Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

Tony Dungy Wouldn't Have Taken Michael Sam

Recommended Posts

 

Former Missouri linebacker, SEC Defensive Player of the Year and openly gay human being Michael Sam was eventually drafted by the Rams, though it wasn't until the seventh round when St. Louis made history.

Had Super Bowl-winning coach, NBC analyst and noted conservative Tony Dungy been running the Rams, he "wouldn't have taken" Sam. Why? "Things will happen" apparently.

"I wouldn't have taken him,'' Dungy told the Tampa Bay Tribune. “Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it.

"It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."

Dungy is allowed to have whatever stance he wants on sexuality. Religion, freedoms, belief systems, yada yada.

But this is a disappointing stance from the first African-American coach to win a Super Bowlwho dealt with racially-based backlash for he and his family at times. Dungy literally wrote (the foreward of) the book pushing for "Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL."

He was one of Michael Vick's biggest supporters when the former Falcons quarterback returned to the NFL from a stint in prison following his arrest for dogfighting. Vick commands headlines now; in 2009 he wasn't a distraction so much as fireworks coated in plutonium.

Dungy posted a video on his site "All-Pro Dad" encouraging Tim Tebow to be "patient" because the right situation would find him. Tim Tebow is a very nice and well-meaning person, but he is a walking, professional distraction.

There are many reasons for not drafting a player. But hearing "things will happen" from a pioneer of the NFL is a shame, regardless of where you stand on Michael Sam.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24631019/tony-dungy-wouldnt-have-taken-michael-sam--things-will-happen

 

What Tony said makes sense on it's face, but this guys points about his support of Vick and Tebow are valid. Not sure if this means Dungy is homophobic or anything, but I guess the kind of distraction Sam could bring would be a bit of a different animal than either of those guys.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, that's a fair assessment if only because people are assholes, and the vocal minority makes life difficult for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tony Dungy can compartmentalize "Distractions" as simply "Distractions" and not as "Distractions because of [insert reason here]," this makes sense, but I don't believe he can. In that case, he'd never sign a Vick, Tebow, DJack, etc etc etc.

 

And maybe he wouldn't if he was still coaching. Maybe none of these players would touch one of his rosters. I get that. I understand that Michael Sam is, at this point in a time, something of a distraction, but him being labeled a distraction is not warranted and is unfair to him as an individual. Don't Ask Don't Tell should not exist in any workplace. Sam put it out there instead of his teammates and coaches figuring it out, which they would have. Sexual preference is usually obvious once you get to know someone. People don't hide things as well as they think they do.

 

For instance, the distraction title is completely warranted for guys like Vick and Tebow. Vick for obvious reasons. Tebow because not every goddamn person on the planet is a Christian and he should not be allowed to force-feed us his religious beliefs (for the record, I've gone atheist). Didn't Jesus chastise those who openly worshiped in public for their own gain? What doesn't Timmy understand about this?

 

Michael Sam, on the other hand, is dealing with something that comes natural to him and he can't just box it up and put it away. Tim Tebow could tone down the bullshit. Mike Vick could have chosen not to get into dogfighting. DeSean Jackson could be a little more careful with his upbringing, though I tend to agree with DeSean's stance on his issue, too. He and Sam will probably be two players who will spend the rest of their careers unfairly labeled as distractions.

Either way, Tony Dungy needs to keep his mouth shut. As a man who went through a traumatic ordeal with his son's suicide, he has to have some basic understanding of the way we're wired and how we can't just choose to be something else. That's not really a fair comparison--his son suffered from a medical condition, Sam's is simply his sexual orientation. What I'm trying to say is that you can't just re-wire yourself to fit everybody's expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Sam is a distraction, but he's also probably not going to see the field much if at all. I think that's the reason why Tim Tebow is out of the NFL right now. You can be a distraction to a point if you have talent. Michael Vick and DeSean Jackson are both FAR more gifted athletes than Michael Sam. Guys on the team will start to get pissed because this guy isn't even on the field and he'll have the cameras on him and the focus on him.

 

Also, part of being a coach though too is managing your locker room. It's 2014, so things are better than they have been in the past, but to think that there isn't homophobia on likely every team is just dumb. I know it's not fair but having him on your roster could divide the team. I'm sure that there are players who will come to his defense and stick up for him, but there will be guys who don't like him too and then all of the sudden you don't just have people mad and Michael Sam, but a locker room divided.

 

It's not going to be easy for Sam. I'm glad he's getting his shot, but I'm kind of with Dungy. Feel good stories are nice, but when you're a HC, you're trying to win football games, not humanitarian awards. If I was making the call it's just simply not worth the headache. Now if Jadaveon Clowney had been the one who came out as gay and not Michael Sam it would be a totally different discussion imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised by Dungy here. He's a rigid Christian and as we all know a lot of Christians (no offense to any but it is what it is) are against homosexuality. That's the only difference here on why he'd support the signings of other former distractions like Vick and Tebow and not Sam.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised by Dungy here. He's a rigid Christian and as we all know a lot of Christians (no offense to any but it is what it is) are against homosexuality. That's the only difference here on why he'd support the signings of other former distractions like Vick and Tebow and not Sam.

 

There's also the issue that Vick (though not Tebow) was a distraction who was also a potentially effective starting quarterback when he came off that prison stint. So the reward was a lot greater. Sam's upside is what? A sub package rusher? Maybe?

 

But as a Christian, I would disagree with Dungy if that is in fact his reasoning. I disagree with homosexuality (whether as an act or as a lifestyle) on the basis that the Bible does, and because I believe that the Bible is God's word. But I think Christians who make homosexuality their soap box put the cart before the horse. I don't expect people who don't have faith in Jesus to model their lifestyles as though they do. Nor is there a biblical argument that Christians are called to discriminate against homosexual non-Christians.

 

But sometimes a Christian merely saying that they believe the lifestyle is wrong is viewed as discrimination in itself, or hate speech. Which is kind of ironic, because in saying that others are actually discriminating against a Christian worldview.

 

Bottom line, if I was a coach and there was a homosexual player who could help my team I would have no problem signing him up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing you have to keep in mind when talking about Tony Dungy's stance on Vick is that Dungy was involved in mentoring Vick during Vick's path back to the NFL, meaning that Dungy had at least a bit of a personal stake in Vick's return, which may have made him more willing to stick his neck out

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he's saying is that he doesn't do distractions. He doesn't think less of a human being for being different or taking a different path, I believe. He's not being a biggot here, he just doesn't see successful football and a bunch of media attention going together. He may not have communicated it the best way, but he said the right thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as a Christian, I would disagree with Dungy if that is in fact his reasoning. I disagree with homosexuality (whether as an act or as a lifestyle) on the basis that the Bible does, and because I believe that the Bible is God's word. But I think Christians who make homosexuality their soap box put the cart before the horse. I don't expect people who don't have faith in Jesus to model their lifestyles as though they do. Nor is there a biblical argument that Christians are called to discriminate against homosexual non-Christians.

 

But sometimes a Christian merely saying that they believe the lifestyle is wrong is viewed as discrimination in itself, or hate speech. Which is kind of ironic, because in saying that others are actually discriminating against a Christian worldview.

 

The Bible tells us in Luke 6: 27, 28, & 35 to even love our enemies. So when you consider what love really entails, I agree, there is no biblical argument to discriminate against anyone. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that you're discriminating.

Edited by Dutch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Bible tells us in Luke 6: 27, 28, & 35 to even love our enemies. So when you consider what love really entails, I agree, there is no biblical argument to discriminate against anyone. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that you're discriminating.

Exactly.

 

The directive is to serve, care for, and pray for those people who you disagree with. Even if they are disagreeing so strongly as to be discriminating against you. Unfortunately that's not lived out as consistently as it should be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Bible tells us in Luke 6: 27, 28, & 35 to even love our enemies. So when you consider what love really entails, I agree, there is no biblical argument to discriminate against anyone. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that you're discriminating.

 

Slightly off-topic because I'm not necessarily talking about Dungy, but the biblical precedent to love your enemies hasn't stopped many Christians from discriminating against homosexuals.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Slightly off-topic because I'm not necessarily talking about Dungy, but the biblical precedent to love your enemies hasn't stopped many Christians from discriminating against homosexuals.

That's because a lot of really "religious" people haven't read the Bible. They don't know what they're talking about and really the reason they identify as "Christian" is because most of the people they've known their whole lives identify as Christian. I mean, if you're TRULY Christian, then you would never be a republican. Jesus was basically a socialist based on what he said. The guy wanted re-distribution of wealth.... on a world wide scale. Do you think Jesus would be ok with hating anyone because of where they're from, their skin color or sexual preference or really for any reason at all? Do you think Jesus would be running around everywhere strapped? lol Look at somebody like Martin Luther King Jr if you want to see what Christianity SHOULD be.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tony Dungy attempted Tuesday to clarify remarks he made regarding Michael Sam, saying the openly gay linebacker who was drafted by the St. Louis Rams "absolutely" deserves a chance to play in the NFL.

The former Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Indianapolis Colts coach said he would be concerned only with the distraction that media coverage of Sam's attempt to make the roster would create if he were his coach.

Dungy's comments to the Tampa Tribune for a story published Sunday created a backlash within traditional and social media. On Tuesday, in a statement released to media outlets, Dungy said he gave an "honest answer" to questions about Sam. Dungy said his comments were made to the newspaper several weeks ago, when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."

The time frame of when Dungy made his remarks is in question. Tribune reporter Ira Kaufman told "The Dan Patrick Show" on Tuesday afternoon that he talked to Dungy "a week or two back." Also, Winfrey's planned documentary of Sam's rookie season was postponed in mid-May -- long before Dungy was interviewed by the Tribune, according to Kaufman.

In the Tribune interview, Dungy, who is an NFL analyst for NBC, said of Sam: "I wouldn't have taken him. Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it.

"It's not going to be totally smooth ... things will happen."

The remarks caused a stir for Dungy, who advocated for quarterback Michael Vick's return to the league after he was convicted in 2007 on dogfighting charges. Dungy became a mentor to Vick.

In his statement Tuesday, Dungy implied he should have been asked particular follow-up questions by Kaufman.

"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 statement read. "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.

"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."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 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."

On Tuesday, Hall of Fame linebacker Derrick Brooks defended Dungy.

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."

Sam was selected in the seventh round by the Rams. He is scheduled to report to the team's training camp Tuesday and is expected to talk to reporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Slightly off-topic because I'm not necessarily talking about Dungy, but the biblical precedent to love your enemies hasn't stopped many Christians from discriminating against homosexuals.

 

To embrace Christianity you realize that you cannot in fact love perfectly as God loves us. Being a Christian is to strive to obey the commandments and to continually keep an open mind to God, ridding your own desires so that in your daily lifestyle choices, you act in a God-like, graceful way to then allow God to do His good deeds and enable His people. But what it comes down to is people trying, failing, recommitting. To expect a Christian to live perfectly or be politically "correct" as they should be at all times is to be expecting something that won't happen. All people exist habitually as evil as Christians believe. It's all about that constant struggle the same way that your life habits are a constant struggle. People who claim to be Christians will at times do or say very wrong things. It doesn't make them non-Christian necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dungy hit the nail on the head perfectly. I also believe anyone who thinks Dungy was trying to say he didn't want Sam on his team because he was gay or whatever reason is just reaching for a story.

 

Dungy has never done distractions. He's obviously had his share of guys with distractions, but he's never dealt with them upfront and he's never been the type of coach to do that sort of thing. Media is trying to put a spin on it, it's pathetic. I haven't read through any of the posts just yet, but I hope none of you guys are trying to throw a spin on his comments. I'd be pretty embarrassed for the individuals that do such a thing at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam sucks at football, isn'y an athlete, and wasn't even the best player on his DL in college. Maybe people will realize that 31 other teams were wise for not picking him after he disappears from the league after his contact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Slightly off-topic because I'm not necessarily talking about Dungy, but the biblical precedent to love your enemies hasn't stopped many Christians from discriminating against homosexuals.

 

Jesus said the identifying mark of true Christians is love; John 13: 34, 35

 

That's because a lot of really "religious" people haven't read the Bible. They don't know what they're talking about and really the reason they identify as "Christian" is because most of the people they've known their whole lives identify as Christian. I mean, if you're TRULY Christian, then you would never be a republican. Jesus was basically a socialist based on what he said. The guy wanted re-distribution of wealth.... on a world wide scale. Do you think Jesus would be ok with hating anyone because of where they're from, their skin color or sexual preference or really for any reason at all? Do you think Jesus would be running around everywhere strapped? lol Look at somebody like Martin Luther King Jr if you want to see what Christianity SHOULD be.

That's interesting you said Jesus was a socialist. From some examples in the Bible, Jesus didn't seem interested in politics at all. After Jesus and his disciples distributed the fish and bread to 5000 people, he knew they were about to come make him King and he withdrew to the mountain; John 6:15. When on trial before Pilate and being asked if he was King of the Jews, Jesus said his Kingdom was no part of this world; John 18:36. On several occasions, Jesus showed that he wanted no part of the worlds affairs and that true Christians would be rejected by the world like he was; John 15:19, 20. Jesus said to stop storing up treasures of the earth (riches, earthly ambitions) but to store up treasures of the heavens (spiritual pursuits); Matthew 6:19-21. And in John it talks about things of the earth passing away; 1 John 2: 15-17. Jesus appeared to only be concerned with preaching and teaching and not the things of the world. And yes, Jesus did show that he wasn't partial. His encounter with the Samaritan women was a perfect example as Jews didn't have dealings with Samaritans; John 4 : 7-26.
Edited by Dutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam sucks at football, isn'y an athlete, and wasn't even the best player on his DL in college. Maybe people will realize that 31 other teams were wise for not picking him after he disappears from the league after his contact

He was the SEC defensive player of the year. Being one of the best players in the country's best conference last year tells a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jesus said the identifying mark of true Christians is love; John 13: 34, 35

 

 

That's interesting you said Jesus was a socialist. From some examples in the Bible, Jesus didn't seem interested in politics at all. After Jesus and his disciples distributed the fish and bread to 5000 people, he knew they were about to come make him King and he withdrew to the mountain; John 6:15. When on trial before Pilate and being asked if he was King of the Jews, Jesus said his Kingdom was no part of this world; John 18:36. On several occasions, Jesus showed that he wanted no part of the worlds affairs and that true Christians would be rejected by the world like he was; John 15:19, 20. Jesus said to stop storing up treasures of the earth (riches, earthly ambitions) but to store up treasures of the heavens (spiritual pursuits); Matthew 6:19-21. And in John it talks about things of the earth passing away; 1 John 2: 15-17. Jesus appeared to only be concerned with preaching and teaching and not the things of the world. And yes, Jesus did show that he wasn't partial. His encounter with the Samaritan women was a perfect example as Jews didn't have dealings with Samaritans; John 4 : 7-26.

In Mark 12, when asked about paying taxes, he took a Roman coin and asked whose face was on it. His listener's responded that it was Caesar, so he told them to give to Caesar what is his, and give to God what is God's. The implication being that just as the coin had Caesar's image stamped on it, we have God's image stamped on us. So we need to offer our lives to God. In other words, Jesus wasn't really concerned with the taxes or the politics. They are secondary issues to what is actually important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Mark 12, when asked about paying taxes, he took a Roman coin and asked whose face was on it. His listener's responded that it was Caesar, so he told them to give to Caesar what is his, and give to God what is God's. The implication being that just as the coin had Caesar's image stamped on it, we have God's image stamped on us. So we need to offer our lives to God. In other words, Jesus wasn't really concerned with the taxes or the politics. They are secondary issues to what is actually important.

 

Indeed. While Jesus was teaching in the temple, opposers tried to put him in an impossible situation by asking whether people should pay taxes. If Jesus said no, his answer would have been deemed seditious and might even have fueled a spirit of revolt among downtrodden people eager to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression. But if Jesus said yes, many would have felt that he condoned the injustices they faced. Jesus answer was a masterpiece of balance. He said, “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God” (Luke 20:21-25). So his followers have obligations to God and to Caesar; that is, the secular government (Romans 13: 1). The Bible shows that Jesus remained neutral in political affairs. However, he respected and upheld the law. Another example is when Joseph and his pregnant wife, Mary, traveled some 90 miles to Bethlehem when a Roman census decree required it (Luke 2:1-5). Like them, Jesus was law-abiding, even paying taxes that he did not really owe (Matthew 17:24-27). So it appears that Jesus respected the machinery of government, although he refused to operate it.

Edited by Dutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. The only time you see Christians in the Bible disobeying the civil authorities is when those authorities require them to disobey God.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Bible tells us in Luke 6: 27, 28, & 35 to even love our enemies. So when you consider what love really entails, I agree, there is no biblical argument to discriminate against anyone. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean that you're discriminating.

There is a biblical argument to discriminate against a Christian that is "living in sin." It's rather clear, actually.

 

Non-Christians? No argument at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a biblical argument to discriminate against a Christian that is "living in sin." It's rather clear, actually.

 

Non-Christians? No argument at all.

 

And even that "discrimination" is done out of love with an eye towards restoration.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's see if we can get this back on topic:

 

Pickpocket Lifts More Than $30,000 from Rams Players While Michael Sam is Distracting Them - SportsPickle | SportsPickle

 

A pickpocket managed to make off with more than $30,000 in cash and valuables from the St. Louis Rams training camp locker room while players were being distracted by openly gay teammate Michael Sam.

 

“I was just staring at Sam because he is gay and distracting,” said Rams first rounder Aaron Donald. “The next thing I knew, my wallet and my watch were gone.”

 

 

For anyone unfamiliar with Sports Pickle, it's basically The Onion focused on sports (mostly satire, entirely for humor) pretty good stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×