Tony Dungy woudn't want to "deal with" Michael Sam

He's a great pitcher and an even better catcher.

 

Ira Kaufman didn't mention the date of the interview in today's Trib.
http://tbo.com/sports/bucs/dungys-clarification-sam-deserves-chance-to-play-in-nfl-20140722/

 

And, that's fine. If Dungy had said that instead of what he actually said (especially given his anti-gay history), I don't think there would be an issue.

 

The date matters only in as much as it may show Dungy to be a liar in addition to a bigot.

Other than that, it does nothing to mitigate his statement, now that he's dropped the "lifestyle" line into the conversation, and assured us he has "no bitterness or animosity toward him".

As for the reality show "distraction", that's BS too. Not a single camera would have been on the team's campus without the approval of the team.

And, who gives a fuck if a camera crew chronicles his off hours?

 

There might be more gay kissing, and we can't have that.

 

I don't know about 99.999 percent, but, yes, it is true that Sam was, at best, considered a fourth- or fifth-round pick, and that was being generous.

But Dungy didn't say he thought Sam could or couldn't win games. All he said was that he would be a "distraction," and then in his clarification brought up his own issues with the "gay lifestyle." The man explains football on TV for a living -- as I said earlier, you'd think a guy who was well-known for his love (not gay love) of undersized defensive ends could make the football case for why Sam is no Robert Mathis without bringing "distractions" into it. Maybe that's because the one who is distracted is Dungy himself.

 

Off hours at NFL camps usually involve staying in a dorm with the rest of the team, so I'm guessing, a lot.

 

Considering the media circus that surrounds every NFL team these days, 'distraction' is just a gutless way to get away with cutting someone you don't want.

 

Sorry MC, but I have to call BS.

Dungy was shredded by writers almost immediately after the initial comments appeared in the story. (My personal fave argument was: "As a black man Dungy should...")

His initial comments, unlike his subsequent comments, did not mention the word lifestyle. And he didn't say Sam doesn't deserve a chance to make an NFL roster.

He said: "I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."

I haven't followed the daily machinations so I have no idea if during the initial interview Dungy noted Sam might not be worth a draft pick because of his physical limitations. Maybe he did and the reporter didn't use the quote. Maybe he didn't mention it. Maybe the reporter didn't ask that question and the topic never came up.

Based on the headline above the article -- "NFL holding players to higher standard" -- I'm guessing that part of the equation wasn't viewed as essential.

Dungy was thinking like 99% of coaches and GMs when he said he wouldn't have drafted Sam. People can call that crowed insane, paranoid, anal, etc., but that is how they operate. They're willing to deal with fallout and/or potential distractions if a guy can play.

I wouldn't have drafted the guy for several reasons, including these two:

I doubt he can help my team win games and I wouldn't want to be the first HC/GM in the history of the league to have to write a memo explaining why I cut a seventh-round draft pick.

 

Bob, please see my response to MC. The theme of the story in the Tribune was all about tolerance in the locker room. It wouldn't surprise me if that part of Sam's equation wasn't discussed or, if it was, wasn't used for the story.

Only Kaufman and Dungy can answer that question and I'll admit I haven't followed the story minute by breathtaking minute.

 

See Dungy's comments on Dan Patrick today. Basically, it comes down to Dungy being uncomfortable in the presence of openly gay people. His comments on not liking "the gay lifestyle" make that clear.

 

You're right, he didn't say that. But he specifically said he would not have given Sam that chance.