A question about Dungy

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

    Re: A question about Dungy

    This is what happens when you go away for four days.
    Cool

    We're like unruly children, taking your thread and running off in all directions with it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]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.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    No more a POS that your favorite cheater.  There are those that run into a dead end on Dungy and they immediately attach the arguement to Polian to keep it going.  Although that's a completely different discussion, I have to defend my POS.  know what I mean. 

    The answer to your specific question about Dungy is:  I think he would.  He frequently visits prisons, and I believe he counsels all makes and models. 

    I do think he favors blacks and I frankly have no problem with that.  As I said earlier, I believe Dungy sees the success of black men and women as a positive for all, whereas I see guys like Sharpton and Jackson believing that success is a zero sum game.  In order for one to win, another must lose.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Wow...lots of good stuff here.  If I may put a few points across in support of the Bible:
    No where in the Bible is there a recorded homosexual marriage.
    God is the one who came up with marriage.
    God defined homosexuality as a sin.
    Therefore, God initially meant for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
    Poligamy was instituted by man (and it got many a man into trouble).
    Slavery was instituted by man.  Men would often volunteer to be slaves to repay debts.  Every 50 years, God commanded all slaves go free.
    Catholics as well as Protestants, who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, believe that homosexuality is a sin, just as God said.  This being said, most Christians who understand the Word of God, understand that homosexuals are people and have worth just like everyone else.  When God tells us something is wrong, it's not to rain on our parade, it is usually to protect us.  Answer me this...for the last 12,000 years, homosexuality has been considered an abomination.  How is it that we in America, all of a sudden, want to dump 12,000 years of thought and say homosexuality is ok?  I can understand differences of opinion.  I love the debate, however I cannot understand how people think that because I still believe the Bible, I'm backwards, and idiot, or a bigot.  I can hate the sin but love the sinner.  Just because I'm pro-marriage and against homosexuality, doesn't mean I hate homosexuals.  Nothing could be futher from the truth.  If you want to believe that it's a contradiction, all I can say is, enjoy your opinion.  Mr. Dungy is holding true to his conviction (as far as marriage and homosexuality goes).  It comes from the Bible.  If that is outdated to you and you think were all nut jobs, then you really are not as tolerant as you would like to believe.  You have an inflated opinion of your belief.  Let me ask you one more question...should I base my beliefs on what God says or on what society believes/what I want to believe?  If I make up my own beliefs or believe only what I want to believe, then I have set myself up as God.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Excellent post 347
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    See this all comes down to what you beleave, if you beleave in the bible then of course thats the way you are going to look at things but if you dont then of course you will see things differently. Now I am about to talk about the subjects which we have all touched on and opened the door to (because i sure as hell didnt bring up religion) and if some of you get offened i am sorry for that but thus is the nature of teh beast when talking about things like this.

    If you want to follow a outdated book that was writen thousends of years ago by man not god then that is up to you but i beg you to try and convince a gay person that its not hate. Tony Dungy is a black man he should understand more then anyone what it means to have the same rights as everyone else but instead he chooses to follow blindly and go with the "word of god" and rob these people of their rights. I would rather think for myself then be told what to think by a book writen by a bunch of power hungry white men. I do beleave in god, I do think there is something bigger then us out there however I do not beleave in orginized religion. I dont think Dungys hate for gays has anything to do with my original post what so ever but someone opened this can of worms so i had to add my two cents. Im sorry if i offend you but this is just the way one person thinks. I do not see Dungy "logic" because i think he is stupid for his faith (again I am sorry if this offends you) so we will never see eye to eye on his reasoning because I just dont see it the same way you do.

    You ask why we Americans think its ok to dump 12000 years of being anti gay maybe its because that book was writen 12000 years ago. Are we as humans the same people we were 12000 years ago or have we progressed over the years? Like I said if you think that it is the true word of god then of course you will still listen to a 12000 year old book but for those of us who do not buy into it it seems stupid to blindly follow a book writen 12000 years ago.

    Either way the reason this whoel gay subject came up was because someone said he hated gay people and someone said where is your proff that he hates gays and then I said we dont need any proof, he has opened his faith up to the public and all we need to know is that he is a church going man to know how he fels about gay people. Now you can throw your arms up in teh air all you want and get mad but the simple fact is even though you think its ok to say "well i dont hate gays i just dont think they deserve the same rights as everyone else" to us people outside of the church all that is saying is i dont think gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else which to me is hate. Dress it up all you want but if you think that way you are a bigit. Gay or not everyone has a right to be happy and for someone to deny a person that right because the book they happen to follow as faith tells them it was not ok for gays to be married 12000 years agov its just the same as a member of the KKK saying blacks cant do this or that because they are not teh same or as strong as the white man. Its the same thing and even if you dont hate gay people it is re tarded of you to pretend that there are not millions of church going people out there who do in fact hate gay people. And as far as you know Tony Dungy is one of those people. He spare headed a campain to make sure gays did not get teh same rights as everyone else so why is wrong for one to assume he hates gays?

    And Underdogg i have no idea why you would list teh fact that Tony Dungy worked with George W. Bush as a good thing, if anything its a mark against him that he would let his name even be in the same sentence as that greedy no good POS George W Bush.


    But once again all this gay stuff is way off point what we are talking about is whether it is ok for Dungy to only try and help men of teh same color as himself. If Bob Kraft went out of his way to help only white people would he or would he not be called a racist? So again do you think he would put his neck on the line for a white player teh way he did with Vick? cause i dont and if you do think he would what makes you think so?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I agree. The reason religion is the most debated subject on the planet is what he stated. Everyone has their own interpretation of it. Ask 100 people to "explain" any passage in the Bible and you'll get at least 10 which are significantly different. I'm not a big fan of gay marriage, though not entirely because of the Bible. Yet having lived in CA for 13 years I worked with and sometimes even socialized with gay people. I respect their choices, as long as they respect mine. So I don't think not supporting gay marriage makes you a "hater". And homophobic is an entirely different thing. Those people deign to "hate" gays because they are upset about tendencies or curiosity within themselves. I wouldn't brand Dungy as either a hater or a homophobe. As to Taz's original thoughts (see what happens when you let us maniacs steer a thread for days!), I don't think Dungy is a racist, either. Though I've never heard him "take up" for a white player in trouble, that doesn't mean he wouldn't. I do think he (and others) make special efforts to "help" young black athletes, and I see nothing wrong with that. If it were Sharpton or Jackson, there would have to be a white person somewhere at the root of these problems to blame. You have to be careful discussing Dungy when underdogg gets in the mix. He stands by him like we stand by BB. But all kidding aside, I can't answer the original question. I don't know. But I don't know that there's evidence to say he wouldn't, nor can we condemn him for helping Vick. I would hope they could turn their efforts into educating young people who may be prone to getting into this type of stuff. We'll see if there is any action, or if it's just another ESPN headline.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Have you read the Bible?  If so, believe what you will.  But if not, you should read it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I have read the bible and the way I see it and i speak only for myself it is teh best work of fiction ever writen but to me thats what it is fiction. No offense thats just the way i see it. And Mighty i no you get angry when people question such things like teh bible on this forum so I thank you for understanding that i do not mean to offend.

    Bub thanks for the post and i know what you mean i let you guys run the thread for 4 days and now we are talking about gays lol But let me ask you this, you said you do think that Dungy and others make a special effort to help young black athletes right? So my question is why? Why dont they just make an effort to help young people in general why does it have to be young black people? Doesnt that strike you as a bit odd? If I was a rich NFL owner and I made an effort to help out young white people and only young white people I would be called a racist until I sold my team and left the league. But Dungy "and others" baby these "young black athletes" and no one say a dman thing? Bull sh*t, are there different rules or something? How is racist for one man to do something but not racist for another man to do something? I ask this question because to me all men are equal. We are all cut from the same cloth, thats the way i see it so for example, i am a high school football coach and my main reason for coaching these kids is i want to help young people, period. Not young white people, not young black people just young people. men women it does not matter to me. Why cant Dungy help out people instead of throwing the word "black" in there so it becomes black people? If he is truely the man of god he claims to be shouldnt it be is goal to help his fellow man? And not just his fellow black man? Thats all i am saying is for me its a level playing field. I give everyone the same respect, i will step up to the plate for my white players and my black players and my Asian players and so on and so forth because in my eyes we are all just men, not white men or black men but men. And it really gets to me when i hear someone talking about all the work so and so is doing for young black men, because its like why? why are they not just helping young people in general, young men all over this country black and white have problems with growing up. Whether it be they grew up in the projects or they were abused by an adult and have soem sort of problem dealing with it, young people have problems not just young black people and i guess its really the wording of these reports that get to me. It should be about helping all young people race should not be a part of it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Ok guys I am heading home for the nights, so dont think I am ignoring you b*tching out or anything like that lol I will be right back here tomorrow and look forward to reading your response. Much respect to everyone for being able to have this type of debate with out crossing any lines or insulting one another, I hope i have not offended anyone with my point of view and look forward to continueing this debate tomorrow. Peace out sucka's! lol Cool
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I liked you better when you just insulted people without apologizing for it. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    but tas - you are defining slavery and an anti-gay marriage stance as the same thing only because both limited the desired rights of the affected.  They are not.  The American Flag and USSR flag both had red in them.  this does not mean both countries believe the same thing. 

    And your political views aside, Dungy has now been embraced by a conservative republican and a liberal democrat.  I'd say his ability to connect with both demonstrates that the most powerful leaders of the free world think very highly of Tony Dungy.

    bub - someone has to stand up for dungy on this thread.  and just as I have made my personal feelings about Belichick clear, I cannot help but admire the way he runs a football org. 

    Since slavery was mentioned - lets all agree that Blacks in this country have not enjoyed the same rights as whites.  If you disagree, you are blind, but I would ask you when those equal rights began?  Regardless, whether you like it or not, negative statistics dog blacks as compared to whites in probably every catagory.  This isn't by accident.  The point is blacks deserve positive help, and that is what Dungy provides.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Regardless of what Dungy may or may not do on behalf of Vick, here is my take on this matter.  Until Vick got caught, he was more than willing to be involved in the dog fighting matter knowing full well it was an illegal endeavor.  If you have scrupples, you do not become involved in something illegal you would not want anyone to know about.  Any sign of sincerity that he is sorry for what he has done is only so further his own cause.  If he weren't caught, it would still be going on today, most likely.  That is truly sad.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In much the same way (as Bill suggests) that any sign of contrition on Michael Vick's part is completely self-serving, every move Tony Dungy makes is designed primarily and completely to enhance the image of . . .

    drum roll please

    . . .  Tony Dungy.

    He can cloak himself in the word of his god until Gabriel blows his horn, as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing we learn is that Pride is still on the list of seven.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [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.  
    All you had to say that there was a point of emphasis issued because of Poliand and Dungy's intervention.  There would have been no POE without BP.  And by the way, the rulebook is not enforced evenly and equally; we both know that so let's stop kidding around.  It was done to gain the Colts an advantage, not because BP cares so much about the game

    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),
    Do you have any substantiation to this alleged intimidation?  Has BB ever been fiined for on-the-field conduct.  Would the NFL allow their officials to be intimadated in any way in the public eye.  I have provided you links and other docs around issues we have discussed.  Please come back with something around your wild statement
    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.

    I actually think that BP's problems with the Pahtreeotts (please Bill learn how to properly say the name of an opponent) is that not only had BB thoroughly oucoached his hand picked stooge in the course of the last eight years but BB as a player personnel guy has built a championship team that went to 4 SBs and won three of them in 8 years, whereas BP as a full-time PP guy in his career (over 20years) went to 5 SBs with his teams winning only one.  No wonder BP despises the Pats and tries to use everything to gain his team the advantage.  jealousy is an ugly sin
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    This is so convoluted on so many levels that it is laughable  let's dig a little deeper
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    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.  
    All you had to say that there was a point of emphasis issued because of Poliand and Dungy's intervention.  There would have been no POE without BP.  And by the way, the rulebook is not enforced evenly and equally; we both know that so let's stop kidding around.  It was done to gain the Colts an advantage, not because BP cares so much about the game
    RESPONSE:  NO POE WITHOUT POLIAN, REALLY?  WHAT SUBSTANTIATION DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT STATEMENT.  EVEN YOUR ARTICLE MENTIONS ANOTHER OR OTHER TEAM(S) THAT WERE UPSET BY THE LACK OF CALLS TO THE RULES.  PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ YOUR SOURCES.  AND WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THAT POLIAN'S REQUEST WAS NOT AT ALL MOTIVATED BY HIS CARE FOR THE GAME?  SEEMS TO ME YOU MAKE PLENTY OF ASSERTIONS BASED ON LIMITED ACTUAL INFORMATION AND SUBSTANTIAL BIAS.  FINALLY, WHY SUCH AN ISSUE WITH POLIAN?  BELICHICK CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY THE WAY HE HAS HIS PLAYERS PLAY.  POLIAN CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY REMINDING THEM OF THE RULES.  SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE DOES BY BREAKING THE RULES AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE WHILE THE OTHER SIMPLY PROVIDES A FRESH HIGHLIGHTED COPY OF THE RULEBOOK.


    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),
    Do you have any substantiation to this alleged intimidation?  Has BB ever been fiined for on-the-field conduct.  Would the NFL allow their officials to be intimadated in any way in the public eye.  I have provided you links and other docs around issues we have discussed.  Please come back with something around your wild statement
    RESPONSE:  I HAVE NO SUBSTANTIATION, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN ALL OF THE UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS BEING LOBBED AT ME.  LETS FORGET MY SNIDE REMARK AND PAY ATTENTION TO MEAT OF THE COMMENT.  DON'T YOU FIND IT HYPOCRITICAL THAT PATS FANS STAND SO STRONGLY BEHIND A GUY WHO INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY CHEATS BUT CLOAK THEMSELVES IN THE RULEBOOK WHEN CHALLENGED WITH A CONTROVERSIAL CALL LIKE THE TUCK RULE?  OF COURSE YOU DO, WHICH IS WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND. 


    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.

    I actually think that BP's problems with the Pahtreeotts (please Bill learn how to properly say the name of an opponent) is that not only had BB thoroughly oucoached his hand picked stooge in the course of the last eight years but BB as a player personnel guy has built a championship team that went to 4 SBs and won three of them in 8 years, whereas BP as a full-time PP guy in his career (over 20years) went to 5 SBs with his teams winning only one.  No wonder BP despises the Pats and tries to use everything to gain his team the advantage.  jealousy is an ugly sin
    RESPONSE:  I AGREE SOMEWHAT WITH YOUR COMMENT.  I ALSO THINK THAT POLIAN DOES NOT CARE FOR A GUY WHO CAN BE DEFINED AS A SYSTEMATIC CHEATER WITH A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES THAT MANY (INCLUDING POLIAN) HAVE SPENT THEIR LIVES TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.  BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION.  YOU HAVE YOURS, AND I HAVE MINE.

    Posted by underdogg
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [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.   All you had to say that there was a point of emphasis issued because of Poliand and Dungy's intervention.  There would have been no POE without BP.  And by the way, the rulebook is not enforced evenly and equally; we both know that so let's stop kidding around.  It was done to gain the Colts an advantage, not because BP cares so much about the game RESPONSE:  NO POE WITHOUT POLIAN, REALLY?  WHAT SUBSTANTIATION DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT STATEMENT.  EVEN YOUR ARTICLE MENTIONS ANOTHER OR OTHER TEAM(S) THAT WERE UPSET BY THE LACK OF CALLS TO THE RULES.  PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ YOUR SOURCES.  AND WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THAT POLIAN'S REQUEST WAS NOT AT ALL MOTIVATED BY HIS CARE FOR THE GAME?  SEEMS TO ME YOU MAKE PLENTY OF ASSERTIONS BASED ON LIMITED ACTUAL INFORMATION AND SUBSTANTIAL BIAS.  FINALLY, WHY SUCH AN ISSUE WITH POLIAN?  BELICHICK CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY THE WAY HE HAS HIS PLAYERS PLAY.  POLIAN CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY REMINDING THEM OF THE RULES.  SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE DOES BY BREAKING THE RULES AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE WHILE THE OTHER SIMPLY PROVIDES A FRESH HIGHLIGHTED COPY OF THE RULEBOOK.
    The difference is of course is that BB has done this on the field in what many consider to be the toughest job of all, the NFl Head coach.  BP skulks in the background to get POEs issued.  It is the difference in war of the general leading his troops at the front versus the quartermaster providing MREs and reminidng people of the Geneva Convention.
    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), Do you have any substantiation to this alleged intimidation?  Has BB ever been fiined for on-the-field conduct.  Would the NFL allow their officials to be intimadated in any way in the public eye.  I have provided you links and other docs around issues we have discussed.  Please come back with something around your wild statement RESPONSE:  I HAVE NO SUBSTANTIATION, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN ALL OF THE UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS BEING LOBBED AT ME.  LETS FORGET MY SNIDE REMARK AND PAY ATTENTION TO MEAT OF THE COMMENT.  DON'T YOU FIND IT HYPOCRITICAL THAT PATS FANS STAND SO STRONGLY BEHIND A GUY WHO INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY CHEATS BUT CLOAK THEMSELVES IN THE RULEBOOK WHEN CHALLENGED WITH A CONTROVERSIAL CALL LIKE THE TUCK RULE?  OF COURSE YOU DO, WHICH IS WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND. 

    I never had a problem with enforcing a rule; but to clothe it in the mantra of "we are protecting the game" is pure BS.  You do this because it is in your self-interest.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. I actually think that BP's problems with the Pahtreeotts (please Bill learn how to properly say the name of an opponent) is that not only had BB thoroughly oucoached his hand picked stooge in the course of the last eight years but BB as a player personnel guy has built a championship team that went to 4 SBs and won three of them in 8 years, whereas BP as a full-time PP guy in his career (over 20years) went to 5 SBs with his teams winning only one.  No wonder BP despises the Pats and tries to use everything to gain his team the advantage.  jealousy is an ugly sin RESPONSE:  I AGREE SOMEWHAT WITH YOUR COMMENT.  I ALSO THINK THAT POLIAN DOES NOT CARE FOR A GUY WHO CAN BE DEFINED AS A SYSTEMATIC CHEATER WITH A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES THAT MANY (INCLUDING POLIAN) HAVE SPENT THEIR LIVES TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.  BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION.  YOU HAVE YOURS, AND I HAVE MINE.
    Again we have BP as a knight clothed in white protecting football.  BP could probably tell more stories about skuduggery in the NFL that would make spygate look like fingerpainting in a nursery.  If he knows this why doesn't he come forward for the good of the game?  he cares very deeply about the game and as someone like JJ said there was a lot going on that never ca,e out.  BP and TD come out because it is in their self-interest to justify their abject failures with the greatest passer of our generation and for BP repudiates his team building strategy.
    Posted by underdogg
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    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.   All you had to say that there was a point of emphasis issued because of Poliand and Dungy's intervention.  There would have been no POE without BP.  And by the way, the rulebook is not enforced evenly and equally; we both know that so let's stop kidding around.  It was done to gain the Colts an advantage, not because BP cares so much about the game RESPONSE:  NO POE WITHOUT POLIAN, REALLY?  WHAT SUBSTANTIATION DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT STATEMENT.  EVEN YOUR ARTICLE MENTIONS ANOTHER OR OTHER TEAM(S) THAT WERE UPSET BY THE LACK OF CALLS TO THE RULES.  PLEASE REMEMBER TO READ YOUR SOURCES.  AND WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THAT POLIAN'S REQUEST WAS NOT AT ALL MOTIVATED BY HIS CARE FOR THE GAME?  SEEMS TO ME YOU MAKE PLENTY OF ASSERTIONS BASED ON LIMITED ACTUAL INFORMATION AND SUBSTANTIAL BIAS.  FINALLY, WHY SUCH AN ISSUE WITH POLIAN?  BELICHICK CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY THE WAY HE HAS HIS PLAYERS PLAY.  POLIAN CHALLENGES REFS TO MAKE CALLS ON THE FIELD BY REMINDING THEM OF THE RULES.  SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE DOES BY BREAKING THE RULES AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE WHILE THE OTHER SIMPLY PROVIDES A FRESH HIGHLIGHTED COPY OF THE RULEBOOK.
    The difference is of course is that BB has done this on the field in what many consider to be the toughest job of all, the NFl Head coach.  BP skulks in the background to get POEs issued.  It is the difference in war of the general leading his troops at the front versus the quartermaster providing MREs and reminidng people of the Geneva Convention.
    I THOUGHT YOU WERE ALL ABOUT PROVING ME WRONG.  WHO CARES WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.  BELICHICK BREAKS RULES AND ASKS FOR RULES CHANGES SO THAT HE CAN CONTINUE BREAKING THEM.  POLIAN ASKS THAT RULES BE CALLED AS WRITTEN.  WHOSE WORSE?  IF THE TUCK RULE HAD BEEN CALLED INCORRECTLY YOU AND OTHER PATS FANS WOULD BE COMPLAINING TO YOUR WITS END.  WHY DO I KNOW THIS, BECAUSE WHEN BRADY WENT DOWN, THERE WAS NO END TO THE COMPLAINTS THAT A PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED THEN.  SO WHAT YOUR OPINION AND THOSE OF MANY PATS FANS TELLS ME IS THAT YOU LIKE NO CALLS WHEN IT BENEFITS YOU, HATE THEM WHEN IT DOESN'T, WANT THE GAME OFFICIATED BY THE RULES WHEN IT BENEFITS YOU, BUT DON'T WHEN IT DOESN'T.  BY THE WAY, COMPARING FOOTBALL AND WAR MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE KELLEN WINSLOW, JR.  NOW GO GET YOUR FACE PAINT.
     


    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), Do you have any substantiation to this alleged intimidation?  Has BB ever been fiined for on-the-field conduct.  Would the NFL allow their officials to be intimadated in any way in the public eye.  I have provided you links and other docs around issues we have discussed.  Please come back with something around your wild statement RESPONSE:  I HAVE NO SUBSTANTIATION, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE GIVEN ALL OF THE UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS BEING LOBBED AT ME.  LETS FORGET MY SNIDE REMARK AND PAY ATTENTION TO MEAT OF THE COMMENT.  DON'T YOU FIND IT HYPOCRITICAL THAT PATS FANS STAND SO STRONGLY BEHIND A GUY WHO INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY CHEATS BUT CLOAK THEMSELVES IN THE RULEBOOK WHEN CHALLENGED WITH A CONTROVERSIAL CALL LIKE THE TUCK RULE?  OF COURSE YOU DO, WHICH IS WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND. 
    I never had a problem with enforcing a rule; but to clothe it in the mantra of "we are protecting the game" is pure BS.  You do this because it is in your self-interest.
    SO YOU WERE ONE OF THE FEW PATS FANS WHO WERE DISGUSTED WITH BB'S SPYGATE CHEATING, OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT NOW TO SIMPLY FURTHER YOUR POV?  PATS FANS DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE LEAGUE (LIKE POLIAN) WHO SPEND THEIR LIVES TRYING TO MAKE THE LEAGUE AND THE GAME BETTER.  WHY, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO STAND BEHIND YOUR COACH WHO TRIES TO TEAR DOWN THE WORK OF THOSE WHO BUILD THE LEAGUE BY LOOKING FOR EVERY POSSIBLE LOOPHOLE TO BE FOUND AND THEN CLAIMING MISINTERPRETATION WHEN HE IS CAUGHT RED HANDED.  IF I WERE SOMEONE LIKE POLIAN, THAT WOULD BOTHER ME.  PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY REQUESTING THAT A RULE THAT IS ON THE BOOKS BE CALLED (IF IT IS NOT), DOES NOT "PROTECT THE GAME"?  DON'T THE PATS APPEAL TO THE LEAGUE RE: MISSED CALLS IN GAMES?  THE ANSWER IS YES.  SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ALSO WANT THE BENEFIT OF CALLS BEING MADE PROPERLY.   THE ONLY THING THIS TELLS ME IS THAT THE PATS WANT IT BOTH WAYS AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO GET IT.  AND YOU WANT TO INDICT POLIAN FOR SEEING THINGS DIFFERENTLY.  SO MUCH FOR OBJECTIVITY. 

    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. I actually think that BP's problems with the Pahtreeotts (please Bill learn how to properly say the name of an opponent) is that not only had BB thoroughly oucoached his hand picked stooge in the course of the last eight years but BB as a player personnel guy has built a championship team that went to 4 SBs and won three of them in 8 years, whereas BP as a full-time PP guy in his career (over 20years) went to 5 SBs with his teams winning only one.  No wonder BP despises the Pats and tries to use everything to gain his team the advantage.  jealousy is an ugly sin RESPONSE:  I AGREE SOMEWHAT WITH YOUR COMMENT.  I ALSO THINK THAT POLIAN DOES NOT CARE FOR A GUY WHO CAN BE DEFINED AS A SYSTEMATIC CHEATER WITH A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES THAT MANY (INCLUDING POLIAN) HAVE SPENT THEIR LIVES TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME.  BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION.  YOU HAVE YOURS, AND I HAVE MINE.
    Again we have BP as a knight clothed in white protecting football.  BP could probably tell more stories about skuduggery in the NFL that would make spygate look like fingerpainting in a nursery.  If he knows this why doesn't he come forward for the good of the game?  he cares very deeply about the game and as someone like JJ said there was a lot going on that never ca,e out.  BP and TD come out because it is in their self-interest to justify their abject failures with the greatest passer of our generation and for BP repudiates his team building
    ITS FUNNY WHEN PATS FANS ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT POLIAN AND DUNGY WITH THE SAINT AND WHITE KNIGHT REFERENCES.  FROM YOUR POV I UNDERSTAND.  IF YOU HAVE TO STAND UP FOR A CHEATER, EVERYONE ELSE PROBABLY DOES APPEAR TO BE INNOCENT.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Provpats and underdogg....   pheww..  what a debate!

    In the end, we have two ardent fans of their teams with differing opinions of the same set of events.  Who'd have thunk that?!

    If it weren't for Mangini blowing the lid on BB, doing something that most teams may have been doing with a "wink and a nod" in which I won't tell if you don't, all we'd be carping about now is who is the better team and not who "cheats" better in their respective roles.  No matter what the rules are, we can't change the "human" factor and the inherant bias that occurs.  Don't we rail at the referees and not so much the rules? 

    To digress a bit... if anyone saw the Magic-Cavs game last night, who would have agreed that last foul in regulation in which LeBron was fouled going to the basket was really a foul?  No foul, no OT.  Seems I saw James push as hard against the defender as the defender was manning up to James and who got the call?  Both were being physical and moving side by side.  Love them refs!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from geoffchox. Show geoffchox's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    MVP: I dont believe you (and others) know what racism means! All you know is that it is a terrible thing and from time to time you throw it around as a slur, to be hurtful. Try to grow up a little bit.

    To simplify:
              One can prefer brunettes without being anti-blondes.
              You can prefer your irish people, without being anti-Italians

    Your football posts are always very clear about what you think, which is a good thing. Usually, they reveal that you're a Pats fan and will typically support the team's position on almost everything. The "Pats are great", "the opposition s@#s". This stance is predictably "simple" but that's usually OK since, heck, its only football.

    I can't figure out how you decided to tackle this complex multi-dimensional issue. Predictably, you try to simplify it, as only you can.

    Something to think about:
    1) Michael Oher (the black #26 pick in 09 draft)
    A white family took him in and adopted him (you can google this story for yourself). What say you about that??

    I'll tell you what it says to me- they (the white family) saw a struggling young man(ok ...so he is black) at risk and decided to try to help him out of his predicament and put him on a path to explore his potential.

    (You can go ugly on this story too...they saw potential and wanted to position themselves to benefit when he makes $$mill as a pro)

    How is this story different from what Dungy saw in Vick???

    Have you ever stood up for anyone (family/friends dont count)???
    If so, WHY???
    If so, does that make you an angel??
    So why does Dungy have to be one??






     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from provpats. Show provpats's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    ok Dogg

    I think you're actually a pretty good guy.  To sum up my main point is that no one in the NFL does anything without there being a self-interest to do it be it at the player, coach (spygate), management (BP and the POE) or ownership (TV contracts, new stadia) level. 

    You seem to hold BP above those base instincts saying that he has devoted his life to the NFL and "improving" the game.  I do not believe this and believe that he is shortchanging his employer, to whom his primary loyalty lies if he is crusading for the league and that is his only interest.  You do it because you want to win in the most competitive environment in the sporting world; if you don't there are 31 other who will run roughshod over you to do it.

    So now that we are past this, how about a good Brady vs. manning debate?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Prov - I appreciate the kind comments and return them.  

    That said, I respectfully disagree with you.    
    1.  I never said Polian wasn't acting in the interests of the colts.  In fact, I said he was and added that he was also acting in the interest of the league, and these 2 things do not have to be exclusive of one another.    

    2.  Since the league is owned by team owners, teams have the dual responsibility to not only manage themselves but to also participate in managing the league which is what polian does by sitting on the competition committee.  If he doesn't do things that are in the interest of the league then we have Baseball.  It is exactly that owners of the NFL, in general, have operated for the good of the game that has the game currently at its pinnacle of popularity. 

    So you see, Polian has to play a dual role.  You may think he is shortchanging his employer, but really he is doing his part for the good of the league. 

    As for Brady Manning.  I can't argue with Brady's success.  I however, tend to believe that much of that success was due more to the pats d than Brady's own excellence.  That said, 2007 was remarkable and there is no doubt he was a better QB than manning at that time. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Geoff I am not sure whether or not you are insulting me, it kind of seems like you are calling me stupid like I cant have a real conversation or something? Why would I try and tackle such a complex topic? Maybe because its a topic that hits home with me. Do I need to be some PHD or something to start a thread about a complex issue? I hope I am reading this wrong and you were not trying to call me an idiot because if you were thats really bogus.

    Dont tell me to grow up, I was not throwing the word racist out there like a rock through a window or anything like that I was simply posing the question, do you think he would do the same thing for a white player. You dont have to agree with me but dont come on here and talk down to me.

    What does the Mike Oher story have to do with Tony Dungy? If you read all my posts you would see that my main problem is that I work with young men, i coach high school football and i do so because i enjoy helping these kids. I dont do it so i can help just the white kids or just teh black kids cause in my eyes the color of their skin does not mean anything. I am there to help young people, not young white people, not young black people, but young people, period. So when i read a story or a post talking about what  saint Dungy is for going out of his way to help young BLACK men it bugs me, if he is truely the man of god he says he is his goal should be to help all troubled young people not just young black people. The family that took Oher off teh street and gave him a home is more a saint then Tony the fake Dungy will ever be, they didnt see a troubled young black man they saw a troubled young man, and his skin color didnt mean anything to them and they gave him a family. It is a very touching story and one I will tell my players about for years to come. It shouldnt be about helping some young men get through troubling times in their lives it should be about helping anyone you can help.

    You said

    "I'll tell you what it says to me- they (the white family) saw a struggling young man(ok ...so he is black) at risk and decided to try to help him out of his predicament and put him on a path to explore his potential."

    You are 100% right, they did exactly that which is why to me in my eyes they are truely good people who did something out of teh kindness of their hearts. But that is not what Dungy did and he does not even deserve to be put in the same sentence as these people. Dungy is out to help Dungy, he didnt help out Vick because he was a troubled young man who needed help, if he was doing it just to help he would not have alerted the media to get his name in the paper. He did because he saw a chance to further his own sainthood and to up his cred in the black community where Vick is a big time name. If Mike Vick was a white kid from San Fran Dungy wouldnt lift a finger to help him because it wouldnt do anything for his "good name". Thats how the Oher story is different from the Dungy/Vick story and I never called him a racist either, i dont think it makes him racist but I do think it is a worth while conversation worth having.

    Have I ever helped anyone? Family and friends dont count? yes i have, on more then one occastion and never did I do it for my own self gain. I didnt do it to further my own "sainthood" in the media or to get invited to another republican church fest or any c rap like that. I did it because i saw a kid on my team who needed help and deserved a break and I gave it to him. Does that make me an angel? no but it sure as hell makes me a better person then that fake a ss Tony Dungy. But thats just the way i see it.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    And Mighty I thought you didnt like me because i do insult people without ever being sorry for it lol since when do you like it! lol good to see you back bro!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    underdogg.... you said...

    As for Brady Manning.  I can't argue with Brady's success.  I however, tend to believe that much of that success was due more to the pats d than Brady's own excellence.  That said, 2007 was remarkable and there is no doubt he was a better QB than manning at that time..

    First, I think Brady had a bit to do with the Pat's success.  A better response may have been the Colts NEEDED Manning to succeed and that franchise built an offense to support his skills sets.  Brady, on the other hand, turned out to be a better QB than most predicted and once the offense was built to suit his emerging passing skills, looked at what happened!  One can never look back and say what Brady's numbers would have looked like if the offense were set up for him versus the predominant running attack the Pats featured early on in his career.  Manning was drafted to be that premier QB, Brady was not.  He would not have become what he has become if it weren't for the fact he is that good of a QB and needed the coaching and team around him to bring those skill sets out.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    AGC - I'll buy that.  My intent was not to diminish Brady, but I still do think Brady got some of the accolades that the defense deserved. 

     

Share