National Football League Thread

[majob]

27 minutes ago, LoveInHell said:

Would be careful with saying stupid things like that. Hopefully you don’t actually get it one day.

Colon cancer runs in my family actually and I've already had a growth removed. It's a euphemism, don't look at it literally.

Edited July 13, 2020 by majob

[acasser]

And now that the mob has gotten their way with the name of Washington's football team, they'll all find another issue to protest and occupy their lives.  The team won't pick up any new fans, but they may well lose some for how they handled this.

 

I'm sure they were sick and tired of all the ongoing protests and what they viewed as bad publicity, but hasn't anybody ever told them that making changes to accomodate non-customers and people who won't give a damn about your product even after you appease them isn't good for business?  Worry about placating the people who keep you afloat; worry about the freeloaders and "the public" somewhere way down the line.  Because if you go broke trying to satisfy them, it doesn't do anybody any good other than the professional protesters who measure themselves by the scalps they've won.

[PerryToxteth]

13 hours ago, acasser said:

And now that the mob has gotten their way with the name of Washington's football team, they'll all find another issue to protest and occupy their lives.  The team won't pick up any new fans, but they may well lose some for how they handled this.

 

I'm sure they were sick and tired of all the ongoing protests and what they viewed as bad publicity, but hasn't anybody ever told them that making changes to accomodate non-customers and people who won't give a damn about your product even after you appease them isn't good for business?  Worry about placating the people who keep you afloat; worry about the freeloaders and "the public" somewhere way down the line.  Because if you go broke trying to satisfy them, it doesn't do anybody any good other than the professional protesters who measure themselves by the scalps they've won.

 

  I agree that too often in today's era of the Social Media Reign of Terror, the Internet Jacobins are quick to attack any perceived slight, minor mistake by an individual, or uncouth actions. 

  But this controversy has been around long before SJW's patrolled Twitter; this has been going on for decades. The American Indian Movement (AIM), brought attention to it almost 30 years ago during a Super Bowl. You and I have been around long enough to remember the culture climate at the time, and we are light years past the public thinking from back then.  One of the funniest entertainment pieces at that time was Eddie Murphy's "RAW," a classic in stand-up comedy. But I think we can agree that much of the language in that couldn't be used out in the public today. Just one example would be the F word slur on gay people. A common word heard in 1980s high schools across the country, but ear-flinchingly repugnant today.

  The Redskins name falls along that same theme. It is viewed by Native Americans as racist. At the very least, it is extremely dated, like "Colored" or "Oriental". Common terms at one time, but thankfully, retired from the American society's vernacular today.

  Many years ago, an Anishinabe Native American on my dorm floor in college pointed out how offensive the team name was to him. Most of us dim-witted, naive white kids scratched our heads after hearing him and thought "hmm, it never seemed offensive to me." He then asked "Would you call ME a Redskin to my face?" And then it all made sense.

It's long overdue that the name should go. 

[MidnightDragon]

On 7/6/2020 at 3:30 PM, D-Square23 said:

My boy Patrick Mahomes just signed a FAT extension adding 10 years to a remaining 2. Chiefs lock him down for next 12 years for, reportedly OVER 400 million. Worth every cent.

Yea, pretty sweet, and it turned out to be half a billion. Still, now I worry that he's gonna get hurt bad. That seems to happen a lot with big contracts and he's just tempting fate.

 

20 hours ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

Add this to the list of "things I never thought I'd see happen"

 

 

 

Well, when the sponsors are threatening to pull their money if you don't do it...but yea, still surprised Snyder gave in.

[Conker]

17 minutes ago, MidnightDragon said:

Yea, pretty sweet, and it turned out to be half a billion. Still, now I worry that he's gonna get hurt bad. That seems to happen a lot with big contracts and he's just tempting fate.

 

 

Well, when the sponsors are threatening to pull their money if you don't do it...but yea, still surprised Snyder gave in.

Money talks, i do wonder if all this BLM stuff wasn't happening if it would have been changed

[majob]

1 minute ago, Conker said:

Money talks, i do wonder if all this BLM stuff wasn't happening if it would have been changed

This isn't the first time BLM has popped up but it's election year so they're being enabled more so than usual

[Bluefalcon2210]

5 minutes ago, Conker said:

Money talks, i do wonder if all this BLM stuff wasn't happening if it would have been changed

It may have happened eventually but honestly we have no way of knowing

[PhyrxianLibrarin]

10 minutes ago, Bluefalcon2210 said:

It may have happened eventually but honestly we have no way of knowing

 

There's no way this is the first discussion about changing the team name. Whoever commented on money speaking is likely right; in the past, the cost of re-merchandising and re-branding likely didn't justify the benefit. Now that they're losing both ticket sales and sponsors, changing the team name is finally profitable.

[acasser]

1 hour ago, majob said:

This isn't the first time BLM has popped up but it's election year so they're being enabled more so than usual

 

To paraphrase the late, great Winston Churchhill?  Appeasement is feeding the crocodile with the hope that it eats you last.

 

And the Washington Redskins won't be close to last.  Pretty much every team name is objectionable to somebody.  I've already heard rumblings of pressure on the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians (MLB) for similar reasons to the Redskins, there will probably be complaints about the Kansas City Chiefs for similar reasons as well.  The Chicago Blackhawks have already told the mob to go pound sand.  And this is before the Mob looks for other things that offend them, in an environment that is very target-rich.  ("Patriots" anybody?  Or "Yankees"?)

 

They're a bunch of bullies.  They pick on targets that aren't likely to stand up for themselves very well, frequently with the enabling of the media.  They piss and moan about team names in the soft, western democracies, or they pull All-Star Games out of states on account of "bathroom bills", but they roll over and bare their bellies as soon as an autocracy like China growls at them.

 

And the way you deal with bullies is to stand up to them.  Alas, that's not something that happens very often in these soft, western democracies.

[PhyrxianLibrarin]

So BLM are the bullies? Picking on targets that can't stand up for themselves, like... professional sports teams and their billionaire owners?

 

Quote

 

The name “Black Hawks” was also the nickname of the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Division of the United States Army that McLaughlin was the commander of, during World War I. The use of the Black Hawks nickname, for McLaughlin’s battalion, was to honor the Sauk Native American chief that fought along side the British, during The War of 1812.

 

So, in short the Blackhawks name is in honor of a group of American soldiers during World War I, and a secondhand honoring of Native American warriors (that ironically fought AGAINST Americans) from The War of 1812.

 

 

If you don't see the difference between that and a literal racial slur...

[PerryToxteth]

"The name “Black Hawks” was also the nickname of the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Division of the United States Army that McLaughlin was the commander of, during World War I. The use of the Black Hawks nickname, for McLaughlin’s battalion, was to honor the Sauk Native American chief that fought along side the British, during The War of 1812.

 

So, in short the Blackhawks name is in honor of a group of American soldiers during World War I, and a secondhand honoring of Native American warriors (that ironically fought AGAINST Americans) from The War of 1812."

 

  This quote is completely wrong.  If the Chicago hockey team's name primary inspiration is from World War I, then why do they have an Indian Chief adorned with a war bonnet on their sweaters? Or tomahawks on the sleeves? If honoring World War I vets is the purpose, then why isn't there a doughboy toting a Thompson as their mascot?

  I DO NOT CARE what the hockey team in Chicago calls itself.  Just don't ignore the history. Chief Black Hawk has a pretty interesting story; his tribe got a raw deal on a treaty and he fought for his homeland. Most people assume the Indian Wars occured out West; yet Black Hawk rallied his tribe to fight along the Mississippi in Illinois and Wisconsin decades before the Civil War. A young lad named Abe Lincoln was in a militia that took part in the War. Black Hawk has a similar story to Chief Pontiac; two stunning individuals in American history that nobody knows about. 

   Look up the Battle of Bad Axe for an eye-opening read. 

[Matto_lsi]

On 7/13/2020 at 0:47 PM, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

Add this to the list of "things I never thought I'd see happen"

 

 

 

I find the controversy over the teams name to be interesting.  I'd like to share a quote from this article: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/09/220654611/are-you-ready-for-some-controversy-the-history-of-redskin

 

"But where did the word "redskin" come from? Many dictionaries and history books say the term came about in reference to the Beothuk tribe of what is now Newfoundland, Canada. The Beothuk were said to paint their bodies with red ochre, leading white settlers to refer to them as "red men."

 

According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard, early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans."

 

So in other words, the name is a reference to the Beothuk tribe who painted themselves red, and Native Americans used the word as a self-identifier to differentiate themselves from other races.  Now I understand that over time things change, and meanings of words that are used inappropriately for many years can take on a completely new meaning.  But I still find the history of the word interesting.  The irony is, that the new name options I've seen floating around are only a little better in today's perpetually offended climate.  So give it 10-20 years, and people will once again be losing their minds over how offensive the new name is.  Might as well just go the Prince route and turn themselves into a symbol at this point.  It might be the safest option.

[acasser]

20 hours ago, PhyrxianLibrarin said:

So BLM are the bullies? Picking on targets that can't stand up for themselves, like... professional sports teams and their billionaire owners?

 

 

Sure, Daniel Snyder could stand up for himself.  But given the environment in America right now?  That would be the equivalent of popping your head up above the lip of the trench to look across "no man's land" and praying none of the bullets flying your way find you.  And in America, those bullets are going to find Snyder, or any other corporate type who tries that, because the media is going to be on the side of everybody "shooting" at him.

 

I'll go back to an example I cited a few posts up, namely the NBA.  They pulled an All-Star Game out of North Carolina because of a state law they disagreed with.  But when one of their General Managers made comments approving of Hong Kong and their anti-China protests last summer, the Chinese Communist Party came down on the League like a ton of bricks, and the League came down on their own guy the same way.

 

Why?  Because here in America, the media and the popular culture were on the side of the protests.  If you joined the NBA in decrying the law in question, you were commended and amplified and even celebrated.  But the media in an autocracy like China does the opposite:  dare to question something they were doing and you take your own fate into your hands.  So if you criticize a law and/or the government in a local jurisdiction, you aren't going to have public support on your side and you aren't going to get volume and cheers.

 

It took until yesterday for the NBA's official store to relent and allow #FreeHongKong to be printed as a social justice message on ordered jerseys, and even that took a fair amount of public and political pressure.  You could say plenty of other things, including a few that some would consider vile and offensive, but thumbing one's nose at the Chinese wasn't one of them.

 

Bullies pick on who they do because they need to win, to feel superior to whomever it is they're attacking.  Targets that choose not to fight back qualify under that umbrella.

[Conker]

Today the Jets traded Jamal Adams to Seahawks https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29537448/new-york-jets-trade-jamal-adams-seattle-seahawks-get-two-first-round-picks

[skidmarkgn]

47 minutes ago, Conker said:

Today the Jets traded Jamal Adams to Seahawks https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29537448/new-york-jets-trade-jamal-adams-seattle-seahawks-get-two-first-round-picks

 

Beyond excited to see what he and Diggs can do together but man that's s steep price for a potential one year player, I'd be far more comfortable with it if that found a way to extend him sooner than later.  

[acasser]

Disappointed that the Jamal Adams situation came to this, but I can't say that I'm entirely surprised.  One part "new regime cleaning out the old regime's junk", one part the Jets playing chicken with Jamal Adams regarding his contract demands and blinking, and one part Jamal Adams greasing the skids for his escape by being a miserable teammate ripping anybody and everybody he could to make himself as undesirable to be around as possible.

 

He's a terrific and talented player, but he's going to be a malcontent if the Seahawks don't quickly make him the highest-paid safety in the history of the NFL.

[MidnightDragon]

No preseason this year.

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/roger-goodell-letter-nfl-fans-training-camps

[majob]

Matthew Stafford has been placed on the Lion's COVID-19 list

[acasser]

I'm increasingly thinking there's not going to be an NFL season.  MLB is already having huge issues, and they're probably the most socially distanced/least contacted sport out there.  If baseball can't keep their sport operating in a normal and reasonable fashion, what chances do sports where they're whacking one another or breathing on one another going to have?

 

Which I'm not sure if I think this is a shame, because all the social justice stuff has turned me off.  But maybe we can cancel the season and see how many of these players really care about these causes when they've got nothing else to do and there aren't reasons for most of us to pay any attention to them.  (Losing hockey would almost be a shame, to me, because that's the one of North America's "Big Four" that hasn't been totally overrun by it yet.)

[MidnightDragon]

This seems like a bad idea.

 

https://www.kmbc.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-announce-arrowhead-stadium-will-have-reduced-capacity-of-22-covid-coronavirus/33626895

[MikeCheck--]

Should be NO capacity tbh. 

[acasser]

I think the NFL has to try and get some attendance inside the stadiums, if only for financial purposes.  The salary cap is already going to be whacked with a meat cleaver this off-season; it's not as bad as it would be for the other Big 4 North American sports (MLB, NBA, NHL) because they're less gate-driven, but there's still a healthy amount of revenue tied to the sale and use of tickets.  Take that away, and even the projections I've seen about how much the cap will decline might seem like overexuberant optimism.

 

The NFL is probably a little bit fortunate that it's the time of Coronavirus, at least from an optics perspective, because the significantly reduced attendance based on that will likely mask what would have been some level of empty seats related to fans who dislike the League's turn back into social justice issues.  But I wonder how many fans won't bother tuning into games on television, either, because they don't want their entertainment mixed with politics and celebrity preaching.  And I further wonder how that will affect the television contract situation if the ratings fall off to any significant degree and how that in turn could further diminish the salary cap.

 

There are intelligent ways to go about trying to have some capacity.  Not that I trust anybody who might qualify as a Powers That Be these days to be intelligent enough to figure it out.

[kidson2004]

Baltimore released Earl Thomas. 

[Conker]

6 hours ago, kidson2004 said:

Baltimore released Earl Thomas. 

Ultimately they did right thing, be interesting to who goes and gets Earl now

[skidmarkgn]

11 minutes ago, Conker said:

Ultimately they did right thing, be interesting to who goes and gets Earl now

 

My money's on Jerry.