Michael Sam Discussion

[Dodgersrf]

While i think that all the teams should have known if the Nfl office knew. I don't see this as a big deal at all. Rams control access to Rams park. And what ever Sam does with his free time is his business same as any other player. If a film crew was following Donald around off Rams campus would anyone give a crap.

Well said.

 

[duckhunter]

When I make a post, it's my opinion. It reflects my thoughts, right or wrong. I have a right to be right or wrong and to change my own opinion. Each of us can think for ourselves and do not need anyone to tell us how to think. I am responsible for me, not someone else, and others are responsible for themselves , not me. There are no thought police here and should be none.

When someone else has an opinion, they also have that right. It's not my responsibility to correct them and bend them to my thinking. I can state my opinion, set an example and if they choose to change, great.

When I use the term 'you' this or that, often I've infringed on their individual space, period. I am wrong at that point. Moderators have that responsibility. And this board is great in that respect. Obviously, complementing someone else's opinions, info etc does not put someone on the defensive, so using "you" is generally acceptable in that case and some others.

When someone uses the proverbial you, my cackles go up because a judgement on me or someone else has been made and an attempt is usually being made to correct the inferior thinker.

Everyone has experience on this subject from personal to work to family and friends, religion etc in forming their opinion. Sensitive subjects as these are probably best left to more intimate settings where it is easier to be open and cordial if that is possible.

I can accept that others have a different opinion than me, I expect the same.

 

[RamFan503]

I agree with what you've said here badnews.

There are many that claim to support a decision like drafting Michael Sam, but unfortunately there's a significant number of people who look for any excuse to change their mind.

It's just the way it is.

Not saying that's what any specific poster here is doing, but I have to wonder.

But why wonder? Really. You will almost always do yourself and the site a dis-service when you try to interpret an agenda behind what people say. Stick to what they actually said and there is rarely a problem. Debate what they write - not how you picture them based on what you think they meant. I say this because inevitably when I see posters start debating what someone might mean "in reality", it becomes about the poster and not the subject. There are plenty of valid points being bandied about here without putting it out there that you question their true motives as if they are hiding how they really feel. And no amount of "well maybe not you in particular" or "not calling out anyone but..." makes it ok IMO.

It is not necessary and it only serves to put people on the defensive/offensive rather than simply discussing the subject at hand.

All that being said, I hadn't before heard about the actual limited access that Oprah's people would have so it may be a moot point anyway.

 

[PhxRam]

When I make a post, it's my opinion. It reflects my thoughts, right or wrong. I have a right to be right or wrong and to change my own opinion. Each of us can think for ourselves and do not need anyone to tell us how to think. I am responsible for me, not someone else, and others are responsible for themselves , not me. There are no thought police here and should be none.

When someone else has an opinion, they also have that right. It's not my responsibility to correct them and bend them to my thinking. I can state my opinion, set an example and if they choose to change, great.

When I use the term 'you' this or that, often I've infringed on their individual space, period. I am wrong at that point. Moderators have that responsibility. And this board is great in that respect. Obviously, complementing someone else's opinions, info etc does not put someone on the defensive, so using "you" is generally acceptable in that case and some others.

When someone uses the proverbial you, my cackles go up because a judgement on me or someone else has been made and an attempt is usually being made to correct the inferior thinker.

Everyone has experience on this subject from personal to work to family and friends, religion etc in forming their opinion. Sensitive subjects as these are probably best left to more intimate settings where it is easier to be open and cordial if that is possible.

I can accept that others have a different opinion than me, I expect the same.

Good post dude.

 

[RamFan503]

Good post dude.

Second that.

 

[duckhunter]

Second that.

Thank you both. But we know who the real dude is.

 

[Warner4Prez]

Honestly, I just want to see this young man suit up and knock some mofo on the ground so we can make this thing official.
I suppose the biggest mile-stone for Sam is going to be Friday August 8th. Hopefully he can keep it to a dull roar until then.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

Bottom line, this guy was a 7 round pick at a position we are stacked at. He'll be lucky to even make the team. That is hardly deserving of it's own reality show.

 

[badnews]

But why wonder? Really. You will almost always do yourself and the site a dis-service when you try to interpret an agenda behind what people say. Stick to what they actually said and there is rarely a problem. Debate what they write - not how you picture them based on what you think they meant. I say this because inevitably when I see posters start debating what someone might mean "in reality", it becomes about the poster and not the subject. There are plenty of valid points being bandied about here without putting it out there that you question their true motives as if they are hiding how they really feel. And no amount of "well maybe not you in particular" or "not calling out anyone but..." makes it ok IMO.

It is not necessary and it only serves to put people on the defensive/offensive rather than simply discussing the subject at hand.

All that being said, I hadn't before heard about the actual limited access that Oprah's people would have so it may be a moot point anyway.

I joined in on this conversation after learning that the access was limited. I did not read anything posted before the last few before my own. Please understand that I live in the Ozarks. I am surrounded by redneck, racist homophobes who absolutely are looking for any reason at all to hate on this guy. And they are hating him. Some of these assholes are online. When I posted my thoughts about people using this documentary drama as a cover for their own issues with homosexuality, I am speaking on the subject as a whole.

I really like this site. I don't want to do any "dis-service" to it whatsoever. Please be sure to let me know where that line is so that I don't cross it again.... because I never saw it.

 

[RamFan503]

I joined in on this conversation after learning that the access was limited. I did not read anything posted before the last few before my own. Please understand that I live in the Ozarks. I am surrounded by redneck, racist homophobes who absolutely are looking for any reason at all to hate on this guy. And they are hating him. Some of these assholes are online. When I posted my thoughts about people using this documentary drama as a cover for their own issues with homosexuality, I am speaking on the subject as a whole. Not this site, not you, not this poster and not that poster. Not the Post Dispatch or any other. I failed in making that clear enough the first time and I reject the notion that I should worry about "well maybe not you in particular" as making it ok. That's nonsense IMO. If its genuine, it sure as hell should make it ok. I was not talking about the poster who felt my words were directed at them. I can tell him that and its the truth. If he cant accept it, how is that my problem?
Unless you are telling me I am wrong, that no one discussing this topic is looking for any reason to rail on M.Sam, then why on earth should I be afraid to comment on it?

I really like this site. I don't want to do any "dis-service" to it. Please be sure to let me know where that line is so that I don't cross it again.... because I never saw it.

The only line I see crossed is what I said about what you think posters might mean rather than what they said. We've all been around idiots of some kind of ilk - be it racists, homophobes, whiner fans, whatever. But brining those connections to this site and using them to question motives IMO has no place when you know nothing of the people to whom you refer. You may say that you are not directing it at any certain poster - well then what is the point of saying it? If no one said something that you can directly say was homophobic, then you are making assumptions based on....? And if you made assumptions of homophobia based on what someone said then you did indeed link it to a particular poster.

The point still being no more than - discussing the subject and what posters have actually said. Don't try to put those who disagree with you in some group. Personally, I think it weakens your argument anyway and just pisses the other side off for no reason.

We all love this site. It is a place where we have been able to discuss all kinds of issues though we try to stay away from religion and politics. I read most of your posts if not all and the only thing I had a problem with is what we're discussing right now. But when I see it happen, I will say something.

 

[badnews]

The only line I see crossed is what I said about what you think posters might mean rather than what they said. We've all been around idiots of some kind of ilk - be it racists, homophobes, whiner fans, whatever. But brining those connections to this site and using them to question motives IMO has no place when you know nothing of the people to whom you refer. You may say that you are not directing it at any certain poster - well then what is the point of saying it? If no one said something that you can directly say was homophobic, then you are making assumptions based on....? And if you made assumptions of homophobia based on what someone said then you did indeed link it to a particular poster.

The point still being no more than - discussing the subject and what posters have actually said. Don't try to put those who disagree with you in some group. Personally, I think it weakens your argument anyway and just pisses the other side off for no reason.

We all love this site. It is a place where we have been able to discuss all kinds of issues though we try to stay away from religion and politics. I read most of your posts if not all and the only thing I had a problem with is what we're discussing right now. But when I see it happen, I will say something.

I do understand your point here and I get it. I think it is totally valid. But it still seems like you think my post was directed at someone. I was not talking about anything anyone might have said or might have meant... or I certainly would have quoted them. I get it though. Its in my delivery... I just re-read my original comment and it really does seem like some thinly veiled shot across the bow that in the context of the thread feels intentional and directed. It wasn't... but I am not nearly as well refined in expressing myself as some and I also make plenty of mistakes. Sometimes I say some things I wish I had just thought. I am sure that I will embarrass myself here and probably piss some people off, but I hope not. I am not bad news, or at least I try not to be. Thanks for responding in the way you did.

 

[RamFan503]

I do understand your point here and I get it. I think it is totally valid. But it still seems like you think my post was directed at someone. I was not talking about anything anyone might have said or might have meant... or I certainly would have quoted them. I get it though. Its in my delivery... I just re-read my original comment and it really does seem like some thinly veiled shot across the bow that in the context of the thread feels intentional and directed. It wasn't... but I am not nearly as well refined in expressing myself as some and I also make plenty of mistakes. Sometimes I say some things I wish I had just thought. I am sure that I will embarrass myself here and probably pee pee some people off, but I hope not. I am not bad news, or at least I try not to be. Thanks for responding in the way you did.

Nah man. I really hadn't thought that far and wasn't saying you were the only one. See? I kinda did it too if that's how it was taken.

We've kicked this thing around enough. Like I said, I didn't have any problem with any of your points. I guess I just don't like pigeon holing. But hey - this is another example of what makes this site so unusual. I left every other Rams site I have ever been on because people didn't seem to ever be able to maintain a civil tone while hashing things out or simply disagreeing. It's different here.

Welcome to the board. I hope you like it here and make it your Rams site as well.

Cheers man

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think people need to learn the difference between a documentary and a reality show.

Documentary = Restrepo
Reality TV = Survivor/Kardashians/whatever

If anyone thinks that Restrepo is not real, or staged in anyway, please PM me so I may set you straight.

If the Oprah network treats it like a real documentary then I think there is nothing We have to worry about. The Rams aren't giving them special access, it's on his free time. Media doesn't automatically mean manufactured drama.

I agree that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

 

[Ramhusker]

I think people need to learn the difference between a documentary and a reality show.

Documentary = Restrepo
Reality TV = Survivor/Kardashians/whatever

If anyone thinks that Restrepo is not real, or staged in anyway, please PM me so I may set you straight.

If the Oprah network treats it like a real documentary then I think there is nothing We have to worry about. The Rams aren't giving them special access, it's on his free time. Media doesn't automatically mean manufactured drama.

I agree that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

I may be looking at this a little differently. I think everyone here knows the difference between a documentary and a reality TV show but Oprah and documentary may not mesh. It will play more like a reality TV show produced by Jerry Springer. I have a feeling it will have negative affects on MS. And I know some think the kid can handle it but it's going to be a monumental task to make the team with his attentions split. Think of an Air Traffic Controller sitting in front of his screens having one screen pulled up playing PONG.

Having said about 50 posts ago that I was not going to post on this subject anymore to try and help prevent it from growing into a focus, I hope this is my last post on this subject. Besides, has anybody thought that people who would want to do research on such a documentary would not already be lurking here? With that said, I'd like to give a shout out to Oprah. Hey Girl!

 

[RamBill]

ESPN vows not to make Sam its big summer story
• Dan Caesar

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainme...cle_d385d048-056d-5452-9cd7-d48c9382b36a.html

Mid-summer is the slowest time in sports, with little going on other than baseball before football training camps open in late July. But even the early NFL practice sessions usually are mundane, with reports often focusing on human interest stories of players unlikely to even make the team.

So the beast that is the national sports broadcast media likes to find a story to pound into a major news event at a time of year when it has many hours of airtime to fill but little substantive material to discuss. There will be one sidelight this summer, World Cup soccer, but that monthlongevent ends July 13.

There will be plenty of holes to patch until college football plays its first games in late August, and no outlet takes the exploit-a-story approach more than ESPN — which, many summers, becomes the Exaggeration and Sensationalism Programming Network. Last year Peyton Manning’s return from major neck surgery to join the Denver Broncos was the hook. Other people covered ad nauseam in recent years include Tim Tebow’s run in the New York Jets camp, the lead-up to “The Decision’’ by LeBron James and Brett Favre’s comeback saga.

Now a majorsuch storyline is developing in St. Louis, with Michael Sam having been drafted by the Rams. This summer he will be the first openly gay player in an NFL camp. He already has created waves by agreeing to be the subject of a multi-part documentary series that is to air on Oprah Winfrey Network after saying his goal was merely to concentrate on football.

And if the turnout Tuesday at Rams Park for his introductory news conference is any indication, Sam is one of two leading candidates to be the designated “Story of the Summer’’ guy in the national sports media. The other is Johnny Manziel, who last week was drafted 22nd — 227 picks before Sam.

But unlike Sam, who did not talk to the media during his final season at the University of Missouri, Manziel was at the center of media attention all year for his actions on and off the field at Texas A&M. So he probably is the frontrunner to be the designated “guy” this summer, because the national sports media already has been force-feeding him to us since he won the Heisman Trophy a year and a half ago, becoming the first freshman to do so.

Seth Markman, who oversees ESPN’s NFL studio shows, emphatically said Sam won’t fill that role.

“No, no, definitely not,’’ he said this week. “We do a lot of NFL coverage in the summer, but we have to balance it and decide which team and which players to cover the most. Certainly he will be in our coverage plans, but there are a lot of big stories and a lot of players, significant rookies, and there are big teams.”

Still, expect see a lot of Sam coverage on ESPN.

“When he plays games — that is going to be significant for sure,’’ Markman said. “I think it’s a story line the American public is going to want to follow, and we owe it to them to follow that story line. But were not going to be (dwelling on) Michael Sam all summer.

“He’s a significant human interest story that touches more than NFL fans,’’ Markman added. “A much higher percentage of the general population is intrigued by the story and wants to see how he does. This is not going to be wall-to-wall coverage of every move he makes, every little thing. But he’ll get coverage ... higher than a normal seventh-round pick, but not an insane amount of coverage from this network.”

ESPN sent veteran reporter Bob Holtzman to cover the Sam news conference, and he agrees with Markman’s assessment of the network’s coverage plans.

“I don’t think we’ll see anything,’’ in terms of saturation coverage of Sam like there was for James, Favre and others, he said. “Certainly it’s a story everybody’s going to watch, but I’m not sure its going to be a daily update, ‘Michael Sam, is he going to make the team?’”

Markman added that Holtzman will not be the network’s designated Sam reporter, as Sal Paolantonio was with Tebow.

“A lot of our seasoned NFL reporters will check in from time to time,” he said. “We won’t make any assignments to any specific reporter owning the story.”

Holtzman, who is based in the Midwest, expects to be traveling after football starts, but not camped at Rams Park.

“I really think there’s a better chance of us being in Cleveland than here,’’ he said.

FOR OPENERS ...

There certainly was much interest Tuesday for Sam’s introduction. In addition to Holtzman, other national outlets represented included CNN, NBC, NFL Network and Fox Sports 1, plus Oprah’s network. People who have covered the Rams since they arrived in St. Louis said the turnout might have been the biggest ever, at least rivaling any for the Super Bowl runs in the early 1990s.

And Artis Twyman, the Rams’ communications director, said he thinks fan and media attendance will be up at camp this summer but does not expect an onslaught of out-of-town media outlets to be on hand constantly.

“I wouldn’t call it a crush, but we will get more people coming in than we usually would,’’ he said.

Twyman said he doesn’t expect to have to add to his staff or have assistance from the league to handle media requests. And although the presence of Sam figures to increase the workload for Twyman and the rest of the team’s public relations staff, he’s enjoying the historic moments.

“It’s good,’’ he said. “I think it’s good for football, it’s good for the St. Louis Rams and I think it’s good for Michael.’’

Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff said at the news conference that the Rams are ready.

“If you’re going to take a leadership position by drafting Michael, you have to expect the good and the bad,” he said before the controversy about the Oprah programming developed. “We’re prepared for it, and I think we’ll shine through it.”

The Rams’ organization received praise for how it handled Sam’s introduction.

“I thought it was very well coordinated,’’ said Holtzman, who has been with ESPN since 2000 and has covered many major events — but none quite like that. “I thought it was obvious how strong a leader (coach) Jeff Fisher is and how much discussion went into how they were going to do this.

“People like to use the term ‘media circus,’ but there was nothing circus-like about it. I think a lot of places it would have been, but I wasn’t surprised just because I have dealt with Fisher for years and that’s (the way he operates). He’s the boss.’’

Longtime St. Louis sports-talk radio host Howard Balzer, who has worked for ESPN and other national networks, expects things to remain smooth and without a lot of hullabaloo this summer.

“A lot of people say, ‘What a circus this will be,’ but there probably won’t be anybody (national) at rookie minicamp or at OTAs (optional practices), it probably will be just the local media,’’ said Balzer, who is on WQQX (1490 AM) from 9-11 a.m. weekdays. “I don’t think it will be near the insanity a lot of people are saying.”

WILL NFL 'KNOCK'?

The arrival of Sam would seem to make the Rams a prime candidate to be picked to appear this summer on “Hard Knocks,’’ HBO’s reality show that chronicles an NFL club’s progression through training camp. The program’s producers look for teams to volunteer to be on the series, but if there are no takers the league can force a club to allow the cameras to infiltrate its camp.

But the NFL has set up guidelines as to which teams it can mandate being on the show, and a club can opt out for any of these factors:

• It has been the “Hard Knocks” feature team in the last 10 years.

• It has a new head coach.

• It has made the playoffs at least once in the last two seasons.

That leaves eight teams, including the Rams, as candidates to be required to appear. The others are Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, the New York Giants, Jacksonville, Oakland and Pittsburgh.

And none of those teams have a story line heading into the summer that will rival that of Sam. (Manziel’s team, Cleveland, has a new head coach so the Browns can’t be forced to participate.)

“As with any NFL Films production, (‘Hard Knocks’) looks for captivating story lines and compelling coaches and players — both veterans and rookies,’’ NFL vice president of communications Brian McCarthy said. “We believe all 32 clubs meet this criteria.”

He added that there is no timetable on when the team will be selected. Last year’s featured club, Cincinnati, wasn’t announced until June 17 — about a month before camp opened.

 

[FRO]

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=10937109

 

[Thordaddy]

If they force us to be on hard knocks I threaten to bring in Richie Incognito. They want a spectacle ,give em a train wreck.

 

[Selassie I]

If they force us to be on hard knocks I threaten to bring in Richie Incognito. They want a spectacle ,give em a train wreck.

When you bring Cogs in,,, you also need to make sure he is required to room with Michael $am.

 

[-X-]

“As with any NFL Films production, (‘Hard Knocks’) looks for captivating story lines and compelling coaches and players — both veterans and rookies,’’ NFL vice president of communications Brian McCarthy said. “We believe all 32 clubs meet this criteria.”

1. Michael Sam - duh
2. Gregg Williams - Bountygate and reinstatement
3. Jeff Fisher - rebuilding a team that hasn't had a winning season since 2003.
4. Robert Quinn passed over for DPOY
5. Sam Bradford - former #1 overall pick on the alleged 'hot seat.'

If I'm HBO, the only other intriguing team of the 8 remaining would be Oakland. Because they're Oakland. Other than that, this appears to be a lock.

 

[BigRamFan]

“As with any NFL Films production, (‘Hard Knocks’) looks for captivating story lines and compelling coaches and players — both veterans and rookies,’’ NFL vice president of communications Brian McCarthy said. “We believe all 32 clubs meet this criteria.”

1. Michael Sam - duh
2. Gregg Williams - Bountygate and reinstatement
3. Jeff Fisher - rebuilding a team that hasn't had a winning season since 2003.
4. Robert Quinn passed over for DPOY
5. Sam Bradford - former #1 overall pick on the alleged 'hot seat.'

If I'm HBO, the only other intriguing team of the 8 remaining would be Oakland. Because they're Oakland. Other than that, this appears to be a lock.

IMO the worse thing that can happen to this young team is to add Hard Knocks to the MS story. I've been against Hard Knocks for this team all along, but now more than ever. As if I had a say...