Rocky Landing
-
Posts
6,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
The formula for the passer rating is: [(a + b + c + d)/6] x 100, whereas a = [(completions/attempts x 100) – 30] x 0.05; b = [(yards/att) – 3] x 0.25; c = (TD/att) x 20; and d = 2.375 – (interceptions/att x 25).
Q: What’s missing from this equation? A: any variables that include the performance of any other player on the field other than the quarterback. So, if a QB has no offensive line to speak of and is only given an average of 1.6 seconds to get rid of the ball before being sacked, their rating will be low. Or, if a QB is playing a superior defense, their rating will be lower. If a QB has phenomenal receivers, their rating will be higher. That's why Russel Wilson can have a rating of 49.6 against the Cardinals in week 15, and a 102.1 against the Rams the following week. It's worthy to note that their are no published p-values, critical values, or significance levels (at least that I have ever found) for the passer rating. It has no use for statistical analysis.
I think that the only use for the passer rating is for (crudely) tracking a single QB's performance against weekly variables such as the one's mentioned above. It has almost no value for comparing different players on different teams. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it is a better indicator of team performance than of QB performance.
-
I'm wondering where this notion that a significant number of Native Americans don't find the term "redskin" offensive comes from?-- all evidence to the contrary. The word "redskin" as a derogatory term goes back well over a century. All of the legal challenges to the name have come from Native American groups. as well as numerous protests-- all going back decades. Numerous Native American groups have publicly condemned the name. What more does it take?
I also have to disagree with machine gun kelly that this is some issue for "a bunch of bleeding heart liberals," (a sentiment echoed by some other posters in less obnoxious terms). If anyone knows anything about Charles Krauthammer, they will know that he is one of the most conservative editorialists in print. And, he gets it exactly right in this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-redskins-and-reason/2013/10/17/cbb11eee-374f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html
-
I'm really NOT taking this as personally as you seem to think I am. I'm debating from an historical perspective. If arguing a perspective about what is, or isn't offensive is, "telling others what to believe," then what are you doing?You seem to believe your sensibilites are the most important. With your whole history book stance, it's clear that you believe this is one of the great injustices in the world and will be written as such. Why you? Why this case? Why not WBC getting harassed for their speech? Why not the offensiveness of "black?" Are those things "more ok" than Redskins? Who is the judge of those things, is it you?
See the difference between us is that I don't care about a group of people who don't care, and I don't believe in telling others what to believe. You do. You're taking your beliefs, telling Snyder that he's wrong and you're right, and telling the MAJORITY of Native Americans what they should be offended by. You think I'm insensitive about my majority comments? What about you? Telling a beautiful culture, who has suffered more than you ever will, what they should care about? Is that being sensitive, or acting like they're invalids who need you to defend them from perceived threats?
Edit:
Tom'd again.
Be that as it may, your anger is seething off the page, and I have no desire to engage with someone in personal attacks over a difference of opinion, or perspective. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.
-
I appreciate the debate, and I'm not even going to be offended by your trying to equate my perspective to that of the WBC. That being said, I find all of your arguments to be spurious, and for the most part, deflective.Why hasn't this been a big deal for the last 81 years?
Why has the senate waited so long to denounce it?
And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).
Do you remember when a small portion of the black community was offended by being called black? Did the Senate write any letters? What side of history were you then? Bill Cosby is offended by the term African-American. What side of history are you on there?
It's a name that had negative connotations, sure. But if you're seriously championing a cause as "justice in the history books" that the people who are being "wronged" don't even agree on, I don't know what to tell you.
What about Westboro Baptist Church? They were "offended" by a lot of stuff. Did you write them off or support them? What side of history do you stand on there?
EDIT: I realize that WBC talk might have banished this to PPP. Whoops.
1) Not by the senate (that I am aware of), but by Native American organizations.Then you haven't been paying attention - there has been plenty of talk about revoking the Redskins' trademark protections.
"Cheesehead" is an epithet against the Dutch, and "Pepsi" is an epithet against French-Canadians.
I'm sorry, isn't the argument that there are no "degrees" of offense, and any offense should be avoided? Because that's what I keep hearing...if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed.
Are we arguing now that yes, the magnitude of the offense does actually matter?
2) I don't believe that we waged genocide against the Dutch or French-Canadians.
3) I don't agree with the sentiment that, "if "even one" Native American is offended by "Redskin," the team's name should be changed." I would argue that the "magnitude of the offense" certainly does matter. I don't understand why it wouldn't.
-
I suppose it is just a question of which side of history you choose to stand.A lot of words, and things people say are rooted in some form of insult, racism, bigotry, etc etc. The only way to differentiate whether they are offensive or not is with the speakers intent.
Just following along with the theme of Sports teams names shows that the team name is meant to inspire its team members and fans, not secretly demean, and offend people.
You can feel like its a "national embarrassment" all you want, but don't include the rest of us in your crusade....(oops)
-
The notion that you are insinuating- that anybody, including the senate, is forcing the Redskins to change their name is spurious. Their right to calling themselves such is constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the first amendment. Were the senate to attempt such a coup, the ACLU would be all over it. And, the senate, and everybody else, has the same right to denounce it.Someone let me know when the Senate's going to force Packers fans to stop calling themselves cheeseheads and offending the Dutch. And the NFL better drop Pepsi as a sponsor, or risk offending the Quebecois.
But, more to the point: The Dutch are not offended by the "cheesehead" Moniker, neither are the Quebecois offended by NFL endorsements, and the comparison utterly belittles the genocide of millions of Native Americans, the scant remainder of whom are U.S. citizens. Was that really your intention?
-
Truly, there is no denying that the term "redskin" is rooted in racism, and genocide. Even a cursory examination of the word's history will bear that out.Let's all be genuine for a second and ask ourselves, is the team name Washington Redskins intended to be offensive? Nope. Does the organization involved take real steps to offend, denigrate, or harm the affected people? No. So what are we really talking about here? The name of a football team that could be interpreted as offensive, but is not intended that way. But that would mean people would need to look into the substance and context of something rather than just being outraged. Being outraged is easier and more exciting.
Also, a word about context: I know that most of the people who post on here live in WNY. I was born and raised in Rochester, myself. I have been living in Los Angeles for over twenty years, and spent a couple years in New Mexico. Living in the South West definitely gives me a different perspective. There is a MUCH larger population of true Native Americans here. (When I say "true" Native Americans, I'm not talking about your friend who brags about being 1/32 Cherokee.) There are still reservations here in places like Death Valley, the Mojave Desert, the Mimbres Desert, etc.. I truly cannot imagine walking up to one of the Native Americans I have met here and making some of the arguments I have read on this forum to their face. Examples: "They shouldn't change the name, because they didn't originally intend it to be offensive." "It will cost them money." "It's tradition." "The members of the Senate have no business commenting on the name of the capital's football team." And, possibly one of the most offensive arguments: "It doesn't offend enough people," ("the majority," as one poster put it).
I'm sorry, but I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post: The fact that we have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named the most offensive epithet you can call a Native American is a national embarrassment.
-
What's denigrating about "fighting" Irish? I could understand if it was "cowering" Irish, or "drunken" Irish...I support the Senators views to change the redskins name but, only, if they agree to also urge Notre Dame to change from the "fighting" Irish to something more politically correct.
-
I get your point, there certainly are differences (although, comparing the Native American genocide to your European roots is also rather inaccurate). But, the Native American genocide (and, I DO believe that genocide is an appropriate designation), is no less a part of our national identity than is slavery. There just happens to be quite a bit fewer true Native Americans left to offend, than descendants of slavery. And I do believe that just about nobody would approve of naming a team after ANY reference to slavery.Maryland State Legislature would be better off doing something government-related. You know, their jobs? Draft laws and all that. I don't know if they're supposed to pressure private companies to alter their brand and lose millions of dollars, because of something that has no economic, physical, or even mental detriment to the majority.
The situation's are further apart than you suggest. The Holocaust and the US-native incidents were not similar in motivations nor scale.
Also, most Native American atrocities were committed closer to 200 years ago, not 70. The Vikings used to rape and pillage my people back 1000 years ago, can I be outraged at Minnesota? Can I get the US senators to write them a letter?
One of the differences to the Nazi genocide that I might add to your list, is that the Native American genocide was much more successful. Also, as far as scale, there were an estimated six million Jews who died in the holocaust. Scholarly estimates for the Native American Holocaust range from two to 18 million. And, much more recent than 200 years. The famous Wounded Knee massacre occurred in 1890. The last on record, as such, was a massacre of eight Shoshones in 1911-- just a little over 100 years ago. After that, who was left?
One other difference between the Jewish Holocaust, and the Native American Holocaust, is that the former occurred in Germany. The latter occurred here. In Germany, it is a crime to display the Swastika (an abrogation of civil liberties we would never tolerate). We, on the other hand, have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named after the worst epithet you can call a Native American.
-
Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature?How about having that team in Maryland?
-
The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.
-
Very rational.While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.
-
I didn't expect everyone to understand my sarcasm. Your post suggested that words should be limited in their meaning, stripped of the ability to offend. Your statement that, "I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either." implies that there is no excuse for someone to place enough meaning in a title, that it could convey something offensive. Which, in turn, implies that words should not have the ability to offend. So, where do you draw the line? How much meaning should words have the ability to communicate?they're not random, i made sure to use the entire alphabet, even a digit.
Does that mean that I don't have the right to express my opinions about the Bills because I am from Rochester?But the senators aren't residents of the city. They just work there. Not to mention the fact that many of them don't even stay in the city when they are in session.
-
As ExiledinIllinois pointed out, they are the Washington Redskins, as in Washington DC. If the team weren't in their own city, I would agree with you. But, as residents of the city, I think they have every right to express their opinion.Regardless of your opinion of the offensiveness of the name, the government has no business getting involved.
-
So, is your post supposed to mean something? Or, is it just a random pile of letters scattered on a page?I don't care if 100% of Native Americans are offended by it, or 100% of the entire population. I don't care if the team is named the Richmond N-words. I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either. It's when you believe the name means something and holds something to it...yeah.
#hypocrisyisawesome.
-
I think the Bills should move to Rochester, and become the Rochester Bills.
-
I know. But, it's certainly not worthy of its own thread.and nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Of course, it could never happen, for a myriad of reasons.Jimmy Spagnola would have no part of this proposal. He'd shiv any mofo in favor of it.
-
Numerous Native American tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians have spoken out against the name, claiming that it is offensive, and tantamount to the "N-word." Would you characterize the Native American community as, "extremist, butt hurt liberals?"I'd tell Senate to stick it. This country is over offended and over Sensitive. Rub some dirt on it and get over it. More extremist, butt hurt liberals who are the very loud minority finding something else to be 'Offended' about.
-
Here's a great idea the would never happen: Merge the Giants and the Jets into one team, then create a new team in L.A. Would have to shift around the divisions somehow, but how are the Dallas Cowboys part of the NFC East anyway? Just a late-night, weird thought.
-
Going with Bortles. I can't see Henne going the entire season while their first rounder warms the bench. I just don't believe it.But we won't know if he is a bust until the end of 2015 at the earliest. The Jags have been very forthright that he is not going to play (I assume unless there is an injury to Henne) in 2014. Even then, it would probably be 2016 or later before he could be labeled as such.
-
On a lighter note, we are 80/1 to win the Super Bowl, a slight improvement over last year.
-
If I recall, that is exactly what it was last year.
-
The TO signing was an act of desperation That's when we unloaded peters land threw bell out at LT. Now we have a stud LT and are above average at the RT position.
I think both of these points are true. The Jauron years were dark days, indeed.TO was signed as a marketing ploy to sell tickets and excite the fan base.
-
I think that one of the significant differences is that in '09, under Jauron's dreadful "no huddle/no offensive line" scheme, Edwards (who was already gun-shy and ruined by this system, and had earned the moniker, "Captain Check-down") had all of 2.2 seconds to get rid of the ball before getting flattened. So, what good was a deep threat like TO? I think that equally as important as Watkins, is our upgraded (hopefully) O-line. If EJ steps it up (and, granted, that's a big "IF"), he should have time in the pocket, unlike Edwards.Can someone who hasn't had much grape kool-aid please explain how the Bills' situation is any better now than it was five years ago from avoiding more 6-10 or 7-9 seasons?:
2009: The Bills, with an unproven young QB with speculative potential (Trent Edwards), feel that they are one big player away on offense from making the playoffs and sign the top WR in the NFL: Terrell Owens.
2014: The Bills, with an unproven young QB with speculative potential (E.J. Manuel), feel that they are one big player away on offense from making the playoffs and sign the top WR in the NFL draft: Sammy Watkins.
Looking at this logically, the Bills' situation could potentially be much worse in 2014 than it was in 2009 since we traded away our most proven WR (Stevie Johnson) and we will not have a #1 draft pick next season. Please discuss.
Let's hope.
Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted