Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Do we know if he sought out the paper or they came to him? Because if he was asked his opinion and gave his honest opinion, then I don't see the problem. I would rather his father be upfront about his feelings, than be a phony. But don't you think he should have kept his feelings to himself or between himself and his son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 But don't you think he should have kept his feelings to himself or between himself and his son?I probably would have never talked to a paper. All I'm saying is that at least he was honest. I hate when people aren't straight with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you have multiple kids in jail, and a child who died young you might not be thinking what to say to a paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I probably would have never talked to a paper. All I'm saying is that at least he was honest. I hate when people aren't aren't straight with me. I don't think he needed to lie but we all find ourselves in situations where it's better to limit how much truth you tell or not say anything at all. I always thought Deangelo Hall had a problem with this. It seems like journalists know that if they say "keep it real" to him, they can get him to say something that he really shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I don't think he needed to lie but we all find ourselves in situations where it's better to limit how much truth you tell or not say anything at all. sounds like DADT I haven't read the dad's comments, but if he wishes to be open with them it is his right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 sounds like DADT I haven't read the dad's comments, but if he wishes to be open with them it is his right. Like Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Like Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker, "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". true dat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I would bet that Sam wants to enter the NFL on his own skill levels, just like every other NFL aspirant. I would hope that teams will evaluate him like they do every other player on his skills, and not on his orientation. I think that this is probably true. Unfortunately, PC will effect anything that happens with this play. That's not fair to Sam or the team that may draft him but it's almost unavoidable IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 he is correct it will be a distraction, that does not equal equating them as the same in any way other than distracting. Jackie Robinson was a huge distraction, much bigger than Sam's sexuality will be, stupid Brooklyn Dodgers, what were they thinking? The team obviously suffered from such a distraction, right? Not all distractions are bad as was seemingly implied, and IMO it's more important this happens than the distraction this will be, which could be a positive distraction anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 If you have multiple kids in jail, and a child who died young you might not be thinking what to say to a paper. And I'm willing to bet he's more ashamed of Michael thanhe is with the one's in jail. When I initially made my first post, I had no idea he had other kids in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Jackie Robinson was a huge distraction, much bigger than Sam's sexuality will be, stupid Brooklyn Dodgers, what were they thinking? The team obviously suffered from such a distraction, right? Not all distractions are bad as was seemingly implied, and IMO it's more important this happens than the distraction this will be, which could be a positive distraction anyway. But do you really think that's a good comparison? To be fair, Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. The media coverage and the 24x7 TV availability did not exist. Today, it's completely different. 10 times worse in fact. Also, that Dodgers team had Roy Campanella, Duke Snider, Carl Erskine, Gil Hodges, Hawk Bronca and Pee Wee Reese on it, in addition to Jackie Robinson. That was one of the most talented teams in the history of MLB. Winning takes a lot of pressure off of you and Robinson played on a great team. That might not be the case for Sam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I think some of the locker room stuff may be true. However, it may be based on the hilarious assumption by straight people that all gay people are attracted to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I think some of the locker room stuff may be true. However, it may be based on the hilarious assumption by straight people that all gay people are attracted to them.that's always funny to see. When some 300lbs hillbilly with a mullet and a Skoal hat assumes every queer wants to chase him through the showers, ya just gotta laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 that's always funny to see. When some 300lbs hillbilly with a mullet and a Skoal hat assumes every queer wants to chase him through the showers, ya just gotta laugh. why doesn't the same hold true for men showering with women? men are sex crazed maniacs except for the gay ones?....I say we bring in the cheerleaders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 why doesn't the same hold true for men showering with women? men are sex crazed maniacs except for the gay ones?....I say we bring in the cheerleaders it does. Just because I'm wet and naked doesn't mean I want to bang the closest piece of meat. I'm an adult. If some ugly fat broad drops her shorts in front of me, doesn't mean the flags running up the pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 it does. Just because I'm wet and naked doesn't mean I want to bang the closest piece of meat. I'm an adult. If some ugly fat broad drops her shorts in front of me, doesn't mean the flags running up the pole. what if they like ugly fat broads....or 300 # hillbillys?......Freedom Bring in the cheerleaders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 what if they like ugly fat broads....or 300 # hillbillys?......Freedom Bring in the cheerleaders I really shouldn't say anything. I've rode a lot of mopeds. FREEDUMB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 But do you really think that's a good comparison? To be fair, Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. The media coverage and the 24x7 TV availability did not exist. Today, it's completely different. 10 times worse in fact. Also, that Dodgers team had Roy Campanella, Duke Snider, Carl Erskine, Gil Hodges, Hawk Bronca and Pee Wee Reese on it, in addition to Jackie Robinson. That was one of the most talented teams in the history of MLB. Winning takes a lot of pressure off of you and Robinson played on a great team. That might not be the case for Sam. A comparison in that both are distractions, yes. Regardless of TV coverage being less back then Robinson received threats, had his own teammates to worry about, opposing players to worry about, and fans and people in general. It was a big deal then and received lots of attention. How do you know Sam won't go to a winning team? If he goes to a losing team he might be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise poor season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundyrush Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Huge difference between a guy like TO (a legit locker room cancer) and a gay player, your assumption also omits the possibility that there are already gay players in the NFL and that his orientation isn't known by players in his locker room.And as long as this is the attitude of the players on his team, then excellent! What I meant was I think "distractions" is overrated in the NFL. What does player A raping a woman or player B DUI has to do with you catching a pass on Sunday. Now we have a openly gay player there is people making that exact same argument in his defense when I have been saying that for years for players that run into some trouble off the field. The whole distraction argument has always been flawed. If we bring in Pacman Jones for a tryout will our team chemistry automatically be destroyed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 A comparison in that both are distractions, yes. Regardless of TV coverage being less back then Robinson received threats, had his own teammates to worry about, opposing players to worry about, and fans and people in general. It was a big deal then and received lots of attention. How do you know Sam won't go to a winning team? If he goes to a losing team he might be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise poor season. No comparison IMO. All those things will be present for Sam but much more severely and with no ability to get out from under the microscope. Robinson had the opportunity to get away from it. As to how I know, I don't know. In fact, I specifically said we don't know. That's the whole point. However, I think it is safe to say that he is not the can't miss player that many think he is. He's not that physically gifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 What I meant was I think "distractions" is overrated in the NFL. What does player A raping a woman or player B DUI has to do with you catching a pass on Sunday. Now we have a openly gay player there is people making that exact same argument in his defense when I have been saying that for years for players that run into some trouble off the field. The whole distraction argument has always been flawed. If we bring in Pacman Jones for a tryout will our team chemistry automatically be destroyed? Huge, differences between people getting in trouble with the law through rape, and DUI etc and gay person who has broken zero laws in the locker room. Also a huge difference between a guy with an attitude like PacMan Jones and a guy who is apparently well liked in his locker room who just happens to be gay. I believe legal distractions and "look at me" distractions (TO, PacMan et al) are locker-room killers, but there ARE already gay players in the NFL and I guarantee you that there are those in their locker rooms who know about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Chris Kluwe was on "This Week" and said it's unfortunate that locker rooms can adjust but he doesn't believe front offices can, in reference to the "distraction factor". I agree, a shame. Btw, I posted the article of the students blocking the Westboro Baptist protestors at the Missouri basketball game yesterday in the "something cool thread". Well played, Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins3D Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Kudos to Fischer for doing what's best for his team...and to the lobbyist for not rioting like everyone said they would if he was eventually cut. If he isn't cut, im sure he'll be on someones PS. http://Fischer is a tough guy....if there is one lobby you don't wanna be attacked by http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2014/08/30/michael-sam-cut-53-man-roster-st-louis/14793447/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I doubt he finds another team, at least in the NFL. Teams are just not going to want to deal with the distraction of having an openly gay player. He's about to get the Kherry Rhodes treatment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I doubt he finds another team, at least in the NFL. Teams are just not going to want to deal with the distraction of having an openly gay player. He's about to get the Kherry Rhodes treatment Yep, that's exactly what's about to happen. I'm still mad that we never went after Rhodes with some of our pathetic safety play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.