A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Do you have information the rest of us don't?  How do you know the pats did not go to the league?  Because a public statement to that effect was not made?  Seems that I recall the patriots media policy is to essentially say nothing at all.  Yes, polian did ask that the rule be called as written.  He did not ask for an emphasis.  As far as I know he said, this is the rule and it is not being called and here are the examples.  What good is a rule if it is not enforced?  The only real difference is that Polian isn't secretly deceptive like Belichick.  He's man enough to publicly state what he thinks.  Belichick is a weasel. 
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Intensely laughable in its illusion that the Patriots controlled this. It was a league decision via the competition committee. Do you think that somehow the Patriots' media policy covers those in the committee? Have you not been paying attention for the last several years about ESPN's coverage of the big, bad Patriots? If this had been pushed by the Patriots, it would be in the media. Think, man, think!

    BTW, here is an excerpt from provpat's link posted above. It gives Polian's point of view in regard to the emphasis push. While he acknowledges it, he states that he did it "for the good of the game" and denies it was because the Colts got pushed around by the Pats in the AFCCG. You are right. He isn't "secretly deceptive", which by the way is tautological. He is, at best, disingenuous. Or an outright liar. Oh, wait, lying is a form of deception. My bad.

    Polian insisted he was concerned for the game as a whole -- field-goal-heavy games are not viewer friendly -- but no team is as threatened by manhandling as the Colts, who rely heavily on downfield threats. Polian might have been subtly sending a reminder to the officials before Sunday's rematch with the Patriots.

    ''I wasn't criticizing the officiating in that game,'' Polian said of the victory against the Ravens. ''I think it's clear downfield officiating has been a little bit loose. That worries me for the sake of the game. We can play any style, as we proved last week. I worry about it in terms of the type of game you'd get if this is a trend.''


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]why?
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    That answer was posted further down. You have to read for it. Sorry to make you work so hard.

    And, look up sophistry before you respond.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from flasox. Show flasox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Intensely laughable in its illusion that the Patriots controlled this. It was a league decision via the competition committee. Do you think that somehow the Patriots' media policy covers those in the committee? Have you not been paying attention for the last several years about ESPN's coverage of the big, bad Patriots? If this had been pushed by the Patriots, it would be in the media. Think, man, think! BTW, here is an excerpt from provpat's link posted above. It gives Polian's point of view in regard to the emphasis push. While he acknowledges it, he states that he did it "for the good of the game" and denies it was because the Colts got pushed around by the Pats in the AFCCG. You are right. He isn't "secretly deceptive", which by the way is tautological. He is, at best, disingenuous. Or an outright liar. Oh, wait, lying is a form of deception. My bad. Polian insisted he was concerned for the game as a whole -- field-goal-heavy games are not viewer friendly -- but no team is as threatened by manhandling as the Colts, who rely heavily on downfield threats. Polian might have been subtly sending a reminder to the officials before Sunday's rematch with the Patriots. ''I wasn't criticizing the officiating in that game,'' Polian said of the victory against the Ravens. ''I think it's clear downfield officiating has been a little bit loose. That worries me for the sake of the game. We can play any style, as we proved last week. I worry about it in terms of the type of game you'd get if this is a trend.''
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]Let me just add its funny how Polian is not requesting the ref's to strictly enforce the rules on offensive holding in which his team is reknowned. Kind of hypocritical isn't it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Living in the Tampa Bay area - arguably, the most concentrated base of Dungy fans anywhere (of which, I am not one) - I can tell you that his work in the community has impacted the entire area for the better, resulting in his being held in high regard by just about every racial and/or ethnic group here.

    Yes, there are many people here that do not agree with his views on abortion and homosexuality....but have preferred to take the entirety of his overall impact on the community rather than the sum of individual acts less the facets of his persona that we may not like.

    Now, Dungy sees himself as a full-time missionary. A missionary is defined as one that "works to convert those who do not share the missionary's faith; someone who proselytizes." Missionaries also take up causes, in the true spirit of christianity, that are either unpopular and/or unconventional (i.e. Father Damien ministering to the lepers in Molokai). In that vein, why is it so strange that Dungy wants to help the biggest pariah in the NFL - Michael Vick?

    IMHO, like all others that choose to take the missionary's path, Dungy has been and will probably continue to be severely tested (i.e. death of his son; facing skepticism and scorn from those who disagree with his views etc.). In other words, he has and will continue to pay a price that we - as outsiders - may never be able to gauge for what he does.

    Is Dungy's real sin that he spouses ideas that many of us don't agree with or is it because he puts into action what many people only put lip service to: reaching out to the pariahs and untouchables?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]So I was just reading some more on the whole Mike Vick story and how Arthur Blank and Tony Dungy would both be charictor wittnesses for Vick if need be to get him back into the league and it dawned on me, do any of you think good old Saint Dungy would be doing this for a white player? If a all star white QB was caught doing what Vick did and sent to jail would Dungy be all about saving his soul or whatvere the hell it is he thinks he is doing? I do not think he would, I think this is all about the first black head coach to win a super bowl trying to help one of teh biggest star black QBs in the game. And please for the love god try to understand that i am not a racist person and thats not why i am saying this i just truly dont buy into the Saint Dungy act. Everyone has a angle always even Dungy. I do not think that if a white QB of teh same super star caliber was to do what Vick did that he would lift a finger to help him. Does anyone agree with this? If not i am sure you will let me have it and I get that but seriously guys its just something that creeped into my head while reading all these "saint dungy helping vick" storys that make me sick and i wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way. Am I way off or do you think i have something? What say you?
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    You're absolutely correct but this shouldn't surprise anyone. The double standard
    is pretty much carved in stone at this point. Any of our "special classes" consisting of whatever PC racial/ethnic/gender/sexual orientation category you'd care to name, are basically immune from criticism of any kind in the PC world we live in. 

    Mr. Dungy has earned his status as a man of respect for being a SB winning coach. His status as a saint has been bestowed solely due to the color of his skin. 

    Along those lines, how about starvin marvin harrison? Here's a man who's under investigation for murder, has had two witnesses come forward, placing him at the scene of the fracas, has lied to police over and over, was found to be in possession of the murder weapon and has yet to be indicted. Where's the criticism of harrison among the NFL and or sports media communities? He's been allowed to quietly "retire" and it seems to me that the average fan is not even aware of this little murder problem.

    Does anyone believe that, had harrison been white, we might have heard a word or two on this topic from the sports media? 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Good post Belenus.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Good post Belenus.
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    Thank you.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    H:

    I agree...coaches are hired to lead their teams to (ideally) a championship and, only secondarily, for their personal virtues.....BB may not be everyone's cup of tea.....but neither was General Grant, as the leader of the Union troops during the Civil War....nor Patton in WW2......
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I would think Dungy's success in the NFL is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, his celebrity may lead a light to shine where it otherwise may not go, helping his cause (whatever that may be); conversely, there are those who would argue that God's work (for lack of a better term) is best done without fanfare. Critics of Dungy might point out that the focus of his work should be more on his work and less on himself. If you think you can help, for instance, Michael Vick, why is it necessary to alert the media that you intend to do so? There are those who say that much of Dungy's posturing (if that's what it is) may be politically motivated . . .  and even if it isn't -- you've heard me say this before -- the appearance of shenanigans amounts to the same thing as actual shenanigans.

    It may be that Dungy simply cannot escape his celebrity.

    Or it may be that he's not really trying.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Mike:

    Good points....yes, like in banking, the perception or appearance of something amounts to it having taken place. Only time will tell whether Dungy is doing what he is doing for political or other reasons. At a time when achieving any kind of fame puts you into a larger fish bowl than ever - anything that Dungy does is going to get a reaction - for good or bad - from football fans and non-fans.


    The same thing applies to Michael Vick....if anyone, no matter how unknown, extends him a significant helping hand....it will make headlines, for good or ill.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I agree that he is only helping him because he is black. I too am not a racist but am not afraid to talk about the subject. I agree if he was white Dungy would have zippo do do with him. He probably would think because he is white he would get off the charges in the first place!!! I know this sounds weird but because his crime was against animals Vic will have a harder time getting forgivness then if he murederd someone, right OJ.  Go Pats!!!!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]This statement would be hilarious were it not so tragic. Here is a quote from Dungy regading his support of the Indiana Family Institute's attempt to amend the Indiana constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman: "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote the family -- family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. The obvious failure of this lie is that by ACTUALLY promoting the ideals of the group he is ACTUALLY downgrading gays.  Look at it this way - "We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote white values as being better."  Stop pretending one exists without the other. It is sad and sickening.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    Root - perfect.  You've used your brand of logic to make your statement.  Dungy uses his brand of faith to make his.  You, thusly, define his beliefs as hate based.  He does not see it that way. 

    Maybe you can now explain to how God does not exist.  In order to convince someone like Dungy that he is a hypocrite and a hater, I think that is the requirement you are going to have to meet. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Let me just add its funny how Polian is not requesting the ref's to strictly enforce the rules on offensive holding in which his team is reknowned. Kind of hypocritical isn't it.
    Posted by flasox[/QUOTE]
    When did offensive holding become a part of this conversation?  And please provide some more information on this "renowned" characteristic of the colts.  And because Polian asks that a rule be enforced how does that make him hypocritical when he does not ask for something else. 

    Sox - you are hilarious.  I guess because I drove 66 mph in a 65 mph zone, that makes me the same as a murderer. 

    By the way, apparently the pats do appeal to the NFL.  Please see the link from Provpats post.  http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2005/03/22/patriots_can_chuck_this_hope/  Funny that their appeal has to do with wanting to abolish anyone's desire to limit their rulebreaking efforts.  Makes you wonder what their appeal to the league was when BB's boy got caught with camera on shoulder.  Further makes you wonder if there is a league rule BB wishes to follow. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Alfie - we did hear about harrison.  same as we heard about kaczur.  Both of these died very quick and quiet deaths.  Now if someone comes along in the Harrison case and provides some more credible information, then maybe the story will again percolate.  Until then, we have an unsavory victim and conflicting information.  I am still wondering how that one guy from Mass got off so easily in the death of that girl on Chappaquiddick.  Probably not PC to pursue this further, either. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Belenus - well said.  Thank you. 

    Mike - I fully agree with your comments.  From my own personal perspective, I wish many would be more quiet in their "work for God", but, in general, isn't that counter to the christian principal of evangelism? 

    I honestly do not claim to know much about religion or christianity, but I thought that publicly "doing God's work" was the very basis of evangelism. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Evangelism (or witnessing, as it is known in some quarters) is all about bringing lambs into the fold, and by its very nature requires that you go out among the unwashed and "save" them. How we equate that with the kind of behavior that gives us the Pat Robertsons and the Jim Bakkers of the world is an entirely different question. Some people look at successful evangelists and see Jesus. Other people see slick, expertly-produced fundraising machines that Jesus would not recognize. This is not a debate I particularly care to engage in. I am often amazed at the money some of these productions can generate.

    In fact, I often wonder what God does with all that money.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Who said the point of emphasis didn't have something to do with Polian?  Not me.  Maybe you ought to reread yourself before you assert something that isn't true.  What I want to make clear is that no rule was changed only that it was emphasized that the rule be called as it is written.  Please reread your globe article.  Raise my game?  Seems I need to dumb it down for you. 
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]
    here is what you wrote:

    Yes, polian did ask that the rule be called as written.  He did not ask for an emphasis.  As far as I know he said, this is the rule and it is not being called and here are the examples. 
    I will ask what you did; how did you know that he didn't ask for a POE?  This was certainly the result and the knowledge that it would result in this.

    You sound like Bill Clinton; Bill had no knowledge that it wold happen that way.  The Comp committee issued the POE on which Polian sits.  Bull, bull and more bull.

    I know very well what I read and do not try to weasel out of it.  Maybe Bill should just go break a couple of legs.

    And what about the so-called Brady rule.  You got absolutley owned on that one too
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

          -- "I know very well what I read and do not try to weasel out of it." --

    Do try to weasel out of it.

    It's so much more fun for the rest of us.
    Cool
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]here is what you wrote: Yes, polian did ask that the rule be called as written.  He did not ask for an emphasis.   As far as I know he said, this is the rule and it is not being called and here are the examples.  I will ask what you did; how did you know that he didn't ask for a POE?  This was certainly the result and the knowledge that it would result in this. You sound like Bill Clinton; Bill had no knowledge that it wold happen that way.  The Comp committee issued the POE on which Polian sits.  Bull, bull and more bull. I know very well what I read and do not try to weasel out of it.  Maybe Bill should just go break a couple of legs. And what about the so-called Brady rule.  You got absolutley owned on that one too
    Posted by provpats[/QUOTE]

    prov - if asking that a rule be called as written is asking for a point of emphasis, then so be it. 

    The point I am trying to make was that the officiating on the field was not following the rule book.  Even the globe article you cited noted this.  Pats fans did not like that polian lobbied that the 5 yard chuck rule be called as written.  Pats fans consider the point of emphasis (aka - officiating rules as they are written) a point of OVERemphasis (word?).  

    I find it ironic that pats fans have no problem with belichick intentionally and systematically subverting rules (spygate), taking advantage of refs (whether through intimidation or not) who are not calling penalties that otherwise should be (ty law rule), yet seem to have a problem with a team or coach or GM who challenges the league on these issues.  I know you like it when a controversial call (tuck rule) is appropriately made to your benefit.    

    It seems Belichick and some pats fans believes the rules are only theirs to break while the rest must abide by them.  hmmm.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Rules are for suckers.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Well I have been trying to read through all these posts since i got into the office this morning and there is just so much to comment on. It will take me a while to make a post after reading through all these posts there was just so many differant posts that cought my eye.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Intensely laughable in its illusion that the Patriots controlled this. It was a league decision via the competition committee. Do you think that somehow the Patriots' media policy covers those in the committee? Have you not been paying attention for the last several years about ESPN's coverage of the big, bad Patriots? If this had been pushed by the Patriots, it would be in the media. Think, man, think! BTW, here is an excerpt from provpat's link posted above. It gives Polian's point of view in regard to the emphasis push. While he acknowledges it, he states that he did it "for the good of the game" and denies it was because the Colts got pushed around by the Pats in the AFCCG. You are right. He isn't "secretly deceptive", which by the way is tautological. He is, at best, disingenuous. Or an outright liar. Oh, wait, lying is a form of deception. My bad. Polian insisted he was concerned for the game as a whole -- field-goal-heavy games are not viewer friendly -- but no team is as threatened by manhandling as the Colts, who rely heavily on downfield threats. Polian might have been subtly sending a reminder to the officials before Sunday's rematch with the Patriots. ''I wasn't criticizing the officiating in that game,'' Polian said of the victory against the Ravens. ''I think it's clear downfield officiating has been a little bit loose. That worries me for the sake of the game. We can play any style, as we proved last week. I worry about it in terms of the type of game you'd get if this is a trend.''
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    mr. dictionary.com. 

    So its an illusion that the pats may have gone to the comp committee re: establishment of the brady rule.  Why, because you said so (so smug)?  because ESPN hasn't reported on it?  As I said, its a well known fact that the pats do not operate in the media - and give nothing to espn (per some here).  Lets just call it a difference of opinion, shall we?

    As for your perspective on Polian, why can't something that is good for the league also be good for the colts.  It appears to me that the league felt a new rule against lunging at QB's knees from the ground was good for the league which also happens to be good for the pats.  Maybe your fandom got in the way of your superior logic here.  Thoughts?

    And forgive me but I did not see where Polian acknowledged the emphasis push, but I won't hold you to that.  In fact, I didn't even see where he said he did it for the good of the game, but I won't hold you to that, either.  Nor did I see where polian comments were even remotely related to the colts being pushed around by the pats in the afccg.  Got to hold you to that one.  Seems to me that Polian's comments had everything to do with the game the Colts had just played against the Ravens.  The writer inferred that Polian may have been shouting out to the league to be mindful of this in their upcoming game against the pats, but my limited intelligence still can't find where polian's comments were related to the pats/colts 04 afccg or to his specific push for the emphasis of the rule at that time.  Maybe you just read into things better than I do.    

    Hypothetically, if a team reads the rules and drafts based on those rules wouldn't that team want to see the rules applied?  If the colts thought the 5 yard chuck rule was meaningless, wouldn't they draft 6-3 270# wide receivers instead of 5-10 165# receivers?  Seems to me you draft to the rules and then expect play to occur based on them.  Funny that the pats, per provpats cited globe article, requested a limit to the power of the comp committee because they did not like rules being enforced. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]That answer was posted further down. You have to read for it. Sorry to make you work so hard. And, look up sophistry before you respond.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    guess we'll just have to let this one lie.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]Rules are for suckers.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    Can I attach BB's name to this?  Laughing
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    You guys are getting way off subject, Bill Polian a peice of sh*t and we all know that so lets leave it at that. The question here is whether or not Tony Dungy would do the same thing he did for Vick for a white player. I do have a lot to say about teh posts sinc elast Thursday but i need time to get to it so stay tuned underdogg.
     

Share