Tony Dungy Next?

[One Bad Pig]

Good thing Sam was just blazing a trail by acknowledging and standing by a part of his natural identity instead of hiding it, and not flaunting any sexual deviance.

I am aware that you (and, increasingly, society in general) are re-defining homosexuality as normal. Should a rapist "stand by a part of his natural identity"? Should we affirm the natural identity of alcoholics and give them all the booze they desire?

But even if you want to interpret it in such an ungracious manner, it doesn't change the point. Refusing to take a minority player because you "don't want to deal with distractions" is terrible and deeply ironic, not to mention retardant of progress.

I am more than happy to retard the "progress" of moral standards down the commode.

[Teallaura]

The Eagles received much media coverage, and the fact that their players (many of whom probably owned dogs at some point) would have to play with someone who'd been in jail for taking part in killing dogs raised some hackles.

Also, the mentorship detail misses the point. Dungy also wanted Vick to have a chance to play in the NFL again. He was the biggest Vick advocate out there. Clearly, he thought teams should ignore the possibility of distraction and accept the player simply because of athletic merit. Yet he doesn't think the same way about Sam.

He has no such obligation - he doesn't have to feel the same way about a different situation and an apparently different occupation (head coach instead of mentor). There is no hypocrisy here.

You refuse to deal with cancer because the treatment procedure is significantly different from HIV treatment. But Dungy's excuse for not dealing with Sam--that the player's presence might cause distractions--equally applied to Vick.

Dungy said he didn't want to deal with those distractions and the implication is that he believes they are qualitatively different (possibly from the occupational view). Even if that weren't the case - where, exactly, did he ever promise to be the mentor/advocate for every problem child in the NFL? If he never said or indicated that he would, his discretion remains his own and there is no hypocrisy in refusing a case even if it were substantively the same (which these aren't).

The cases are qualitatively and substantively different. No hypocrisy exists.

[KingsGambit]

I don't think he was asked, but I do think he's commented on issues that he wasn't asked about in the past. And Vick indeed made retribution, but it is a fact that his issues were still considered a distraction, and yet Dungy was willing to deal with it all. That's hypocritical.

Dungy worked with Vick in a mentoring role, flying out to Leavenworth, but he wasn't actually his head coach.

However, even if this weren't the case (i.e. if Dungy were the head coach of the Eagles), my theory is: I do suspect he would have been more likely to take a chance on Vick because he was an elite player and the potential reward might have outweighed the risk, whereas Sam is thought of as more of a marginal talent. No, it's not fair that talent buys one more chances, but it seems to reflect the reality.

[seer]

Or perhaps Mr.Dungy just finds homosexual behavior much more morally objectionable than dog fighting - but he couldn't put it in those words. Which I find to be a perfectly reasonable position.

And here come the long knives:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tony-du...195216393.html

[seanD]

Why would he get labeled a racist?

The same reason some hysterical nutjob woman attacked a group of prolifers the other day and called them racists. I would link the video but it has a lot of cussing. The same reason people that are against Obamacare are called racists. The same reason second amendment advocates are called racists. The same reason people against Obama and Holder for their blatant corruption and contempt of the Constitution are called racists.

[KingsGambit]

Dungy has clarified his comments in terms of media coverage. He has a point; not every seventh round draft pick is coming into training camp with his own reality show scheduled. It was the same reason some teams would have wanted to avoid Johnny Manziel.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...-st-louis-rams

[Teallaura]

Dungy has clarified his comments in terms of media coverage. He has a point; not every seventh round draft pick is coming into training camp with his own reality show scheduled. It was the same reason some teams would have wanted to avoid Johnny Manziel.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11...-st-louis-rams

This stuck out to me:

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."

[fm93]

I am aware that you (and, increasingly, society in general) are re-defining homosexuality as normal.

You mean "are increasingly realizing that homosexuality is normal."

Should a rapist "stand by a part of his natural identity"?

No, because no one's natural identity involves being a rapist, and committing rape harms others whereas homosexuality does not.

Should we affirm the natural identity of alcoholics and give them all the booze they desire?

No, because no one's natural identity is an alcoholic either, and drinking alcohol to the point of excess is harmful whereas homosexuality is not.

I am more than happy to retard the "progress" of moral standards down the commode.

Then just say that you don't want minority players to have a chance to play. All minority players were thought to cause "distractions" and their entries into the league were "not totally smooth." That's a terrible excuse to not want to take someone.

He has no such obligation - he doesn't have to feel the same way about a different situation and an apparently different occupation (head coach instead of mentor). There is no hypocrisy here.

He would've personally accepted Vick had he been a head coach at that point, and he pushed for other coaches to accept him and ignore the possibility of distractions.

Dungy said he didn't want to deal with those distractions and the implication is that he believes they are qualitatively different (possibly from the occupational view).

That naturally lends itself to the question "What is it about Michael Sam that makes his situation qualitatively different enough from Vick's situation for Dungy to make different judgments?"

Even if that weren't the case - where, exactly, did he ever promise to be the mentor/advocate for every problem child in the NFL?

There's no reason to think that Sam is a problem child. But even if he was, Dungy in fact does try to be a mentor for every problem child in the NFL. He was actually named as the head of the Players Advisory Forum.

[Bill the Cat]

It doesn't stop there:

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- The Human Rights Campaign blasted the New York Giants' hiring of David Tyree on Tuesday for his past comments in which he expressed anti-gay views.

According to the statement from the Human Rights Campaign, Tyree's claim "has been debunked and condemned by every major medical and mental health organization in the country, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and many others."

"When did Tyree decide to be straight?" HRC president Chad Griffin asked in the statement. "The idea that someone can change their sexual orientation or gender identity is ludicrous, and the New York Giants are risking their credibility by hiring someone who publicly advocates this junk science. His opposition to basic legal equality aside, David Tyree's proselytizing of such dangerous practices goes against the positive work the Giants organization has done in recent years."

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/stor...ng-david-tyree

[One Bad Pig]

You mean "are increasingly realizing that homosexuality is normal."

No, I meant what I said.

No, because no one's natural identity involves being a rapist,

Why not? They're just following their sexual urges. What's wrong with that?

and committing rape harms others whereas homosexuality does not.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Yeah, that's why homosexuals have the same average lifespan as heterosexuals.

How is rectal bleeding not harmful?

No, because no one's natural identity is an alcoholic either

Just like practicing homosexuality, it's giving in to one's urges.

Then just say that you don't want minority players to have a chance to play.

I don't give a flying flip if minority players have a chance to play. I want the best players to play. Their minority status is immaterial.

All minority players were thought to cause "distractions" and their entries into the league were "not totally smooth." That's a terrible excuse to not want to take someone.

I'm not interested in catering to your false equivocation, though let's pretend for a moment. Homosexuals, in my experience, tend to be less than emotionally stable, and Michael Sam is guaranteed to have a media spotlight on him - an inevitable distraction. I am a diehard Steelers fan; my team had one of the first black players, one of the first black quarterbacks, and was one of the first teams to remove race indicators from their draft boards. They did not have black players because they were targeting black players; the went out and acquired the best talent available regardless of race. That philosophy helped build the 70's dynasty. If the person is an exceptional athlete, I might gamble that the pros outweigh the cons. Michael Sam is not an exceptional athlete; therefore, the cons are almost certainly going to outweigh the pros.

[fm93]

Why not? They're just following their sexual urges. What's wrong with that?

Because a rapist by definition is someone who commits an illegal act, whereas a gay person is simply someone who experiences feelings of attraction towards people of the same sex. Like unfortunately many others, you've fallen into the fallacy of equating orientation with action and assuming that "I'm gay" means "I'm having sex with people of the same sex."

Not to mention, of course, that rape violates a person against his/her will, whereas most gay people who happen to be active practice consensual sex.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Yeah, that's why homosexuals have the same average lifespan as heterosexuals.

I write that homosexuality doesn't harm other people and you respond with a claim in which homosexuality isn't harming other people. Thanks, I guess.

But in all seriousness, the lifespan contrast is highly questionable. Perhaps new data has since emerged, but as far as I know, the study that made that claim is now two decades old, and the data was obtained by merely sifting through obituaries of known gay people, which is an outrageously flawed attempt at statistical analysis.

How is rectal bleeding not harmful?

Just like practicing homosexuality, it's giving in to one's urges.

You're making that mistake again--identifying the person first and foremost by possible sex acts. You have no idea what Michael Sam does; he might engage in safe relations or even be abstinent.

I don't give a flying flip if minority players have a chance to play. I want the best players to play. Their minority status is immaterial.

But Dungy admitted that he wouldn't have even given Sam a chance to show what he could do, whereas he did want Vick to have a chance. As a quarterback, Vick's main job is to pass, and his passing ability had always been suspect. He was well known for his elite scrambling ability, of course, but at that point, he'd been wasting away in a jail cell for two years and people weren't sure what he had left.

I'm not interested in catering to your false equivocation, though let's pretend for a moment. Homosexuals, in my experience, tend to be less than emotionally stable

Blatant stereotyping.

and Michael Sam is guaranteed to have a media spotlight on him - an inevitable distraction.

So did Vick and every athlete of color who broke a sport's race barrier.

I am a diehard Steelers fan; my team had one of the first black players, one of the first black quarterbacks, and was one of the first teams to remove race indicators from their draft boards. They did not have black players because they were targeting black players; the went out and acquired the best talent available regardless of race. That philosophy helped build the 70's dynasty. If the person is an exceptional athlete, I might gamble that the pros outweigh the cons. Michael Sam is not an exceptional athlete; therefore, the cons are almost certainly going to outweigh the pros.

Again, Vick was never particularly great at actually being a quarterback. I am a Falcons fan, and I saw first-hand how he was rendered utterly useless in the playoffs against his future Eagles, whose defense prevented him from breaking off those long runs and forced him to pass. He became a slightly better passer once he went to Philadelphia, but no one could've foreseen that at the time, nor did anyone know if he could still succeed on improvised long runs. Sam, meanwhile, was the Defensive Player of the Year in the SEC, which isn't exactly considered a weak conference. So he was actually among the best at his position in a conference known for producing strong talent. That by itself is no guarantee of success in the NFL, of course, but I'm hard-pressed to say that his future was murkier than Vick's was in 2009.

[Zymologist]

Dungy has expanded on his initial comment:

Source: ESPN

"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.

"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."

© Copyright Original Source

Source

[seer]

Dungy has expanded on his initial comment:

Source: ESPN

"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.

"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."

© Copyright Original Source

Source

Tony Dungy has always been a committed Christian and a class act - and any attempt to paint him differently is just wrongheaded.

[One Bad Pig]

Because a rapist by definition is someone who commits an illegal act, whereas a gay person is simply someone who experiences feelings of attraction towards people of the same sex. Like unfortunately many others, you've fallen into the fallacy of equating orientation with action and assuming that "I'm gay" means "I'm having sex with people of the same sex."

We're talking about active homosexuals here, like the topic of the OP. People who are committed to celibacy have no need to flaunt their sexual orientation. And sodomy was, until recently, widely illegal.

Not to mention, of course, that rape violates a person against his/her will, whereas most gay people who happen to be active practice consensual sex.

Why is violating against his/her will wrong?

I write that homosexuality doesn't harm other people and you respond with a claim in which homosexuality isn't harming other people. Thanks, I guess.

But in all seriousness, the lifespan contrast is highly questionable. Perhaps new data has since emerged, but as far as I know, the study that made that claim is now two decades old, and the data was obtained by merely sifting through obituaries of known gay people, which is an outrageously flawed attempt at statistical analysis.

So it's okay to do something that harms oneself, like excessive drinking?

You're making that mistake again--identifying the person first and foremost by possible sex acts. You have no idea what Michael Sam does; he might engage in safe relations or even be abstinent.

He might. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's highly unlikely, however.

But Dungy admitted that he wouldn't have even given Sam a chance to show what he could do, whereas he did want Vick to have a chance. As a quarterback, Vick's main job is to pass, and his passing ability had always been suspect. He was well known for his elite scrambling ability, of course, but at that point, he'd been wasting away in a jail cell for two years and people weren't sure what he had left.

I don't recall making any arguments about Michael Vick.

Blatant stereotyping.

No, it's my experience - which I clearly said. The (active) homosexuals I've encountered tend to be very passionate people.

So did Vick and every athlete of color who broke a sport's race barrier.

Vick and every athlete of color who broke a sport's race barrier were exceptional athletes, outweighing the cons of the controversy involved.

Again, Vick was never particularly great at actually being a quarterback. I am a Falcons fan, and I saw first-hand how he was rendered utterly useless in the playoffs against his future Eagles, whose defense prevented him from breaking off those long runs and forced him to pass. He became a slightly better passer once he went to Philadelphia, but no one could've foreseen that at the time, nor did anyone know if he could still succeed on improvised long runs. Sam, meanwhile, was the Defensive Player of the Year in the SEC, which isn't exactly considered a weak conference. So he was actually among the best at his position in a conference known for producing strong talent. That by itself is no guarantee of success in the NFL, of course, but I'm hard-pressed to say that his future was murkier than Vick's was in 2009.

Michael Vick was drafted first overall. Michael Sam's projected draft position before he "came out" was about round 4. There's a world of difference between those draft slots.

[fm93]

We're talking about active homosexuals here, like the topic of the OP.

Active homosexuality wasn't mentioned in the OP.

People who are committed to celibacy have no need to flaunt their sexual orientation.

But they may need to openly acknowledge their orientation to serve as a guiding light for gay athletes and gay youths.

And sodomy was, until recently, widely illegal.

Irrelevant, since rapists by definition rape, whereas homosexual people by definition don't have to be doing anything.

Why is violating against his/her will wrong?

Don't play dumb.

So it's okay to do something that harms oneself, like excessive drinking?

No. And homosexuality on its own isn't harmful to one's self.

He might. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's highly unlikely, however.

What warrant do you have for believing that it's highly unlikely?

I don't recall making any arguments about Michael Vick.

Tony Dungy, who is the main subject of this thread, did.

Vick and every athlete of color who broke a sport's race barrier were exceptional athletes, outweighing the cons of the controversy involved.

Michael Vick was drafted first overall. Michael Sam's projected draft position before he "came out" was about round 4. There's a world of difference between those draft slots.

And by 2009, Vick had never played like people would expect a first-round pick to play, and no one knew what he could do after having been in jail for two years. He was in a murky situation similar to the one Sam finds himself in right now.