ZP1 said:
Because of the two options...
Player A (standard NFL player, little press coverage)
Player B (Massive press sideshow, requires coach and assorted personnel to think about how to deal with the press for non football related reasons)
If both players are roughly equivalent in skill, why would you ever subject yourself to dealing with Player B? The problem Sam has is that he's likely good enough to play in the NFL in some capacity, but he's also in a borderline class where there's a lot of other players that can bring a similar level of production to the table. Fisher would no doubt respond and give the standard football answer of "We'd take the better player" - but that's just the problem. Sam's case is borderline enough that there's a lot of players who are debatable when comparing Sam to them in a head to head. There's no doubt in my mind that Sam's guarantee of drawing a large amount of media attention effectively acts as a negative tiebreaker for him. Meaning that if Sam is a close call against any other player in his position, he's going to lose the tiebreaker for the spot in virtually every organization around.
Here's the problem with your analysis - there wasn't a "massive press sideshow".
Mike Tanier from SportsonEarth.com wrote about this more than a month ago.
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Hello, my name is Mike Tanier and I am a distraction.
I am a national media member who descended on St. Louis Rams camp specifically because openly gay defensive end Michael Sam is on the roster. My presence swells the vulturine press corps and focuses the searing spotlight of national attention on this gritty small-market team trying to go about the business of cracking .500 in professional sports' toughest decision.
My arrival presumably caused the Rams to divert attention and resources toward deflecting my judgmental gaze away from their culturally-relevant backup defender. My political-sensitivity Geiger counters disrupts cellphone communication as I scan for the faintest traces of scandal or discrimination.
It's a wonder Jeff Fisher does not swallow his whistle at the mere sight of me. I am like one of the inmates in The Great Escape, determined to make life as difficult as possible for my captors. I am Tony Dungy's worst nightmare.
Except that I am very much alone. There are only one or two other national media types here this weekend. Others are coming -- Kurt Warner is scheduled to arrive after I leave -- but national media members tend to make the rounds this time of year. It's really just the St. Louis media on the sidelines, which looks like the Giants or Jets media in the offseason, during a flu epidemic.
Insiders tell me the local television presence has been greater than usual, something Jeff Fisher alluded to during rookies-only sessions. But if you saw pictures of Tom Brady or Dez Bryant buried under an avalanche of microphones this week, rest assured nothing like that is happening here, to anyone. This is not a circus. It's not even a church parking lot carnival.
Nor is it clear that Sam is "good enough" to play in the NFL. I know lots about football but I will defer every day of the week to Willie McGinest's football knowledge. McGinest, among many NFL network analysts/former players, reviewed the tape, showed the tape and spoke to the tape, critiquing Sam's on-field performance. And they say it isn't good enough. I'm not sure how you know he is good enough but if you have something concrete, I'll listen.
Of course, you've answered the question one sentence later by saying that there's lots of other guys with the same level of talent. Which there are. And since Sam didn't play special teams well, he had to be better than a guy with similar pass rush talent who also played on ST. That's a real football reason for Sam not making the 53.
The "distraction" has mostly been people who are opposed (for whatever reason) to the idea of distractions yammering away about distractions. But there's little evidence there was an actual distraction. Fisher said there wasn't. St. Louis beat reporters said there wasn't. National writers like Tanier said there wasn't. Yet...the myth endures that "massive press distraction" was not only present during Rams camp but that the distraction had to factor into the decision because "distractions are bad".
If you simply replaced "distraction" with "play", then you have a very valid argument. Many experts have watched Sam play and many experts have not been impressed with his play. There are valid, reasonable arguments for why Sam's play was not good enough to make a roster.
Now, the problem is that by making this about a "distraction" (that didn't exist), you are explicitly referencing Sam's sexual orientation. You are saying that if Sam wasn't gay he would have made the team or he'd get more opportunities around the league. There's about fifty NFL players and at least one owner who are bigger "distractions" to their teams than Michael Sam was at any point this summer. Ray Rice was a woman-beating distraction. Josh Gordon was a weed-smoking distraction. Jim Irsay was a drunk-driving, pill-popping distraction. No one suggests that these PROVEN distractions cannot or should not play or participate in the league (well, Roger Goodell...but I digress). Several draft picks and UDFAs with a criminal arrest were cut - no one says they are a "distraction". Only Michael Sam is a "distraction". That's kinda fucked up, right?
All I ever wanted was for Sam to get a fair opportunity to make an NFL roster. From everything I've read (and I followed this quite closely), Sam got a fair chance to make the Rams. Jeff Fisher treated him like the other 89 guys in Rams camp. That is all Sam (and anyone) deserves. That he didn't make the team makes me sad but smarter football people than me (Jeff Fisher, Willie McGinest, Mike Tanier) all gave reasonable, thoughtful explanations for Sam being cut.
But, no. It has to be the "distraction".
