Mizzou's Michael Sam comes out

[rams80]

Granted, I think Dungy's quote is part due to his religious/political beliefs.

But also, looking at the off-the-field angle, Dungy's quote has to do with the media circus....and possible media pressure....into keeping Sam on the roster even if his preseason play doesn't warrant it. As we all know, Sam didn't do too well at the Combine and his draft stock fell. Now it's hard to argue with what he did on the field in college this past season, but it's not like the Combine is useless, either. He's slow and stiff, which doesn't translate well to the NFL. He doesn't look to be a 3-down player, nor do his measurables say "Special Teams Ace". If Sam shows that he can't get through the blocks and can't seal off the corners, Dungy wouldn't want to be in the spot of the local/national media pressuring him to keep Sam in leiu of a better player getting cut.

Fortunately its the Rams and one of the LBs ahead of Sam on the depth chart just got arrested for punching out an NBA free agent and WHY WASN'T HE AT THE MONASTERY WE KEEP TRUMAINE JOHNSON AND JANORIS JENKINS AT DURING THE OFFSEASON?!

-------------

Anyway, praise Belldandy the Rams canned "White Tony Dungy" and his 4 pillars 3 years ago for being utterly incompetent.

[rams80]

Camps have started, right? How is Michael Sam doing?

Snark: Better than Greg Robinson apparently (THE RAMS EVERYONE!!!)

Honest answer: Not sure. Not terrible by all reports, but unfortunately he's a DE by college training and that's a position the Rams are loaded at. He's got a lot of people ahead of him on the roster on the line, fewer at LB (mostly because the Rams have fewer there.) I suspect they'll find room for him on the final 53 man roster, but I don't expect him to start or be part of the rotation outside of special teams.

[Ateles fusciceps]

The Rams are irreverent. Sam will get attention, then mid season when St Louis is 2-6 nobody will care. The sooner that garbage team is sent back to LA the better.

[rams80]

Look, here's a quick refresher on me.

1. I accept the Rams inherent incompetence and seek the humor that comes in a team that has been rebuilding since shortly after we toppled Saddam Hussein from power.
2. For example, watching other teams fanbases freak out whenever the Rams pull off a win. They've had back to back 7 win seasons, and still if the Rams win the opposing fanbase loses its like they just lost to Linebaka or White Tony Dungy.
3. Related to 2. They aren't that bad, although the NFL didn't exactly do them any favors with the schedule in the first half of the season.
4. I'm one of the biggest proponents for moving the team to Los Angeles on this forum, and have been for years. That market would be a license to print money for the team.

[waltere]

The Rams are irreverent.

What, they're constantly making borderline offensive wisecracks

[Needschat]

mod edit

[IceCap]

Agreed, but it doesn't need to be injected into threads that have nothing to do with the Redskins' debate.

[Needschat]

Dungy is just another religious man who hates gay people.

Have you ever met a religious person in your life? There's more to religion than the Westboro Baptist Church, you know.

My living grandfather is a pastor. The other was Catholic. I've probably spent more time in church than anyone on this board.

The majority of religious folks, including Dungy, dislike gays. What's funny, though, is that there's a large number of them that are closet homosexuals living lies.

Growing up Catholic, I've known so many closeted homosexuals, and NO, they weren't the priests - I was an altar boy and NONE of them touched us and no one brought suit, despite the best efforts of a now-disbarred ambulance chaser. The "Bachelor Uncles" and "Spinster Aunts" always had "special" or "Best" friends with them at services, and they were always the people that made the funeral arrangements.

The church was always trying to distance themselves from these people, telling us that they were "single by choice, because they had their hearts broken as teenagers..." But we knew or at least suspected.

[IceCap]

Look people. I've already had to edit posts from pro Redskins people working their arguments for the name into posts in threads unrelated to the Redskins naming controversy. The same applies to the anti-Redskins side here. Whether Chris and the mods decide to reopen a thread to debate the topic or not the fact remains that it has no place in other threads where it can quickly derail the discussion. I don't want to see that happen here, where another important topic is at risk of being derailed by the Redskins back and forth. All future references to the Redskins' naming debate in threads not specifically dedicated to it, regardless of which side they are on, will be deleted. This is everyone's final warning as far as this thread is concerned.

Also of note. Lay off team trash-talk. This isn't about the Rams in the context of a regular NFL thread. It's about Michael Sam and LGBT rights in professional sports. The Rams are a part of that discussion because they drafted him, but this isn't the place for fan pissing matches.

I'm going to leave the majority of the religious conversation intact because we can all agree that religion plays a role in the discussion of Michael Sam and LGBT rights in general. Though I will say that a few comments do come dangerously close to crossing the line. Being religious does not make one a bigot. Bigots will often use religion as an excuse for their bigotry, but having faith does not make one a homophobe. It's an important distinction to make, and one you all should all make out of respect for the religious members of this board who have gone out of their way to show that they do not harbour any ill-will towards LGBT peoples. So continue on with the religious discussion, but keep all of that in mind.

[hailstateunis]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

[IceCap]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

[hailstateunis]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

[Needschat]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

it's only a distraction IF and ONLY if you make it one. Football is the ONLY team sport in North America that "needs" its players to be macho manly men. Why?

Robbie Rogers is currently playing for the LA Galaxy, and there's no "distraction" surrounding him. Why? Because soccer fans aren't hung up on the image of their players as "Modern Day Gladiators."

[-kj]

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

So, how do we get to that time if we decide that it's never the right time to take the first steps?

[hailstateunis]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

it's only a distraction IF and ONLY if you make it one. Football is the ONLY team sport in North America that "needs" its players to be macho manly men. Why?

Robbie Rogers is currently playing for the LA Galaxy, and there's no "distraction" surrounding him. Why? Because soccer fans aren't hung up on the image of their players as "Modern Day Gladiators."

Its not some much the fans as it is the media. When ESPN talks about the Rams, what are they talking about? When non-sports media talks about the NFL draft and off season, what are they talking about?

[hailstateunis]

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

So, how do we get to that time if we decide that it's never the right time to take the first steps?

Obviously someone had to sign or draft him. I'm glad the Rams did, but it's certaintly understandble to not want to be that someone.

[IceCap]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

it's only a distraction IF and ONLY if you make it one. Football is the ONLY team sport in North America that "needs" its players to be macho manly men. Why?

Robbie Rogers is currently playing for the LA Galaxy, and there's no "distraction" surrounding him. Why? Because soccer fans aren't hung up on the image of their players as "Modern Day Gladiators."

Its not some much the fans as it is the media. When ESPN talks about the Rams, what are they talking about? When non-sports media talks about the NFL draft and off season, what are they talking about?

To echo Mockba's question (which you never answered) how do we get to the point where it's not a big deal? If it's ok to not let a openly gay player play because of the distraction he allegedly brings then how do we get to the point where being an openly gay player isn't a big deal? Your position just seems backwards. You want a player's sexual orientation to not matter, but you're justifying actions to bar openly gay players from the game by those who take issue with sexual orientation.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

So, how do we get to that time if we decide that it's never the right time to take the first steps?

Obviously someone had to sign or draft him. I'm glad the Rams did, but it's certaintly understandble to not want to be that someone.

And this is an example of that. Making excuses for people who don't want a gay player on their team hurts the journey to the point where being gay won't matter. For it not to matter someone has to say "screw the distractions, this is about doing what's right." Tony Dungy's attitude runs counter to that.

[Needschat]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

it's only a distraction IF and ONLY if you make it one. Football is the ONLY team sport in North America that "needs" its players to be macho manly men. Why?

Robbie Rogers is currently playing for the LA Galaxy, and there's no "distraction" surrounding him. Why? Because soccer fans aren't hung up on the image of their players as "Modern Day Gladiators."

Its not some much the fans as it is the media. When ESPN talks about the Rams, what are they talking about? When non-sports media talks about the NFL draft and off season, what are they talking about?

Again, it's only a distraction if you make it one.

So when the Rams appear on tv, ESPN, NBCSN and FOX are talking about Michael Sam only? They're not talking the upcoming season, not talking X's and O's? No, it's not so much the media as to those that want to blame them for it.

If it's a circus, don't watch.

[IceCap]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Even if you accept the "high calibre QB makes it worth it" excuse you're still, on some level, saying it's more ok to be a convicted felon then it is to be openly gay.

You also ignored the second part of my point. Which is that the same excuses Tony Dungy is making about not wanting Michael Sam on his team were the same excuses white bigots were using to keep black athletes from playing professional sports.

[Ateles fusciceps]

Dungy spells it out for the people who tried to get offended by this-http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/tony-dungy-michael-sam-statement

Here's where I take issue with his comments.

He championed Michael Vick's cause and tried to convince multiple teams to sign Vick when he was released from prison. He tried to convince those teams to put up with Michael Vick despite the media attention that would come with signing a convicted felon. So in Tony Dungy's world it's worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a convicted felon, but it's not worth it to put up with the media distractions that come with signing a openly gay man. If you need to know what's wrong about the NFL's culture and priorities then look no further.

And again, the same "it's a distraction" argument was used by bigots when the top-flight pro leagues were desegregating. The argument was why sign a black athlete? It'll bring unwanted media attention and it may disrupt the locker room. The very same arguments being used against openly gay or bi players today. You'd think Tony Dungy would be aware of those similarities. Apparently not.

It's generally worth it if you get a high-caliber QB out of it. But a 7th round defensive end? Probably not worth it.

Hopefully one day, being gay in the NFL won't be a distraction. But as for right one, it is one that might be detrimental to a team.

So a gay player is only worth the media distraction and locker room issues if he's a high caliber player? Do you not see how bigoted of a statement/stance that is?

"Hell yes! We'll let Jackie Robinson play on our team! He's a great baseball player & we're for equality! We don't mind so the media attention or risks of locker room problems from having a negro on our team."

"Nope. Sorry. We're all for equality but LeRoy is a below average player and just not worth the distractions. He's not worth all the media attention and potential locker room issues that will arise from having a negro player on our team. We don't want to deal with all of that."