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

The Dungy "excuse" IMO sounds a lot like the reasoning --- on this board as well as in a lot of NFL minds --- against bringing in a Tim Tebow.

A marginal player who will attract a ton more attention than belies his talent level. Is it worth it? Tebow happened to have a long enough shelf life that his talent level was shown not to be worth it. And not even Dungy --- a fellow Christian --- would want him on his roster. It's not a "minority" thing --- it's a "you can't do enough to help us win to justify the circus you'll bring" argument.

Talent always wins out. It's why coaches do put up with the Michael Vicks and Chad Johnsons and Terrell Owenses --- to a point. And why the Sam/Jackie Robinson comparison is full of shit. One's a Hall of Fame talent than helped win pennants. The other may not be good enough to stay on a roster.

If Sam proves to be a quality NFL talent, EVERYONE --- Dungy included --- would fall over themselves to "deal with" him. Dungy likely doesn't think very highly of him as a player. IMO it's too early for him --- or anyone --- to make that call. But for people to turn this completely into a "Christian doesn't want to deal with gay person" is, IMO, grossly exaggerated. And far too typical of the internet comment/gross outrage world we live in.

 

In 2003, this conversation resulted in the analyst resigning from ESPN. Can you say what Dungy did, and be an analyst for NBC in 2014?

RUSH: -- and my... I'm sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

MICHAEL IRVIN: (Nodding)

RUSH: I think there is a lot of hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't really deserve. The defense carried this team, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGiTv_xRd5A

 

What a crippling distraction and burden it would be to answer questions about a player for five minutes of your 15 mins of media availability, which at most happens three times a week. I HAVE TO SLEEP IN MY OFFICE NOW BECAUSE I WAS DISTRACTED BY THOSE QUESTIONS!

 

You get no argument from me re Sam, in that area. To me, he's borderline. The majority of his big senior defensive moments were against (relatively) lesser lights.

Vick's been an injury-prone Human Turnover for a number of years.

 

Dungy said he wouldn't give Sam a chance to prove anything. Because distraction.

Yet, with a straight face, told anyone who would listen that Michael Vick deserved a second chance in spite of the distraction he would bring. Because "God."

 

The only way we knew Jackie Robinson was good enough was that he was given an opportunity at the major league level. The end.

 

Maybe Michael Sam curses a lot. Profanity is also pretty high on the list of things Saint Tony feels the need to lecture us about.

 

I think it goes a lot deeper than that.

Remember the Chris Culliver brouhaha?

Every player is going to be baited into trying to saying something awkward. If a Ram gets cut, he'll be asked, "Do you think they kept Sam and cut you because, you know . . . "

It's not that simple. You keep forgetting the following.

He was the 249th player taken out of 256. Seems to me A LOT of coaches/GMs "wouldn't have taken him," just as Dungy wouldn't have. So why single Dungy out?

 

You'd think a guy who was No. 1 on the list forever of Coaches Who Never Got a Chance Because They Were Black might be a little more understanding. However, given the human propensity to not have empathy, and Dungy's religious beliefs, I'm not shocked. Disappointed but not shocked. If Dungy had just said I wouldn't have drafted Sam because he wasn't good, and left it that, OK.

And congratulations, Tony Dungy, you just fed into every suspicion that the reason Michael Sam lasted until round 7 had nothing to do with football. To BT's point, Dungy singled himself out by talking about not taking him because of "distractions."

 

Because he made it clear that the "distraction" was worth it in the case of a convicted felon who is a mediocre football player, but it's not worth it in the case of an unproven gay player.

And, let's not pretend that Saint Tony doesn't have some pretty well-documented anti-gay views.

 

Just because he didn't SAY anything about Sam's questionable NFL ability doesn't mean it didn't play into his thinking.

And the "mediocre" player we are comparing Sam to received MVP votes in 2002 and 2004 and was widely believed to be the No. 2 contender for the award in 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/sports/football/21rhoden.html?_r=0

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2010-11/nfl-mvp-race

http://nesn.com/2010/12/is-tom-brady-or-michael-vick-the-2010-nfl-mvp/

Listen, I despite Michael Vick with every fiber of my being. But the reason Saint Tony and others gave him a second chance was because of talent. And talent will ultimately determine Michael Sam's place in history. If he proves to be a Warren Sapp-like beast, 32 NFL coaches and 32 NFL GMs will fall all over themselves to sign him as a free agent in a few years.

Do you seriously believe that had Sam had a monster combine he would have lasted until the 249th pick? He had a chance to show people then and failed miserably. He has another chance now. We'll see.