Was Tony Dungy Wrong?


Status
Not open for further replies.
jsupop33 said:
People are really making this more complicated than it is. Sam being gay means that there will be political pressure to keep him on the team (just like it was to make sure he was drafted) and Dungy wouldn't want to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The narrative around Sam has been "good story, marginal prospect". If he gets cut he will be no different than 95% of the other 7th rounders. The good thing about sports is everyone will be able to see what he can or cannot do. Basically Dungy advocated keeping a guy from even getting the chance to compete based on "perceived" outside pressure that has yet to materialize and might not ever. The old "Outside Agitators" theory LOL.
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/22/tony-dungys-statement-regarding-his-michael-sam-comments/
Editor's note: In response to quotes that appeared in Monday's Tampa Tribune, Tony Dungy has released a statement. The full content of it appears below.]

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.

BACK TO WORK... :|
 



The Founder said:
People can have an organization and marches based on racism...yet let the straight community have a march...the funding of that organization would be cut before the sun rise the next day.
Click to expand...

The straight community doesn't need to have a march. The laws and such are set up in our favor. Being gay is still taboo and was illegal in some states not too long ago. Gay marriage is still illegal in most states.
 
Oh well since Dungy has clarified his statement I guess, he doesn't need me now.....:lol: but here it goes.

Dungy was not wrong. He said that he would not have chosen Sam, not that he didn't think Sam deserved the right to play. Two entirely different things. The author of the article totally missed what the man was saying and as people today tend to do, try to inject situations that are totally irrelevant to the current issue. Bringing in his support of Vick or that he was an African American coach who got a chance is really not relevant. His statement was an entirely different thing. When Jackie Robinson was selected to the the first black baseball player, many others were considered, but Mr. Robinson was chosen. Yet these others still had and deserved the right to play, but they did not fit Branch Rickey's plan, they were not the person HE was looking for. From my point, all Dungy was saying was that if he were making the decision, he wouldn't have taken the guy. Not that the guy shouldn't be taken or that an organization shouldn't take him or his organization wasn't ready to take a gay player. To me it spoke more to Sam as a person than as being a homosexual football player.
 
Tony Dungy said:
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..........

Continued....


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.
Click to expand...

...
 



Tony Dungy said:
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.
Click to expand...

....
 
They are


tweed24 said:
I understand where Tony Dungy is coming from of not wanting to deal with the Micheal Sam issue all training camp and all season long. It can become a circus. I think the Vick situation and the Micheal Sam situation is totally different.
Click to expand...
 
JSU/99 said:
No, he said the extra publicity surrounding Sam being the first openly gay player in the NFL was a factor. Which is the same as saying his being gay was a factor.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The distraction is the issue. Don't matter what's causing the distractions. Risk vs. reward. Is he worth putting up with the distractions. Hell no!!! No different than any other knucklehead stud athlete getting multiple chances, while marginal players get cut for doing the same things. Being gay doesn't get you around that.
 
Robber said:
I disagree. The distraction is the issue. Don't matter what's causing the distractions. .
Click to expand...

It absolutely does matter. Especially when that distraction is based on one being in a protected class - which sexual orientation is on the federal level and in some states and locales. You can't blame someone for distractions that are caused by outside forces. Sam came out as gay - there's a school of thought that says doing so means he's subjected to whatever comes next. That's false.
 
Last edited:
JSU/99 said:
It absolutely does matter. Especially when that distraction is based on one being in a protected class - which sexual orientation is on the federal level and in some states and locales. You can't blame someone for distractions that are caused by outside forces. Sam came out as gay - there's a school of thought that says doing so means he's subjected to whatever comes next. That's false.
Click to expand...

Sam has been attempting to profit off of this. Let's not act as if all Sam is doing is playing football. Dude hasn't played one down yet and had a whole reality tv show planned during the season and the Rams didn't even know about it. Dude ain't that talented to put up with all of that mess.
 
JSU/99 said:
It absolutely does matter. Especially when that distraction is based on one being in a protected class - which sexual orientation is on the federal level and in some states and locales. You can't blame someone for distractions that are caused by outside forces. Sam came out as gay - there's a school of thought that says doing so means he's subjected to whatever comes next. That's false.
Click to expand...
When the question is asked do you have a non-discriminatory basis for not drafting him, I think it holds up.
 
“I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team,â€￾ Dungy says.

“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.â€￾
Click to expand...

Dungy notes that he had been asked those questions in the preceding three months, and that he consistently said that playing in the NFL “is, and should be, about merit.â€￾ The question posted by the Tampa Tribune focused much more narrowly than that.

Can somebody show where Tony Dungy is being Hypocritical?
 
bluedog said:
Dungy notes that he had been asked those questions in the preceding three months, and that he consistently said that playing in the NFL “is, and should be, about merit.â€￾ The question posted by the Tampa Tribune focused much more narrowly than that.

Can somebody show where Tony Dungy is being Hypocritical?
Click to expand...

Actions, boss. Vouching for Vick, Tebow, trading for Keyshawn Johnson and saying he would take Manziel even though he was a distraction in college.

Plus, he was the coach who prided himself on overcoming distractions and promoting others to do the same.
 
Kendrick said:
Actions, boss. Vouching for Vick, Tebow, trading for Keyshawn Johnson and saying he would take Manziel even though he was a distraction in college.

Plus, he was the coach who prided himself on overcoming distractions and promoting others to do the same.
Click to expand...

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\

: a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs


So unless Tony Dungy is packing mud behind closed doors, I don't see the problem.

GR screaming that he's so concern about apr issues but not having the same concerns about it, when it comes to the student general population, now that's hypocritical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top