Bills’ Eric Wood blames ESPN for lack of interest in Michael Sam

[Mackeyser]

Nope. Tony Dungy wasn't right at all. He couldn't have been MORE wrong, actually. Hypocritical and wrong.

There never was any actual distraction following Michael Sam...not the kind that coaches care about... the kind that disrupts practices...that causes issues with players...that causes headaches for the Front Office.

Nope. That was all an illusion. Of course, Michael Sam was and is a story and there were PLENTY of stories written about him. Stories aren't de facto distractions. But, let's remember that it was Tony Dungy who famously said he'd take on the MOST DISTRACTING FIGURE IN SPORTS SINCE ALI in Michael Vick. So distracting was Michael Vick that players had to cross pickets, the team that took him lost sponsors, the locker room was deeply divided as some were into things like ASPCA and the like... but Tony Dungy didn't waiver... he was more than willing as a commentator even as all that happened in Philly to stand by his assertion that IT WAS WORTH IT.

Now, the truth is that no one can honestly tell me that Michael Sam has been in reality one-tenth the distraction that Michael Vick was. No pickets against Sam. No sponsors or billboards against him. No radio shows spending the entire show blasting him. NONE of that... They had all that with Vick and more.

Michael Vick found a way out of a massive set of RICO charges and only did a bit in jail for something that I still can't reconcile in my brain because it's just too disgusting. The SCALE of his criminal enterprise... the sheer number of dead animals... NO. You don't spend that kind of money he spent on building the infrastructure he did for a hobby. And you don't get as personally involved if it's only a business. And yet, Christian Tony Dungy (I consider myself devout having considered Lutheran seminary when I was younger and have been an elder in several of the churches I attended) had no issue believing that Michael Vick could be redeemed and that the cost was worth it.

Well, okay. I think Tony Dungy and I are on separate pages on that one, but that's a religious question and not for here. So, what's he say about Michael Sam?

He wishes him well, but... he's not worth the distraction. Basically, it's like I said in another post. It's not homophobia, it's distance, aka "homo, don't wanna know ya". So, sure, Tony Dungy will wish Michael Sam well...over THERE...Somewhere. Funny... Dungy can go to bat for the dog killer but not for the gay man. Sorry, reformed dog killer.

The issue for Tony Dungy was never that Michael Sam was going to be a distraction (he didn't have to be and as the Rams, Fisher and Sam proved, he wasn't).

The issue was that Michael Sam is openly gay.

Thus, rather than look at Sam's football abilities and simply manage the situation as Jeff Fisher did and as Tony Dungy extolled the NFL to do with Michael Vick, he tried to let every Head Coach and GM off the hook for sharing his prejudice.

But, really, this is what baffles me most. Do these Head Coaches and GMs who worry about Michael Sam not know that they already likely have at least one gay player on their team??? Some teams may not have any and some teams may have a few, but the societal average is around 10% and at the elite athletic level, it varies between 2-5% depending on the sport. I can't find that study, but I'm pretty sure on those numbers. Point is that with a 53 man roster and 10 man practice squad, on average each team probably has one gay person.

So the question isn't really about "the gay in the NFL" and how are people going to handle it...because, gee whiz... Coach Lombardi managed his gay player pretty well back in the day when it was considered a disease. What's at stake is finally just allowing gay men to live their truth....to be open about who they are.

Michael Sam proved Tony Dungy wrong in every way possible. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to change any minds in the NFL.

Maybe Tony Dungy should have apologized harder....

 

[jjab360]

I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming in supporting the fact that the reason Michael Sam is not on an NFL roster right now is because he is openly gay. A part of it has to do with teams that don't want their players grilled off the field about their showering habits (thanks a lot Josina), but the fact remains that if Sam had not come out of the closet (although technically he was never hiding it, he just hadn't announced it to everyone), he would almost certainly be an NFL player right now, or at the very least on some team's practice squad.

It sucks in how the only team that had the balls to draft him is also the only team that doesn't actually need another pass rusher.

 

[jjab360]

But, really, this is what baffles me most. Do these Head Coaches and GMs who worry about Michael Sam not know that they already likely have at least one gay player on their team??? Some teams may not have any and some teams may have a few, but the societal average is around 10% and at the elite athletic level, it varies between 2-5% depending on the sport. I can't find that study, but I'm pretty sure on those numbers. Point is that with a 53 man roster and 10 man practice squad, on average each team probably has one gay person.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm pretty sure your numbers are off here. A quick google search says that:

More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.

The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...he-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/

 

[Mackeyser]

Sam has yet to play a single snap of non-preseason football. Nobody can really say if he is any good or not. And quit making assumptions about where he would have been drafted without his orientation. He was then what he is now, a DE that is not a fit in 3-4 schemes because he doesn't have the physical skill set for that who is raw and can be considered a tweener. I know you love that Seahawks example, but they are an exception not a rule. Look at Bruce Irvin. That defense is a bit unique in its personnel, outside of what the Jags are beginning to do.

Sam is what most players who have a shot at the NFL are, a bubble roster player. Some make it, a LOT do not. At THIS point in his career what he can do on the field is very limited. Can he play ST? Sure, so can a bunch of other players. Better than he can in fact. Can he play more than one position on the line? Probably, but at this point he only has a meaningful amount of reps at LDE which has been pointed out. Ask Hooey what its like to play on the opposite side of a line when you are only familiar with one side. Versatility is a HUGE plus when teams are adding guys to their PS, and as of right now that is one thing Sam lacks. He is not a fit for many teams.

He is a raw player who needs the right situation in order to land a roster spot. There are only 32 teams in this league, which means there aren't a ton of situations.

Is his football career over? Probably not. As I said above, as many others have, he needs that right situation. You can bet he is on a number of teams, including the Rams, short list when it comes to guys to bring in at DE for whatever reason.

Well, the Bruce Irvin is a mixed example because they aren't using him as a DE anymore, but I get your point. They try different things.

As can be said for every draftee, none have played a meaningful down in the NFL. Of course. And I agree with you on some of your points.

I disagree with you on how some of you evaluate Michael Sam. Now, I grant you, I do my evaluations in a very unconventional manner. But... those allowed me to hit on guys like Alshon Jeffery when all I heard was he was a fat prima donna who would be the next Mike Williams. So, when I evaluate Michael Sam, it's through my own unconventional lens. As for the LDE deal, he can only line up where the Rams line him up. He did play RDE plenty against Miami, for example, but because it was only that one game, it didn't balance out the other 3 games of mostly LDE. That's not to say that they wouldn't have played him at RDE, but there are only so many snaps a game. The question is what does he do with those snaps? I actually saw him play the run BETTER from the RDE position than from the LDE, yet he pass rushed better from LDE. That's probably a relic from Mizzou where he rarely swapped with Ealy.

So, I have to grant that when we talk about him, we may be looking at different things or seeing the same things, but applying grossly differing weights to them. And I can't really say that there's a right or wrong to that. I just know that I've had a fair bit of success with my own concoction.

I don't know what to say about Special Teams. Almost no DEs play special teams and when the Rams graded him, they took NONE of his special teams play into account. Which meant that he lost those 13 pounds... for nothing or worse it might have cost him a job.

Lastly, I really do hear you when you talk about scheme and that he's a bit raw (we differ on the degree of raw, but...he's a rookie so he's gonna be raw). I just don't believe that Michael Sam wouldn't have been better than Cassius Marsh or a host of other players. I just don't. I think Ethan Westbrooks is an anomaly and the Rams got a steal, but he's certainly not typical of the talent found in UDFAs. I think Ethan Westbrooks is a 2nd round talent that got washed out by Div II bias, inconsistent production and penalty-itis. However, once he got to the Rams, it seems he was all cured and played up to his potential. Michael Sam was about a 3rd round talent given the depth of this draft and seems to have played to that. So, I'm not surprised that Ethan Westbrooks outplayed him.

I guess the thing that bothers me is this. Presuming that even though it was no secret at Mizzou... had they really just told Michael Sam to just stay in the closet until after the draft and he kept his mouth shut and for whatever reason, no one outed him... I honestly can't see a reason for him going outside of the 5th round, even if folks dinged him HARD because of the Combine and totally ignored his Pro Day.

Now here's the thing. If he goes in the 5th round... are we having this discussion? Or is he ON a 53 for some team and THEN he announces and we wonder...would it have changed anything? Cuz, the lesson to any gay college athlete NOW is to shut your damn mouth, get drafted and then, if you want to come out, do it after your first game as a pro when it's too late to be cut.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If, and I stress if, Sam isn't/doesn't get work and it comes out that it's because he's gay, it would be a huge black mark on the NFL. Which tells me Goodell will either get him on a team, or more likely ensure that the real reason why he can't find work will never come out.

Which would be a huge shame. It's a bit sad that the NFL isn't ready. Maybe they should start a you can play campaign like in hockey.

 

[jjab360]

If, and I stress if, Sam isn't/doesn't get work and it comes out that it's because he's gay, it would be a huge black mark on the NFL. Which tells me Goodell will either get him on a team, or more likely ensure that the real reason why he can't find work will never come out.

Which would be a huge shame. It's a bit sad that the NFL isn't ready. Maybe they should start a you can play campaign like in hockey.

There will and has been speculation, but of course it's pretty much impossible to prove. Pretty obvious to the third party observer, though.

 

[blue4]

I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming in supporting the fact that the reason Michael Sam is not on an NFL roster right now is because he is openly gay. A part of it has to do with teams that don't want their players grilled off the field about their showering habits (thanks a lot Josina), but the fact remains that if Sam had not come out of the closet (although technically he was never hiding it, he just hadn't announced it to everyone), he would almost certainly be an NFL player right now, or at the very least on some team's practice squad.

It sucks in how the only team that had the balls to draft him is also the only team that doesn't actually need another pass rusher.

What evidence? All I've seen is opinion from two sides, but no evidence. Even the sportswriters on either side are just using opinions. Personally I view the preseason games as evidence he needs a lot of work, but different people interpret that differently as well. Certainly nothing overwhelming.

 

[bluecoconuts]

There will and has been speculation, but of course it's pretty much impossible to prove. Pretty obvious to the third party observer, though.

Pretty much. Then again I'm not working for the NFL, they could see things I don't. However there's always going to be guys that push for him just because he's gay and guys that put him down for the same reason. Personally I try to be in the middle, and from my vantage point he could play and contribute, in a limited role at this point.

It is what it is, I feel bad for Sam just as I would for anyone else who was being ostracized for any other reason.

 

[jjab360]

What evidence? All I've seen is opinion from two sides, but no evidence. Even the sportswriters on either side are just using opinions. Personally I view the preseason games as evidence he needs a lot of work, but different people interpret that differently as well. Certainly nothing overwhelming.

First SEC DPOY in a long time not to be drafted in the first, falls all the way to the 7th, only player in preseason with 3 or more sacks not to make a roster, etc. The kid has the resume and he has the talent, teams are just afraid to take that leap of faith either because they're afraid their locker room is too immature or they don't want the media attention. But like Mackeyser said, you can blame the media "distraction" if you want, but it hasn't stopped teams from giving dog killers and outright murderers second chances. Maybe it's just because Sam is the first openly gay player, I'm pretty sure teams were afraid to have the first openly murderous player on their team before, but they've gotten over it with time.

 

[Mackeyser]

Well, I seriously doubt it comes out that it's because he's gay. Between shills like Pete Prisco clearly selling someone else's line (like I believe for a minute that Pete Prisco sat down and watched every one of Michael Sam's plays... Bullfeathers) to Tony Dungy and others lining up to dump dirt in the grave of Michael Sam's career, they're already rewriting his story about Michael Sam was really "this" and Michael Sam was really "that"...

As if we can't remember back to December...with the help of the internet...and the google machine... what kind of player Michael Sam was, what round he was projected to go in prior to his announcement... etc. and as if we can't remember back to the last few weeks to the preseason Pro games Michael Sam played against other pros. Not in saying any of that is anyone saying that Michael Sam is perfect. But it's pretty clear that there's already a pretty big effort going on to rewrite what just happened to help make everyone feel better about why it's okay that the NFL is still the openly prejudiced place it is...

 

[blue4]

From what I can tell there is a lot of people trying to write their version of history on this.

 

[Mackeyser]

What do you mean?

 

[jjab360]

Well, I seriously doubt it comes out that it's because he's gay. Between shills like Pete Prisco clearly selling someone else's line (like I believe for a minute that Pete Prisco sat down and watched every one of Michael Sam's plays... Bullfeathers) to Tony Dungy and others lining up to dump dirt in the grave of Michael Sam's career, they're already rewriting his story about Michael Sam was really "this" and Michael Sam was really "that"...

As if we can't remember back to December...with the help of the internet...and the google machine... what kind of player Michael Sam was, what round he was projected to go in prior to his announcement... etc. and as if we can't remember back to the last few weeks to the preseason Pro games Michael Sam played against other pros. Not in saying any of that is anyone saying that Michael Sam is perfect. But it's pretty clear that there's already a pretty big effort going on to rewrite what just happened to help make everyone feel better about why it's okay that the NFL is still the openly prejudiced place it is...

Speaking of which:

Will his announcement affect his draft stock? Perhaps. CBSSports.com dropped him 70 spots in its draft rankings between Sunday and Monday, or almost two full rounds.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutd...m-70-spots-draft-rankings-173605773--nfl.html

Coincidence? Yeah right LOL.

 

[Mackeyser]

yeah, that article pretty much sums it up... and all back in February...

GMs even back then trying to lay the off-the-record ground work talking to reporters about how they think "we don't think he's very good"...

Well, so when he proves it on the football field, then what? Granted, it was against 2s and 3s, but those were the snaps he was given as a rookie. You can only beat who you're up against and he was among the top performing defensive rookies in all of football behind Westbrooks.

If the NFL won't have him this year, I REALLY, REALLY hope he stays in shape and that he works his butt off and finds a way to make the team next year, even if it's on the PS. He's earned his shot.

 

[blue4]

What do you mean?

I mean there are a lot of people accusing others of being homophobic, which is essentially what is happening, without anything but their own opinion. The fact that he was beaten out by a UDFA in a clear way shows his draft position was essentially correct. DPOY or not.

 

[Thordaddy]

Lots of good discussion on this topic and pretty civil ,I'm reticent to hang labels cuz I don't think there are appropriate ones ,every person has prejudice none are perfect,if you understand the intellectual vapidness of being anti gay,but it still bothers you as a heterosexual to visualize gay sex that doesn't make you a "homophobe" unfortunately we take instances like this and attempt nice tidy conclusions.
What REALLY bothers me is how absolutely institutional this looks from a league so anxious to site their goal of defending the shield,somebody needs to tell them they are leaving "the shield" out in the rain.
I still think someone is gonna pick Sam up,or I hope they do,wish we would I don't see any appreciable upside to Conrath and Sam has demonstrated he has some and if he'll pack on some muscle get in a top notch speed program I think he can get to #2 on our depth chart and IMO that's worth a PS position

 

[bluecoconuts]

I mean there are a lot of people accusing others of being homophobic, which is essentially what is happening, without anything but their own opinion. The fact that he was beaten out by a UDFA in a clear way shows his draft position was essentially correct. DPOY or not.

Being beaten out by Westbrooks, who was far more talented than a UDFA doesn't mean much. Tom Brady slipped to the 6th round, scouts make mistakes. Westbrooks has far more talent to go undrafted, as others said the mix of red flags and lower division is what hurt him.

In regards to Sam, I personally won't call people here a homophobe just because they don't like him. Everyone has their reasons. Some people it will be about his sexual orientation, others not. It's not fair to assume everyone who dislikes Sam does so based on him being gay. Just as it's not fair to assume everyone who supports him is gay, because a few other gay people support him based on that reason alone.

In the end the Rams gave Sam a fair shake, he was given every chance and unfortunately (for him) our scouting department is damn good and grabbed an absolute steal that best him out. If the rest of the NFL refuses to do so because of the fact he's gay, then shame on them. At least we can hang out heads high and know the Rams were the one team who was a step ahead.

 

[blue4]

Being beaten out by Westbrooks, who was far more talented than a UDFA doesn't mean much. Tom Brady slipped to the 6th round, scouts make mistakes. Westbrooks has far more talent to go undrafted, as others said the mix of red flags and lower division is what hurt him.

In regards to Sam, I personally won't call people here a homophobe just because they don't like him. Everyone has their reasons. Some people it will be about his sexual orientation, others not. It's not fair to assume everyone who dislikes Sam does so based on him being gay. Just as it's not fair to assume everyone who supports him is gay, because a few other gay people support him based on that reason alone.

In the end the Rams gave Sam a fair shake, he was given every chance and unfortunately (for him) our scouting department is damn good and grabbed an absolute steal that best him out. If the rest of the NFL refuses to do so because of the fact he's gay, then shame on them. At least we can hang out heads high and know the Rams were the one team who was a step ahead.

I agree totally. All I'm saying is we can't just assume that it's a fact that that's why he's not signed.
My point about Westbrook was made because people were saying Sam was deserving of a 3rd round pick but dropped only because of being gay. I think it's clear that 3rd to 5th round would have been a real reach pick.

 

[Mackeyser]

I respectfully and vigorously disagree with that sentiment. You presume that Ethan Westbrooks wasn't drafted because no team saw enough talent in him to be drafted.

However, that's not the case at all. His talent level indicated a much higher grade. The issue for him was his bouncing around, penchant for penalties, inconsistent production and other red flags. His TALENT wasn't at issue. It's why the Rams essentially paid him $50k to come in via $20k in signing bonus and $30k in guaranteed salary. They clearly thought VERY highly of him, but you just don't draft a drifter. The guy didn't look like he could stick to anything. So, you pick him up as a UDFA and see if he can play up to his talent. Turns out under Coach Waufle, he did.

Now, watching Westbrooks play, are you REALLY going to tell me that he's a UDFA level talent? Or is it more accurate that other factors like red flags, multiple schools, too many penalties and inconsistent production as well as Division II school bias worked against him?

I'm pretty sure based on how well Westbrooks played that we all have SEEN that he's not some UDFA scrub who just "figured it all out all of a sudden". He was the 2012 Div II DPOY. That's for all of Div II. So, he's not exactly an unknown guy or a guy without accolade or skill.

Guys are drafted where they are drafted for any number of reasons. Certain positions are over and underdrafted. Guys on winning Div I teams get over drafted all the time. Zac Stacy led the SEC in rushing (from Vandy, no less!!!) and went in the 5th round. How does that happen? He was a damn STEAL in the 5th. I know we're not gonna debate that Zac Stacy was a 5th round talent and was the right value there. He was really undervalued and thus underdrafted. It happens all the time.

So, no, I reject categorically that there is a linear correlation between pure talent and draft position. That ignores position bias and team need as well as evaluator error. Further, I reject categorically that because BOTH players the Rams picked were grossly underdrafted that inherently means that their draft statuses were correct. All that it means is that Ethan Westbrooks played fully up to his potential and better fills the role the Rams need filled. However, if the Rams weren't already 8 deep on the DL, both would have easily made the team. I say this because we also got Aaron Donald. And really, when was the last time that any team added (or could have added) 3 players to a position of strength from one draft? I still say that Michael Sam would have been a better addition than Carrington and the very notion of Conrath on the PS??? Are they just trying to make the offense feel good?

Even still, the larger point is that based on production, as several writers have pointed out now, NO 4-3 DE remotely as productive as Michael Sam isn't on a team or a PS. Not one. He's the anomaly. Others less productive. Plenty significantly less. Very few had more production. Only 5 others with about the same production aren't on a team and all of them spent at least 3 years in the league, meaning they aren't PS candidates. Again, if the point of the practice squad is to develop young talent and have replacements in case of injury, don't you want the best talent there?

See, the 49ers have lost tons of defensive talent. Granted, they run a 3-4, but Aldon Smith is a DPR. He's as much of a linebacker as Sam Bradford. With Navarro Bowman going down and a D that's been awful generous this preseason, you'd think someone like Sam might be worth a look in that DPR role... Nope. Apparently, they can take a 4-3 DE who's been misused for years as a 3-4 DE and put him at NT (only to see him lost for the season with a knee), but they can't see using a DPR as a.....wait for it...DPR? M'kay...

Lastly, I'm not accusing "others" of being homophobic. I, personally, am being VERY CLEAR about my accusations with respect to homophobia or the lesser variations of it that still deny Michael Sam his equal opportunity. I'm not accusing any posters. YES, absolutely, I accuse the 31 teams in the NFL that are not the St. Louis Rams. Now, that accusation is mitigated...somewhat...for teams that run a 3-4, but as I noted with SF, if they use a DPR, he could potentially fill that role. Not traditional LB, but the LT/DPR role in a 3-4... he might be able to do that. For teams that run a 4-3, there's no excuse at all... not to at least LOOK.

I simply refuse to believe that out of the 320 jobs that became available on practice squads across the league that there wasn't room for one of the most productive defensive players in the preseason at a highly valued position no less.

Last...Lastly... as for the 3rd to 5th round pick being a reach....um, not at all... http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutd...m-70-spots-draft-rankings-173605773--nfl.html

the article posted about the Rob Rang rankings from Feb 10, 2014 which dropped him from the 90th ranked prospect to 160th ranked prospect after the announcement. Meaning BEFORE the announcement, CBSSports.com had him ranked at 90 and NFLDraftscout.com had him ranked at 110. Both rank him in the 3rd to 4th round range pre-announcement. I was very involved in this draft and that is very consistent with other sites. So to say that a 3rd to 5th round pick is a stretch is simply wrong. He was a totally known commodity INCLUDING being gay when he won the SEC co-DPOY and the NFL scouts knew he was gay when they scouted and ranked him where they did.

 

[Ramhusker]

Nope. Tony Dungy wasn't right at all. He couldn't have been MORE wrong, actually. Hypocritical and wrong.

There never was any actual distraction following Michael Sam...not the kind that coaches care about... the kind that disrupts practices...that causes issues with players...that causes headaches for the Front Office.

Nope. That was all an illusion. Of course, Michael Sam was and is a story and there were PLENTY of stories written about him. Stories aren't de facto distractions. But, let's remember that it was Tony Dungy who famously said he'd take on the MOST DISTRACTING FIGURE IN SPORTS SINCE ALI in Michael Vick. So distracting was Michael Vick that players had to cross pickets, the team that took him lost sponsors, the locker room was deeply divided as some were into things like ASPCA and the like... but Tony Dungy didn't waiver... he was more than willing as a commentator even as all that happened in Philly to stand by his assertion that IT WAS WORTH IT.

Now, the truth is that no one can honestly tell me that Michael Sam has been in reality one-tenth the distraction that Michael Vick was. No pickets against Sam. No sponsors or billboards against him. No radio shows spending the entire show blasting him. NONE of that... They had all that with Vick and more.

Michael Vick found a way out of a massive set of RICO charges and only did a bit in jail for something that I still can't reconcile in my brain because it's just too disgusting. The SCALE of his criminal enterprise... the sheer number of dead animals... NO. You don't spend that kind of money he spent on building the infrastructure he did for a hobby. And you don't get as personally involved if it's only a business. And yet, Christian Tony Dungy (I consider myself devout having considered Lutheran seminary when I was younger and have been an elder in several of the churches I attended) had no issue believing that Michael Vick could be redeemed and that the cost was worth it.

Well, okay. I think Tony Dungy and I are on separate pages on that one, but that's a religious question and not for here. So, what's he say about Michael Sam?

He wishes him well, but... he's not worth the distraction. Basically, it's like I said in another post. It's not homophobia, it's distance, aka "homo, don't wanna know ya". So, sure, Tony Dungy will wish Michael Sam well...over THERE...Somewhere. Funny... Dungy can go to bat for the dog killer but not for the gay man. Sorry, reformed dog killer.

The issue for Tony Dungy was never that Michael Sam was going to be a distraction (he didn't have to be and as the Rams, Fisher and Sam proved, he wasn't).

The issue was that Michael Sam is openly gay.

Thus, rather than look at Sam's football abilities and simply manage the situation as Jeff Fisher did and as Tony Dungy extolled the NFL to do with Michael Vick, he tried to let every Head Coach and GM off the hook for sharing his prejudice.

But, really, this is what baffles me most. Do these Head Coaches and GMs who worry about Michael Sam not know that they already likely have at least one gay player on their team??? Some teams may not have any and some teams may have a few, but the societal average is around 10% and at the elite athletic level, it varies between 2-5% depending on the sport. I can't find that study, but I'm pretty sure on those numbers. Point is that with a 53 man roster and 10 man practice squad, on average each team probably has one gay person.

So the question isn't really about "the gay in the NFL" and how are people going to handle it...because, gee whiz... Coach Lombardi managed his gay player pretty well back in the day when it was considered a disease. What's at stake is finally just allowing gay men to live their truth....to be open about who they are.

Michael Sam proved Tony Dungy wrong in every way possible. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to change any minds in the NFL.

Maybe Tony Dungy should have apologized harder....

I think what people are scared to say about Dungy's take on this is he would be willing to deal with the distraction on a pro-bowl caliber player versus a roster spot player. It's kind of like most people would dive into a cess pool to retrieve a $1,000,000 winning lottery ticket but not many would do the same to retrieve the keys to a new car.