Michael Sam ?

[MHSL82]

For the record, I don't care. He can be promotional about it. He can be openly gay. He can be closeted gay. He can play or he cannot play. Doesn't matter to me. Maybe I'm not passionate enough to care. Maybe I should be. But it doesn't matter to me. I follow the Niners and I follow Alex Smith and other Utah players' careers. That's my MO. What they do in their bedroom and how they're treated doesn't matter much to me. I'll treat them fair but don't join in the passion. Again, maybe that's a bad thing about me. Maybe I should be passionate, but I'm not.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I'm not saying he wishes he wasn't gay. I'm saying that on some level, he likely wishes he wasn't the first openly gay NFL player (assuming he gets to that point).

1. I HIGHLY doubt it. Being the first openly gay player in the NFL would open a lot of doors for him from both social and financial standpoints.

2. That's just conjecture. Your entire argument is based around the notion that Sam *MIGHT* not like the idea of being the first gay NFL player.

3. Honestly - and in any way you slice it - a lot of what he's saying/doing is quite hypocritical. Now, I'm not blaming him for wanting to get something more from this, but Sick is right in that he wants both sides of this.

 

[MHSL82]

Kind of said this in my posts below, but it's very easy for me to envision that he is making his statement in the hopes that others will join him. So that, perhaps within a generation, gay players will not be a big deal. That is not his reality. Acknowledging the reality of the situation, while expressing his hopes, doesn't make him a hypocrite IMO.

I don't think him saying that he's gay or that he wants to be known as a football player not gay is the issue. I think the promotions and buttons are the issue some are objecting to.

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm not saying he wishes he wasn't gay. I'm saying that on some level, he likely wishes he wasn't the first openly gay NFL player (assuming he gets to that point).

That's nowhere near what Sam said at the combine.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I don't think him saying that he's gay or that he wants to be known as a football player not gay is the issue. I think the promotions and buttons are the issue some are objecting to.

No one is objecting to the promotions. People are objecting to him saying he just want to be viewed as one of the guys as just a football player without the gay label but then he's going off and starting these pro-gay promotions.

 

[MHSL82]

No one is objecting to the promotions. People are objecting to him saying he just want to be viewed as one of the guys as just a football player without the gay label but then he's going off and starting these pro-gay promotions.

That's what I mean. I'm saying that he could say he wants to be known as a football player, not a gay football player, and no one would have a problem with that. The promotions is what makes that an issue.

 

[BINGO]

This is the first time I have clicked on and opened this thread. I didn't read not a single post. So I apologize in advance if this has already been posted.

Michael Sam - DL - Tigers

Missouri edge player Michael Sam criticized Washington D.C.-based lobbyist Jack Burkman's potential legislation that would ban gay athletes from joining the NFL.

In a statement released Monday, Burkman said: "We are losing our decency as a nation. Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That's a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?" Sam once again took the high road, and did so with stylish use of a retro "Back to the Future" allusion. "Jack Burkman is going to need a Delorian, not some bogus bill, if he wants to prevent gay athletes from being in the locker room," Sam wrote. Burkman, who has a gay brother, is going to find himself on the wrong side of history on this one.
Source: Michael Sam on Twitter

Feb 25 - 6:17 PM

 

[NinerSickness]

There's no way that law would hold up in court anyway. It's a non-starter.

 

[MHSL82]

......or when someone on another team cheap shots him and injures him. Accusations will fly.

It goes both ways, the next time an official throws a flag for "giving someone the business," who are people going to assume or make jokes about?

 

[MHSL82]

What's with people?

"I don't want to be known as the gay football player, I want to be known as a football player" - Michael Sam.

"I don't want to be known as the tight end of the Saints, I want to be known as the wide receiver of the Saints." - Jimmy Graham.

"I don't want to be known as the Christian football player, I want to be known as the Christian quarterback." - Tim Tebow

"I don't want to be known as the drugged up Mayor, I want to be known as the open experimenter who doesn't do drugs." - Toronto Mayor.

"I don't want to be known as an African American icon singer, I want to be know as that white guy with a wrecked nose who loves children." - Michael Jackson.

"I don't want to be known as the Socialist Kenyan President, I want to be known as the Democratic Hawaiian President." - Barack Obama

I'm sure there's one for Clinton.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

1. I HIGHLY doubt it. Being the first openly gay player in the NFL would open a lot of doors for him from both social and financial standpoints.

2. That's just conjecture. Your entire argument is based around the notion that Sam *MIGHT* not like the idea of being the first gay NFL player.

3. Honestly - and in any way you slice it - a lot of what he's saying/doing is quite hypocritical. Now, I'm not blaming him for wanting to get something more from this, but Sick is right in that he wants both sides of this.

That may be true. But there is also considerable downside. Again, if it was just benefit, someone would have come out long ago.

And yes, this is all conjecture. I'm basically playing devil's advocate, simply noting that what Sam has said and what he is doing could be explained in a number of ways that are not hypocritical. I haven't heard the interview, though, so before getting into more specifics, perhaps I should do that. Unlikely to happen today at work, but I'll try to take a look tonight.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Honest question: Did Jackie Robinson have public causes like "Stand with Jackie" or promotions with special interest groups? I know that social media wasn't the same back then and it was harder for organizations to form around racial equality and pitch promotions to Robinson, but these things lead to some resisting more than they otherwise would. It appears aggressive to them. In their eyes, Jackie just played and took the brunt. Sam is trying to play, promote sexuality equality, and tell you that you are ignorant/bigotous if you don't join them - even when one says, "I don't care, just play."

There may be a need to push the issue and in this day and age, promotions and social media is the way it goes. But there's a bit of a feeling of over saturation,being forced, or guilt tripped. Take to this cause or you're going to hear it anyway. The coverage of Favre was like this. How often did you hear someone say Favre was stuffed down our throats, just play or retire? There was always a choice to turn off ESPN, but still it felt forced to many.

It's a fact that even those who support equality don't want to hear it all the time. It's historical, not get to it. The button could be distributed by others besides Sam.

Not to my knowledge, but as you note immediately below the bold, it was a different time. He was at least somewhat involved in the civil rights movement, but that didn't get going in earnest for a good decade after he broke the color barrier in the MLB.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I know my response was already long but I had one more thing to say. Some people feel that Jackie Robinson couldn't choose whether people knew about his race. He could choose to play or not play. People now think that Sam chose to play versus not playing. He chose to be openly gay versus not being openly gay. The rest is an agenda.

They don't have a problem with him playing and they don't have a problem with him being openly gay. They have a problem with him promotional about it. I know that he, in order to spark change that he believes in, has to be promotional about it. People have a right to be against the promotion of it without being labeled as ignorant. It's not the same as being against him playing or against him being gay. It's not even the same as being against him openly gay. It's against him being promotional about it.

I haven't seen anyone accuse someone of being ignorant in this thread, though it's possible I missed it.

 

[JPurthe1]

Here is my issue with all of it, and what this piece ultimately boils down to: Tebow is hated for praising his God and giving credit to everyone but himself. Yet, the “Christian” community is in love with him for everything he represents.
When it is all said and done, whether or not you agree with his religious affiliation, the man is a true representation of everything good, kind and selfless.
On the other hand, Sam is going to be loved and praised for who he is. Meanwhile, much of the “Christian” community will be sparked to lash out with hatred, profanity-filled slurs and bible-thumping tirades.
Do you see the problem here? It goes both ways, folks.
The hatred never stops here in America. There are very few “Christians” who know how to practice the beliefs they hold so dearly and will hate Sam for who he is, while plenty of non-Christians loathe Tebow for – surprise, surprise – being who he is.
Here is the solution to all of this, everyone. Many of the so-called Christians need to understand that the religion they hold so close represents much of what they are not. If you look at the life of Jesus, he spent time with everyone but the Christian and Jewish community.

Read more at Michael Sam and Tim Tebow Prove What Real Problem is in America

 

[clyde_carbon]

Honestly, just watching Michael Sam do some of the workouts at the combine, I wouldn't draft him at all. Extremely tight hipped, too stiff, not particularly strong for his size, pedestrian athleticism and just doesn't have much to offer in terms of potential.

Speaking STRICTLY from a football standpoint, he's probably a 6th/7th rounder, but since the circus would also be rolling into town with him, I wouldn't even think about drafting him, and honestly I'd be shocked if he was drafted at this point.

 

[TobyTyler]

Not to my knowledge, but as you note immediately below the bold, it was a different time. He was at least somewhat involved in the civil rights movement, but that didn't get going in earnest for a good decade after he broke the color barrier in the MLB.

Robinson was defintely involved in the civil rights movement, much to his professional detriment after leaving baseball. It was pretty much a self-serving endeavor though so he doesn't get much credit for it from me.

 

[TobyTyler]

Honestly, just watching Michael Sam do some of the workouts at the combine, I wouldn't draft him at all. Extremely tight hipped, too stiff, not particularly strong for his size, pedestrian athleticism and just doesn't have much to offer in terms of potential.

Speaking STRICTLY from a football standpoint, he's probably a 6th/7th rounder, but since the circus would also be rolling into town with him, I wouldn't even think about drafting him, and honestly I'd be shocked if he was drafted at this point.

I've never seen hm play or watched any of his workouts but it stuns me that the Defensive Player of The Year in the NCAA's toughest, most talent-filled conference is rates so poorly as a professional prospect.

 

[MHSL82]

I've never seen hm play or watched any of his workouts but it stuns me that the Defensive Player of The Year in the NCAA's toughest, most talent-filled conference is rates so poorly as a professional prospect.

Question for anybody, not just TobyTyler, but quoting because it's on topic:

There are pro-ready QBs and gimmick QBs. College offenses that work only in college but suffer so far in the NFL. Is there an equivalent for defenses? Can one say, "sure, he was Defensive Player of the Year" but his game wasn't built for the NFL, but rather college?

I'm not talking about the speed or size of the NFL. One could be fast enough or big enough for college, not the NFL coverage. I'm talking about scheme or system.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Robinson was defintely involved in the civil rights movement, much to his professional detriment after leaving baseball. It was pretty much a self-serving endeavor though so he doesn't get much credit for it from me.

I realize this could be a slippery road to walk down, but out of curiosity, which members of the civil rights movement were not self-serving in your opinion?

 

[joshuar56]

I've never seen hm play or watched any of his workouts but it stuns me that the Defensive Player of The Year in the NCAA's toughest, most talent-filled conference is rates so poorly as a professional prospect.

Two words, Kony Ealy.