Tony Dungy: Moral Leader of Men

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
CaptainLaddie said:
Glad you guys are on my side, finally.
 
I wish I could find the topic I started years ago about why Dungy's a fucking asshole, but here we are.
 
 
Let's not be hypocritical here, Laddie, especially given the circumstances. I remember that thread. I think your major point was that he was a miserable jackhole bastard jackfuck, not that he was a fucking asshole. 
 

BS_SoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
2,209
Merrimack Valley
Come on guys, you can't expect ESPN's NFL page to cover the Dungy story when they have important stories like "Favre not fearing Lambeau boos" to cover in their NFL headlines.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,476
Peabody, MA
To be fair, ESPN is probably doing the world a service by not allowing a central hub for their commentator base to gather and "discuss" the topic.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
34,333
Rotten Apple
PBDWake said:
To be fair, ESPN is probably doing the world a service by not allowing a central hub for their commentator base to gather and "discuss" the topic.
SportsCenter discussed it this morning. They had on a football expert and that expert gave Tony a pass. 'You don't want distractions on your football team' or words to that extent.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Seems like a good time to bring this back:

"Distractions" has been a catchall term in football for years and years, and it remains both pervasive and utterly meaningless.

It's a useful word, for coaches and reporters alike. It betrays no values, no bias. A distraction is just a thing you can point to in the corner of the room. (It's particularly funny when journalists talk about distractions. They're the instruments of distraction, after all. It's like a fart asking, "How will you deal with the smell?"). No one needs to address the substance of the thing doing the distracting, only the possibility that, for three or four minutes during the week, the thing might dare interfere with FOOTBALL. Football teams do not like it when players bring so-called distractions up, and they do not like it when the media dare to ask non-footbally, distraction-y questions at a press conference. ("Hey Coach, did you know Aaron Hernandez liked killin' folk?") Football must stay focused on football at all times, or else the whole world blows up or something.

All the neurotic talk about "distractions" reveals a funny thing about the locker room. It's as if the psyche of a football team is some impossibly delicate thing that cracks the second the outside world sneaks in. Football purports to be the manliest sport in the universe, and yeton a social levelit operates like a fucking country club. We do not bring up "unpleasantries" in football. That would be rude!
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,115
I'd be genuinely curious to know how Dungy would answer if asked whether he'd draft Jadeveon Clowney if Clowney had come out as gay prior to the draft. Or if he would have cut Peyton Manning if he had come out while playing in Indy.
 
Is his view that no gay player is worth the distraction regardless of talent? Or is it that in Michael Sam's case the upside of using a 7th round pick on a marginal prospect isn't worth any level of distraction? The former would be a pretty breathtaking display of bigotry. The latter, while not admirable, would at least be a candid risk/reward assessment that was likely shared and not voiced by at least a few front offices during the draft.
 
Michael Sam is a distraction. The very fact that so many observers praise the Rams for their courage in drafting him acknowledges as much. I do admire the Rams for their willingness to take on that distraction voluntarily and give Sam a shot, but I find it hard to work up any real outrage over another team deciding that it's not worth creating a training camp circus over a player that they believe they'll likely end up cutting anyway. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,419
Excellent post Dehere.

Teams make these cost/benefit calculations all the time.

I can understand not being willing to put up with the noise in Sam's case and Tim Tebow's too.

Where I have a problem is that Dungy was likely all in on Tebow but would have passed on Sam for some fairly obvious reasons.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,547
Maine
dcmissle said:
Excellent post Dehere.

Teams make these cost/benefit calculations all the time.

I can understand not being willing to put up with the noise in Sam's case and Tim Tebow's too.

Where I have a problem is that Dungy was likely all in on Tebow but would have passed on Sam for some fairly obvious reasons.
 
Oh, he was most assuredly all in on Tebow, from a 2009 interview on Dan Patrick's show...
 
“As a coach, I always like winners,” Dungy said. “Tim Tebow doesn’t have the classic throwing motion, he doesn’t have the accuracy, maybe, right now that some people are looking for, but I think when he gets into a pro system that really stresses throwing the ball accurately, the big thing is he makes the people around him better. And he’s won. … I think he’s going to be a great player in the NFL.”
 
Dungy said that if he were running a team with a Top 10 pick, he’d take Tebow. [Dan] Patrick then asked Dungy who he’d pick for his team if he could have any of the top college quarterbacks, including Washington’s Jake Locker, Notre Dame’s Jimmy Clausen, Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford and Texas’s Colt McCoy. Dungy didn’t hesitate and said, “I’m taking Tebow.”
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
3,778
39°0′15″N 77°1′8″W
I realize there is a significant difference between the NFL and the NBA, but was there any "distraction" or circus around Jason Collins?  I didn't notice anything, but I don't follow the NBA so maybe I missed it.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,905
Southwestern CT
Dehere said:
I'd be genuinely curious to know how Dungy would answer if asked whether he'd draft Jadeveon Clowney if Clowney had come out as gay prior to the draft. Or if he would have cut Peyton Manning if he had come out while playing in Indy.
 
Is his view that no gay player is worth the distraction regardless of talent? Or is it that in Michael Sam's case the upside of using a 7th round pick on a marginal prospect isn't worth any level of distraction? The former would be a pretty breathtaking display of bigotry. The latter, while not admirable, would at least be a candid risk/reward assessment that was likely shared and not voiced by at least a few front offices during the draft.
 
Michael Sam is a distraction. The very fact that so many observers praise the Rams for their courage in drafting him acknowledges as much. I do admire the Rams for their willingness to take on that distraction voluntarily and give Sam a shot, but I find it hard to work up any real outrage over another team deciding that it's not worth creating a training camp circus over a player that they believe they'll likely end up cutting anyway. 
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but we have a mountain of evidence that should lead us to conclude that Dungy's perspective is driven by his disdain for homosexuality and not Michael Sam being a marginal prospect.

The fact Sam is a marginal prospect is what gave Dungy the courage to voice his bigotry.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,748
Imaginationland
pedro1918 said:
I realize there is a significant difference between the NFL and the NBA, but was there any "distraction" or circus around Jason Collins?  I didn't notice anything, but I don't follow the NBA so maybe I missed it.
 
There was absolutely none, but that was a pretty different situation in 2 ways:  First, the NBA is the best of all the major professional American sports at handling diversity.  Second, Jason Collins had been around for 10+ years, and had existing relationships with half the league.  Quite a bit different than Sam's situation.
 
Regardless, Dungy is a bigot.  For him, calling it a distraction is just an excuse.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,419
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Oh, he was most assuredly all in on Tebow, from a 2009 interview on Dan Patrick's show...
 
Not at all surprised, and that's the part of it that gets me.

Unlike Deadspin, I am not inclined to instruct coaches who work 100 hours a week now through January what is an acceptable distraction and what isn't.

The answer almost always is, it depends, mainly on the player's upside but also other things. For example, Jeff Fisher obviously had no problem with Sam, but based on his prior experience with Vince Young it is damn likely Fisher would likely have regarded Johnny Manziel as radioactive.

I'm fine with that. Draft or don't draft anyone for almost any reason or no reason at all. If you hate distractions, fine. But don't differentiate between evangelical and gay distractions.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
dcmissle said:
.
Unlike Deadspin, I am not inclined to instruct coaches who work 100 hours a week now through January what is an acceptable distraction and what isn't..
You'd have to go a long way to persuade me that working 100 hours a week is necessary, or even has utility for an NFL coach. To me, that's more evidence of the typical NFL coach's sense of of self importance. They're coaching a sport, not planning troop movements or keeping critically ill patients alive.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,419
JayMags71 said:
You'd have to go a long way to persuade me that working 100 hours a week is necessary, or even has utility for an NFL coach. To me, that's more evidence of the typical NFL coach's sense of of self importance. They're coaching a sport, not planning troop movements or keeping critically ill patients alive.
If your touchstone is social utility, there is a very strong argument that society generally invests way too much in sports, professional and amateur. Too much time, too much talent, too much. energy and way too much money.

But I could make the same argument about lawyers, at least those who are not prosecuting or defending serious crimes.

So what's the point? Our society allocates rewards the way it does. The time devoted to coaching professional football mirrors the vast amount of money in it.

It is very humorous for a Deadspin writer to lecture on how much is too much, and what is or is not a legitimate distraction.

But then again, this is the same writer who called for detailing the tape allegations against Jameis Winston during the broadcast of the national championship game -- even while acknowledging that he has no idea whether -- or not -- Jameis committed the crime.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Dungy has clarified his comments
 
 
On Tuesday, via a statement released to multiple media outlets, Dungy defended Sam's right to play in the NFL while saying he gave an "honest answer," and that his comments were made several weeks ago when "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.
"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."
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11248177/tony-dungy-clarifies-comments-michael-sam-st-louis-rams
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
More to the point, I'd say that pointing to the fact that Dungy worked 100 hours a week and still spouts this bullshit. That doesn't confirm he knows what he's talking about, it suggests he needs to spend more time in the real world.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
27,532
Maui
"a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams."
There are few if not ANY team in the NFL that doesn't have a criminal element on it.  Someone is always getting arrested for something.  THIS guy stuck his neck out for Michael Vick declaring he deserved a shot in the NFL regardless of any "distractions".  Remember Marvin Harrison Tony?  It's the world we live in now Tony. Manziel hasn't played a snap and he's a "distraction".  But he gets a pass because he loves the ladies?  You're a dinosaur; time for you to go away.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,476
Peabody, MA
I love the logic. "People are upset I said something dumb, so they're proving my point for me. The media around Michael Sam is a distraction, as I obviously meant. No need to mention that if I hadn't brought it up it wouldn't have been an issue"
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,419
mauidano said:
"a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams."
There are few if not ANY team in the NFL that doesn't have a criminal element on it.  Someone is always getting arrested for something.  THIS guy stuck his neck out for Michael Vick declaring he deserved a shot in the NFL regardless of any "distractions".  Remember Marvin Harrison Tony?  It's the world we live in now Tony. Manziel hasn't played a snap and he's a "distraction".  But he gets a pass because he loves the ladies?  You're a dinosaur; time for you to go away.
That is fine and well. I would be inclined to run an organization the same way.

But how does this philosophy accommodate the Tebow circus? It plainly doesn't and that's my problem with Tony's explanation.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,547
Maine
mauidano said:
"a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams."
There are few if not ANY team in the NFL that doesn't have a criminal element on it.  Someone is always getting arrested for something.  THIS guy stuck his neck out for Michael Vick declaring he deserved a shot in the NFL regardless of any "distractions".  Remember Marvin Harrison Tony?  It's the world we live in now Tony. Manziel hasn't played a snap and he's a "distraction".  But he gets a pass because he loves the ladies?  You're a dinosaur; time for you to go away.
 
Based on this, I assume that Dungy's teams were isolated from all distractions during the season.  Military style barracks next to the practice facilities so the guys don't have to deal with the distractions of driving home, dealing with the wife and kids, etc.  And a ban on all TV and radio appearances, of course.  And by extension, no media in the locker room either.  No phones, no computers, no TVs either.  Don't want them to be get distracted by things like the news or the latest episode of Big Brother.  And above all, none of this God and church bullshit.  No prayer circles before or after the game, because that could mean fraternizing with the enemy and getting distracted.  These guys have to be 100% focused on football from day one of training camp until the end of the Super Bowl parade.  No exceptions.  No mercy.  19-0 baby.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,071
Needham, MA
That clarification does not do anything to make Dungy's statement any less stupid. 

"I'm fine with the guy, it is just the rest of the world who can't handle it and frankly I'd rather not deal with the media headache." 
 
He would deny Michael Sam the opportunity to play in the NFL because the media would make a big deal out of it and he wouldn't want to have to deal with that.  I mean, that is fucking reprehensible.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
13,035
Donte Stallworth had it right
 


If any NFL team can't "handle the media coverage" of drafting Sam, then your team is already a loser on the field.
 
Therefore, Tony Dungy is a loser.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
18,926
Washington DC
Credit where it's due-- I think Dungy's statement is very good.
 
But I believe he's a bigot based on past statement, not this stuff--this just supported what I already believed to be true about Dungy.
 
I'd also add that I'd tolerate this much more from Jimmy Johnson, who has conceded he would draft a fast running serial killer.  Dungy purports to be a moral leader.
 
And actually, on reading it again, the statement is more BS-- I don't believe sexual orientation should be part of the evaluation process, but how the media reacts to it is?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Infield Infidel said:
 
his comments were made several weeks ago when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."
 
 
The documentary was news in the immediate aftermath of the draft - the week of May 10th. Or ten weeks ago, give or take a week depending on how you like to count. 
 
We are supposed to believe that a reporter for the Tampa Tribune sat on these comments for (at least) two months?
 
The reporter won't torch Dungy on this timeline discrepancy if he ever wants Dungy as a source ever again, but he should. Because Dungy is lying about the when. 
 
I'm pretty sure lying to cover one's ass is a sin, Tony. 
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,332
Newton
Not that I think Tony Dungy deserves a real defense. But I'm having a hard them piling on here.

I know Dungy's past record on this. I know, as Jose says, that there's some spin here.

But I also feel like this is a classic case of Twitter pig pile where the guy is being eviscerated for a comment that, while not harmless and definitely colored by his prejudice against gays, isn't exactly proof positive of hatred and bigotry either.

Here are the ingredients of the case being presented here:

1) Talks a lot about morality, often sanctimoniously,
2) Is Christian,
3) Accepted an award 7 years ago for opposing gay marriage,
4) Is inconsistent in how he applies his moral code,
5) Had a (possibly gay) son commit suicide,
6) Sucks as a TV commentator

Ergo, he is a hateful bigot.

Maybe he deserves it. Maybe he is a hateful bigotry.

But what I am seeing is a conservative, churchgoing older African American guy who is probably a little ignorant... who said something kind of stupid but also a bit open to interpretation...and who allowed himself to be championed by people who pride themselves on ignorance and hate.

I'm not surprised we are all killing him for this – and in a lot of ways he deserves it. But some of the vitriol here—especially around his son—is way OTT.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Average Reds said:
"I am a hopeless bigot."
 
I don't think he's hopeless. I think he needs someone to talk to him. To talk to him about life. About the world we live in. About fish. Did you ever fish? Did you know that when you catch a fish, you take the fish out of his home? Away from his family? I bet, eight hours alone, on a boat, with Dungy, maybe someone could find out what he thinks. About life. Maybe everything would have turned out differently. Maybe it all would've been different. When a fish, or a person, is alone, away from his home, or his family, that's when you see what he is really made of. When he is out of his environment. An environment that isn't his home, or with their family. The words and the deeds never really match up totally. It's the type of investment one has to make. An investment. In life. 
 
One of the things I've been surprised by is what a person will tell you in the right environment. We see it all the time. And it's surreal how many times you see it. You ask, "How do we break the cycle? How's he going to break his own cycle?." Someone needs to talk to him, someone like who Tony Dungy purports to be. 
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,478
Unreal America
Dehere said:
I'd be genuinely curious to know how Dungy would answer if asked whether he'd draft Jadeveon Clowney if Clowney had come out as gay prior to the draft. Or if he would have cut Peyton Manning if he had come out while playing in Indy.
 
Is his view that no gay player is worth the distraction regardless of talent? Or is it that in Michael Sam's case the upside of using a 7th round pick on a marginal prospect isn't worth any level of distraction? The former would be a pretty breathtaking display of bigotry. The latter, while not admirable, would at least be a candid risk/reward assessment that was likely shared and not voiced by at least a few front offices during the draft.
 
Michael Sam is a distraction. The very fact that so many observers praise the Rams for their courage in drafting him acknowledges as much. I do admire the Rams for their willingness to take on that distraction voluntarily and give Sam a shot, but I find it hard to work up any real outrage over another team deciding that it's not worth creating a training camp circus over a player that they believe they'll likely end up cutting anyway. 
 
Here's what makes me uncomfortable, though....  Where is the line drawn on talent level vs. distraction level when it comes to the distraction being someone's sexual orientation?
 
First, Sam was projected to be a 4th-5th round pick before he came out.  That he slid to the 7th round certainly isn't unprecedented, players slide all the time, but it certainly could have been influenced by most teams not wanting the "distraction".  Is it less appropriate for a 4th round talent not to be taken due to "distraction" as opposed to a 7th round talent?
 
What if Sam was projected as a late first round talent?  
 
Not every black baseball player that followed Jackie Robinson was Hall of Fame quality.  Would teams get a pass for not signing a black league average outfielder because his talent wouldn't be worth the "distraction"?
 
Ultimately this situation tells me that Dungy lacks courage, I'll punt on the question of bigotry.  He's a coward.  "Oh no, he might be a distraction, better not take him and deal with all his gay distractions".  Kill dogs and run faster?  No problem.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
jose melendez said:
And actually, on reading it again, the statement is more BS-- I don't believe sexual orientation should be part of the evaluation process, but how the media reacts to it is?
 
For me, this hits it smack on the head. If his sexual orientation doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. If you're going to be concerned about all the fuss and "distraction", then - whether you're "really" a bigot or not - you're siding with them. The rest is noise.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
18,926
Washington DC
Yeah, it's "Oh, I'm not refusing to sign Jackie Robinson because he's black, I'm refusing to sign him because the media will make a big deal about how he's black."
 
The talent level is obviously a huge disparity in that analogy.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,419
Van Everyman said:
Not that I think Tony Dungy deserves a real defense. But I'm having a hard them piling on here.

I know Dungy's past record on this. I know, as Jose says, that there's some spin here.

But I also feel like this is a classic case of Twitter pig pile where the guy is being eviscerated for a comment that, while not harmless and definitely colored by his prejudice against gays, isn't exactly proof positive of hatred and bigotry either.

Here are the ingredients of the case being presented here:

1) Talks a lot about morality, often sanctimoniously,
2) Is Christian,
3) Accepted an award 7 years ago for opposing gay marriage,
4) Is inconsistent in how he applies his moral code,
5) Had a (possibly gay) son commit suicide,
6) Sucks as a TV commentator

Ergo, he is a hateful bigot.

Maybe he deserves it. Maybe he is a hateful bigotry.

But what I am seeing is a conservative, churchgoing older African American guy who is probably a little ignorant... who said something kind of stupid but also a bit open to interpretation...and who allowed himself to be championed by people who pride themselves on ignorance and hate.

I'm not surprised we are all killing him for this and in a lot of ways he deserves it. But some of the vitriol hereespecially around his sonis way OTT.
It's just a two-day ass whipping -- he's getting it on Around The Horn Again -- and then we will be done. Punishment proportionate to offense.

I just don't want him hailed as a moral authority anymore. I think he is tarnished by this.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,478
Unreal America
I'm sure while he toiled away for years as an NFL assistant Dungy was sympathetic to owners who claimed that they were only not hiring black head coaches because of the distraction it would cause.

I mean if Lombardi was black they could deal with the distraction.
 

Stitch01

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
dcmissle said:
It's just a two-day ass whipping -- he's getting it on Around The Horn Again -- and then we will be done. Punishment proportionate to offense.
I just don't want him hailed as a moral authority anymore. I think he is tarnished by this.
I'd prefer not to hear any of his terrible overly conservative football analysis anymore either to be honest. The guy sucks in all facets.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
2,713
mauidano said:
Well, well, well. FWIW Keith Olbermann toyed with Dungy tonight on his show by naming him the Worst Person in The Sports World today.  Keith has a way with words.  Wonder what Keith's old partner Dan Patrick who ironically is Tony Dungy's current partner had or has to say on the matter.
 
I listened to the Patrick Show this morning, but I only could stomach a little of it. Dan and his staff agreed that Dungy said nothing wrong and Sam's talent wasn't worth the distraction. Half the callers were overtly homophobic.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
9,404
South Boston
The Social Chair said:
 
I listened to the Patrick Show this morning, but I only could stomach a little of it. Dan and his staff agreed that Dungy said nothing wrong and Sam's talent wasn't worth the distraction. Half the callers were overtly homophobic.
Other than seeing a Sam jersey and doing a double take during Pride Day in Boston last month, I haven't thought about Sam one bit. How much news coverage is he getting now? In fact, I bet this has been the most distracted Sam has been since he got drafted, and it's Dungys fault!
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
18,926
Washington DC
This also seems to fit in a broader context of viewing sports in general and football in particular as so special that normal rules of society can't be followed there--the Incognito thing comes to mind. 
 
Can you think of another profession where someone could say, you know, I just don't want to deal with the gay guy--and he'd be called anything other than a bigot?
 
I should add that being bigoted on this issue doesn't even make Dungy a bad person--people are complicated, good people sometimes believe bad things or even do bad things.  What it does make him is a human being with a serious blind spot on one particular issue.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,478
Unreal America
jose melendez said:
This also seems to fit in a broader context of viewing sports in general and football in particular as so special that normal rules of society can't be followed there--the Incognito thing comes to mind. 
 
Can you think of another profession where someone could say, you know, I just don't want to deal with the gay guy--and he'd be called anything other than a bigot?
 
I should add that being bigoted on this issue doesn't even make Dungy a bad person--people are complicated, good people sometimes believe bad things or even do bad things.  What it does make him is a human being with a serious blind spot on one particular issue.
But Jose, it's not that he doesn't want to deal with the gay guy, it's that he doesn't want to deal with the distractions the gay guy brings.

I mean, it's totally like hate the sin but love the sinner, right?

The distractions brought on by wife beaters, drunk drivers and steroid a users don't count. Because gay.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
18,926
Washington DC
The more I think about this, the more agitated I'm getting with him.  At least on gay marriage, he can argue that he's just doing what the Bible says.  The Bible doesn't say anything about denying a guy a job for being gay.
 

8slim

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
12,478
Unreal America
jose melendez said:
Yeah, it's "Oh, I'm not refusing to sign Jackie Robinson because he's black, I'm refusing to sign him because the media will make a big deal about how he's black."
 
The talent level is obviously a huge disparity in that analogy.
How about Mantei Te'o as an analogy?

Big college star with questions surrounding how his skills will translate to the NFL. Big controversy surfaces prior to the draft with lots of chatter about how those "distractions" will impact his stock.

He got picked in the 2nd round and I don't recall there being any issue about those "distractions".

But he wasn't gay, he just lied about having a fake dead girlfriend.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
8slim said:
I'm sure while he toiled away for years as an NFL assistant Dungy was sympathetic to owners who claimed that they were only not hiring black head coaches because of the distraction it would cause.
 
Well...I think you're closer to the mark than you'd like here. That Dungy got one of those first opportunities after toiling for years as a good company man is a pretty clear sign that Dungy has quiet fortitude. Maybe not sympathetic, but certainly he understood. I would bet he didn't like it but he also strikes me as a person who doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about things he doesn't like. 
 
I feel kinda dirty and icky here, defending Dungy, but I feel compelled to do so because it isn't necessary to destroy everything about the guy. Yep - he was an overrated head coach. Yes - he sucks donkey balls as a commentator. Yes - his recent actions suggest that he isn't enlightened on some aspects of modern life. Yep - he evangelizes like a mofo, which some find highly annoying. And yes - he might have had some serious failings as a parent and at least suffered a tragedy that I would not wish on anyone, for any reason. 
 
Dungy is wrong and he's deservingly taking some heat for it. But I don't think Dungy is a "hateful bigot" as some claim; I think he's a flawed person of a certain generation and a certain cultural influence. Older christians are the least accepting of homosexuals (in general) and Dungy certainly let slip that he would find a gay player "distracting". But I have a hard time thinking the guy hates anyone. 
 
I don't think we can afford to burn down everyone who says anything hateful; I think that while public shaming is both fun and effective, it has to have limits. Dungy spent a lifetime in football and endured lots of years as the token Head Coaching interview candidate to eventually become an overrated Head Coach. That he now doesn't see his own past experience in Michael Sam's current one is sad. 
 
TL;DR - We mock Joe Morgan, broadcaster, for not understanding that Joe Morgan, baseball player, was the quintessential "Moneyball player" because Joe Morgan, broadcaster, is an antiquated dummy yelling at clouds to get off his lawn. We don't run down the on-field achievements of Joe Morgan, Hall of Fame baseball player, for being a terrible broadcaster later in life.