News Archives

Giants’ Justin Tuck Weighs in on Homosexual Teammates, Michael Strahan & Superbowl XLVII

January 31st, 2013 at 1:20 PM
By Kyle Langan

On Wednesday, San Francisco 49ers defensive back Chris Culliver made headlines by speaking out against the presence of gay and homosexual players in the NFL. Though Culliver since retracted his comments (to whatever insignificant degree they can be retracted), it is the very paradigm that Culliver operates in that has New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck convinced that there will not be any openly gay players in the NFL for some time.

'Justin Tuck: Calm Before the Storm.' photo (c) 2009, Heath Brandon - license:

Tuck said "there's no place" in the NFL for hate and discrimination, in response to Culliver's comments. But as for having an openly gay teammate, Tuck added, "Do I think it's going to be any time soon? No, I don't."

Tuck was also asked about Michael Strahan and his opportunity to get voted into the Hall of Fame this coming Saturday. It is not only something Tuck believes should happen, but he believes that if Strahan is to be honored properly that he will get in on his first ballot.

"If it's not called, it'll be a black gloom day for the NFL. I don’t see how he’s not a shoe-in for a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I’ve seen that guy in his 14th, 15th year take over games. I feel as though he’s definitely a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame, and it’s well-deserved. Really, you think about the success that he had, being the focal point for all those years and still being very successful. It’s a testament to how hard he worked and how talented he is."

Tuck is one not alone in his belief that Strahan belongs in and belongs in as soon as possible.

Last but certainly not least, Tuck is taking the Baltimore Ravens this Sunday. He knows better than to pick against a developing Cinderella story, no matter how annoying they may be.


Tags: Baltimore Ravens, Chris Culliver, Football, Justin Tuck, Michael Strahan, New York, New York Giants, NFL, San Francisco 49ers

8 Responses to “Giants’ Justin Tuck Weighs in on Homosexual Teammates, Michael Strahan & Superbowl XLVII”

  1.  fanfor55years says:

    I wish Tuck would take Strahan as a real role model. The remarkable thing about Ol’ Gap Tooth is that he refashioned his game over time, substituting savvy and a lot of watching tape for physical skills that, while still outstanding, were diminishing over the course of a 15-season career.

    Stray had a period in the early 2000′s when he was unstoppable (I think it was 2001-2004 but I’m not positive). He was as good a DE as anyone had ever seen at that point. But the playing took it’s toll and he slowed down a bit. The difference between he and Tuck is that Strahan, rather than saying he wanted to “get back to the old Strahan” moved on and substituted a new training regimen and a lot of film room work to figure out how to still beat his man off the first step.

    So, yeah, Stray was injured on numerous occasions, missed games, played hurt and less effectively, but he still loved the game and worked it to submission with his mind. And he continued to play at a very high level long after his prime.

    Guys like Tuck and Osi could take a lot of lessons from Michael Strahan. Both of them still have a lot left if they are willing to admit they need to change their games and show a bit of flexibility.

  2.  GOAT56 says:

    When I think of drafting a rookie MLB the guy I have in mind funny enough if from last year’s draft. I’m looking for a Bobby Wagner type MLB. I think a MLB with his athleticism and tackling ability is what we need. Maybe we can get that player in the second round like Seattle did but he’s the type of player I think is worth a first rounder at draft pick.

  3.  sonnymooks says:

    I agree, Speed at the OLB spots, and a brutal HITTER in the MLB spot (Or vice versa).

    Personally, it looks to me, like they don’t really consider hitting when they evaluate, they look at speed, coverage, and other traits, but how hard a LB hits, doesn’t seem to be one of them.

    Jenkins would be a dream, and is probably going to be a star in this league, we’re not getting him unless something goes horribly wrong for him to slide, and even then, for him to slide to us, would probably be so bad, that we would pass on him also.

    Our “D” is to much coverage, read and react style finesse, with the DL being left the job of being the physical guys. I like safeties that make guys soil themselves and LBs who who strike fear. Thats wishful thinking, and I don’t expect that, but we do have to adjust to these “new wave” offenses, ironically, the way to beat them, is to go old school (whats old is new and whats new is old).

    That said, our scouts are not strong on picking LBs, and now that we are more coverage oriented, its actually becoming more and more important. You can have a physical hard hitting cover 2 team, Tampa Bay used to be one, and the Bears like to hit. One of Monte Kiffins hallmarks is that his defenses are more physical then most coverage style teams despite the emphasis on speed (which is what separates him from most other cover 2 disciples).

    •  GOAT56 says:

      Over the past 5 years we invested the following in LB:

      2011 6 20(185) Giants Greg Jones ILB Michigan State
      2011 6 37(202) Giants Jacquian WilliamsLB South Florida
      Pick Note Compensatory
      2010 4 17(115) Giants Phillip Dillard ILB Nebraska
      2010 6 15(184) Giants Adrian Tracy OLB William & Mary
      2009 2 13(45) Giants Clint Sintim OLB Virginia
      Pick Note from New Orleans
      2008 4 24(123) Giants Bryan Kehl OLB Brigham Young
      Pick Note From Steelers
      2008 5 30(165) Giants Jonathan Goff ILB Vanderbilt

      I think it’s more a matter of low investment in LB rather than poor scouting.

      •  sonnymooks says:

        I think the low investment is actually a byproduct from the poor scouting. They don’t use high picks on Lbs, they don’t or can’t recognize good LBs that are worthy of using those high draft picks on.

        Its a comfort zone, aka the devil you know.

        If you know DL, you prioritize them, and its easier to pick them because you know how good they will be, if you don’t know LBs as well, its a riskier pick, and not necessarily one with high upside, why spend on the pick on a risk that you don’t know how high their upside is, when you can spend that pick on a player that you know or strongly believe will be a productive player ?

        The location of the picks in the draft of the LBs tells you the faith they have in evaluation of players at that position.

        •  GOAT56 says:

          So we don’t normally draft LBs, TE, RBs, Cs or Gs high because we can’t scout them? I think it’s purely a value we place on LB. Which you are free to disagree with but it’s not because we can’t scout LBs. You can’t place a high value on every position and when you look at our defense clearly DL and DB are more highly invested in.

          •  sonnymooks says:

            We spent a high draft pick on Shockey, a high draft pick on a RB recently and Snee was a high draft pick. All were hits, the only one that wasn’t was the one time we drafted a LB high (Sintim).

            To be honest, I think the Giants scouting specializes in certain positions more then others, which is the norm, lots of teams are the exact same way (just with different positions) and everyone has a weakness to their game.

  4.  giantsou812 says:

    sorry tuck but time has caught up to you, started last season.
    You need to restructure your contract and move into the reserve mode.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: