people are worth the distraction and some aren't. Vick was a proven commodity; Sam is a marginally talented 7th rounder. had Clowney declared he was gay, he still would have been a top 2 pick.

Everyone knows damn well where the source of his position originates. Saying it's a distraction is a cover.

Well, there must be a lot of "bigots" in NFL front offices because they all passed on his too. BTW, you needn't be a Christian or a member of the "religious right" to oppose homosexuality. even Godless Communist countries frowned upon it and all but made it illegal.

 

[CaliCowboy]

What?

If he would give back a SB to stop gays, I was curious if anyone would go gay for a SB. Somewhat new here, trying to spot the members I need to be wary of

 

[Hoofbite]

Actually, the fact that some ambiguous comments caused so much uproar kinda proves his point.

some people are worth the distraction and some aren't. Vick was a proven commodity; Sam is a marginally talented 7th rounder. had Clowney declared he was gay, he still would have been a top 2 pick.

Well, there must be a lot of "bigots" in NFL front offices because they all passed on his too.

Tony Dungy supported Vick because it was the "right thing"

Moral positions don't hinge on whether or not your personal gain outweighs the cost.

If you're supporting the "right thing", be consistent.

As for the bigoted front offices, well fuck yes they are. They had to institute a rule to give minorities the opportunities that their good 'ol boy hiring practices were excluding.

BTW, you needn't be a Christian or a member of the "religious right" to oppose homosexuality. even Godless Communist countries frowned upon it and all but made it illegal.

Sure but that's where it undoubtedly come from in this case. Dude's a well known evangelical.

At least he's cognizant enough to realize that people wouldn't have stood for him to flat out take the religious route. Just wasn't cognizant enough to realize that everyone would know damn well that was the case anyway.

 

[bbgun]

Tony Dungy supported Vick because it was the "right thing"

Moral positions don't hinge on whether or not your personal gain outweighs the cost.

If you're supporting the "right thing", be consistent.

If Dungy hadn't supported Vick, meaning no hypocrisy on his part, would you still be jumping him for his take on Sam?

As for the bigoted front offices, well fuck yes they are. They had to institute a rule to give minorities the opportunities that their good 'ol boy hiring practices were excluding.

So they're racists and homophobes? Is this the NFL or the KKK?

Sure but that's where it undoubtedly come from in this case. Dude's a well known evangelical.

At least he's cognizant enough to realize that people wouldn't have stood for him to flat out take the religious route. Just wasn't cognizant enough to realize that everyone would know damn well that was the case anyway.

You have no way of knowing if his religious beliefs informed his opinion regarding Sam. None. Yes, he could be using the "media distraction" angle as a cover for bigotry, but absent proof, you have no right to defame the man.

 

[2233boys]

He said he made those comments after it was reported Sam was making that Oprah tv show or at least that is what I heard on NFL radio.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Don't see what's wrong with what he said. As bb pointed out, if it were Clowney or Andrew Luck, every coach in the world would put up with it. But a fringe prospect seventh rounder... There are probably a lot of teams that wouldn't want to deal with it. When they cut him, even if he can't play a lick, they are going to get a world of shit.

 

[Doomsday]

When they cut him, even if he can't play a lick, they are going to get a world of shit.

And that's why they probably won't. If he can't play DL for shit, they will rave about what a great special teams contributor he is, or some shit. They'll keep him. Political based affirmative action has come to the NFL.

 

[bbgun]

When they cut him, even if he can't play a lick, they are going to get a world of shit.

Don't cry for him. He'll be making tons of $ on the lecture circuit for the rest of his life.

 

[Hoofbite]

If Dungy hadn't supported Vick, meaning no hypocrisy on his part, would you still be jumping him for his take on Sam?

Kind of an odd question. I'm calling bullshit because his support of Vick makes the situation entirely transparent. Now I have to pretend he never supported Vick?

So they're racists and homophobes? Is this the NFL or the KKK?

Overtly, no. They have to play the same game Tony is playing and attribute it to "other stuff".

You have no way of knowing if his religious beliefs informed his opinion regarding Sam. None. Yes, he could be using the "media distraction" angle as a cover for bigotry, but absent proof, you have no right to defame the man.

He supported a ban on gay marriage when he was coaching. Clearly he doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle. Toss in a fabricated excuse and it's pretty obvious what his position is.

By all means, feel free to wait for him to publically state it if you like.

 

[Doomsday]

He supported a ban on gay marriage when he was coaching. Clearly he doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle. Toss in a fabricated excuse and it's pretty obvious what his position is.

And thusly, we see where the question came from, why he was asked.

He should have had the brains to stay off this new third rail and kept his comments entirely football related. There's enough football reasons not to draft Sam and it wasn't necessary to address the player's bedroom choices at all. Pox on Dungy for taking the bait and not knowing better. Brickbats.

 

[bbgun]

Kind of an odd question. I'm calling bullshit because his support of Vick makes the situation entirely transparent. Now I have to pretend he never supported Vick?

You may not like the messenger or his message, but what he said was fundamentally true. Sam brings a lot of baggage and media scrutiny for a 7th rounder. Most NFL front offices decided that he wasn't worth the circus atmosphere that accompanies him. The fact that he secretly tried to negotiate a reality show for himself--without telling teams before the draft--only confirms their worst suspicions.

He supported a ban on gay marriage when he was coaching. Clearly he doesn't agree with the gay lifestyle.

So does like half the country, including a sizable portion of the black community.

Toss in a fabricated excuse and it's pretty obvious what his position is.

It's not a fabrication. Sam, as a gay pioneer, is a distraction, and he has no one but himself to blame.

And thusly, we see where the question came from, why he was asked.

He should have had the brains to stay off this new third rail and kept his comments entirely football related. There's enough football reasons not to draft Sam and it wasn't necessary to address the player's bedroom choices at all. Pox on Dungy for taking the bait and not knowing better. Brickbats.

Sam is the one who made his orientation relevant by going public. I don't think Dungy referenced his bedroom habits, but rather the fallout from being the first openly gay NFL player.

 

[Doomsday]

Sam is the one who made his orientation relevant by going public. I don't think Dungy referenced his bedroom habits, but rather the fallout from being the first openly gay NFL player.

You're correct but that's also what I based my comments on. The question put to him wasn't "would you not draft Sam because he is gay" the question was, "Would you have drafted Sam." There was no reason for Dungy to answer based on anything but football related reasoning. It's not like the guy has ever been a lights out player, so there was a chance there for Dungy to give a objective, football based, answer instead of stepping on the rail.

 

[Doomsday]

Easy and truthful answer for Dungy would have been, "Sure I would draft him if he presented us a upgrade to the position. But if not, no."

 

[bbgun]

You're correct but that's also what I based my comments on. The question put to him wasn't "would you not draft Sam because he is gay" the question was, "Would you have drafted Sam." There was no reason for Dungy to answer based on anything but football related reasoning. It's not like the guy has ever been a lights out player, so there was a chance there for Dungy to give a objective, football based, answer instead of stepping on the rail.

you can't divorce his football skills from his sexuality. they were a package deal. I mean, why would they ask Dungy about a mere seventh rounder unless he was special in some way?

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Don't cry for him. He'll be making tons of $ on the lecture circuit for the rest of his life.

Oh, I wasn't crying for him. More the Rams. They better hope he can really play, because the media will descend upon that team like locusts if they have to cut Sams.

 

[Doomsday]

you can't divorce his football skills from his sexuality. they were a package deal. I mean, why would they ask Dungy about a mere seventh rounder unless he was special in some way?

Just to see if he would take the bait. Which he did.

There is NO reason for any analyst who once was a coach to have anything in his answers at all about any player really - Manziel included - that isn't strictly football oriented. It's not a requirement.

Dungy stepped in it, I imagine he won't do it again.

 

[bbgun]

Just to see if he would take the bait. Which he did.

the reporter wouldn't have allowed him to duck the gay part

 

[Doomsday]

the reporter wouldn't have allowed him to duck the gay part

He might have been forced to ask a question directly related to that, yes. But as far as "allowing" a duck, what's he gonna do? Put Dungy in a Daniel Bryan headlock until he answers? Waterboard Dungy, perhaps?

So, let's say the reporter does ask the direct question. Dungy still has the straight answer (pun intended), "If the player can help my team I don't care his orientation, religion, skin color, shoe size or anything else."

 

[Hoofbite]

Just to see if he would take the bait. Which he did.

There is NO reason for any analyst who once was a coach to have anything in his answers at all about any player really - Manziel included - that isn't strictly football oriented. It's not a requirement.

Dungy stepped in it, I imagine he won't do it again.

I'm not sure it was asked with baiting intentions. He has coached in a while.

He was asked because he's an analyst and has firsthand experience as a coach. Michael same had been a media got topic since before the draft. There are only so many ex-coaches who are in a position to commentate right now. That's currently his job.

I do agree with you that he could have just said he would take any player who represents an upgrade.

 

[dbair1967]

Oh, I wasn't crying for him. More the Rams. They better hope he can really play, because the media will descend upon that team like locusts if they have to cut Sams.

Its probably already been decided that he will make the team.

Fisher is a Goodell crony and will do what he is told. They drafted him because Goodell wanted someone (desperately) to do it, and Fisher did.