Rocky Landing

This is exactly the kind of sentiment that illustrates how divisive the man is.

Trumps public persona has been grist for media ridicule for over two decades now. He has long been a parody of himself. In my opinion, a Trump ownership would be a PR nightmare. The scant national attention our team does get will be overshadowed by whatever bloviating nonsense Trump feels should be focused on. In a Trump-owned team, the most important person, and the most visible person, will always be Trump. I see him as a magnet for parody, as well as an utterly divisive character. In his most recent bid for the republican presidential nomination, he showed himself to be both divisive, and a political weather vane. I absolutely don't trust him. And, I fear our team would become a laughing stock.

Honestly, I couldn't take this thread seriously after I read reason #1. How many times has Trump filed for bankruptcy?

1,200 yards would be great, but not likely. There have only been a handful of rookie WRs to hit 1,200 in the history of the NFL. I'm probably in the minority here (I usually am), but I don't expect a huge year from Watkins, for a number of reasons. 1) There is EJ. (I'm not bashing here) Having missed as much of the last season as he has, he is practically still a rookie. Assuming he steps it up, as we all hope he will, he still isn't going to be a polished vet. A rookie QB to a rookie WR doesn't equal 1,200 yards. 2) As talented as Watkins is, there will still be growing pains. I will admit, the only thing I have seen of Watkins is highlight reel material. That being said, we all know that defenses are a lot tougher in the NFL. Quite a few of Watkins' highlights included blown coverage that just would not have happened in the NFL. 3) If we see a lot of the three, or even four wide sets that some people are predicting (I hope we do), then let's hope that EJ spreads the ball around. A lot. 4) We have a talented stable of receivers. Assuming that EJ does step it up, I personally think that Woods is poised for a 1,000 yard season. I also think that if Mike Williams can keep his head on straight (Marrone obvious thinks he can), he can be a serious impact player. I understand why Lovie Smith dropped him, but he had some amazing plays with the Bucs. Add to that, CJ (who has great hands), and Chandler, who netted the most receiving yards last year. Still-- no buyer's remorse.

Gotcha...

DC Tom was referring to the Native American nations, not our own. It just seems like an inconsistency to me that he would listen to "the opinions of the Native American nations" (his words), but not their leaders. And, had I not posted that article directly after he had made the comment, I don't believe he would have drawn the distinction. Indeed, I suspect that if the leaders of the Native American nations supported his position, he would be quoting them.

And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/27/native-american-leaders-speak-out-against-redskins-name/

I feel entitled to post this because I'm 1/32 Irish.http://o.onionstatic.com/images/7/7372/original/700.jpg?3640

That's a hard pill for just about anybody to swallow. Well played, sir!

There will be no legislation passed that will force the Redskins to change their name. The Redskins name is protected under the first amendment. This has been one of the reasons that legal challenges from Native American groups have failed.

No. Go ahead and call black people "colored," and see how many friends you make.

Context

1) What???2) Did you even read my response? 3) Does not apply to the conversation AND YOU KNOW IT. 4) I would call someone a brown person BEFORE I CALLED THEM COLORED!!!

Ok, well, this seems like such an easy argument to make that it doesn't even seem worth the time, but here goes: The Browns were named after their beloved general manager and first coach Mike Brown who, to the best of my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong here) was NOT massacred by the United States military. The Redskins, on the other hand, are named after a derogatory term used to describe a race of people who WERE massacred by the United States Military. If, in the future, the term "Brown" becomes synonymous with, I suppose, brown people (I assume that is your assertion?) then Cleveland will have their own choice to make. That is as much as I can predict, as there is no historical perspective for the term "brown" being used as a negative, racial epithet. All of this seems so blatantly obvious to me that I am wondering why I am taking the time to type it. So, this may have to be my last post on the subject. The whole argument has drifted into the absurd.

I was expanding on what I thought was an interesting, but otherwise irrelevant point. As far as whether or not the term "redskin" could be taken as an insult, would you ever call a Native American a "redskin" to their face? I wouldn't.

Interestingly enough, the use of the swastika, or the term "Nazi" is a crime in Germany-- which would be an obvious violation of the first amendment in this country. Also, am I missing something? Is the term "Viking" actually offensive to somebody?

Is this an argument for the Redskins changing their name, or against?

That's an interesting point. But, I think the context matters in that case. The Redskins are calling themselves the Redskins in all seriousness, and choosing to ignore the historical ramifications. The clown will call a Native American a redskin in complete jest, in acknowledgment of the historical ramifications.

This is going to sound like a weird take to a lot of people, but I am against such an enormous expansion of the replay rules. I do think there are some plays that should be challengeable, that currently aren't. I recall one game (and my memory is vague on this), when Jon Gruden's Bucs lost (I think a playoff?) game on a field goal because of a completely flawed call, that even the refs agreed was wrong, but wasn't reviewable. (Gruden's response to the refs, as I recall, showed him to be a class act.) BUT... I think that there is an inherent unfairness to football. And, I think it needs to stay that way. A football game is not just about who is a better team. If it were, there would be a Super Bowl Series, and playoff games wouldn't be sudden-death. With football, there is an element of luck, and of human error. Maybe, even, luck and human error are the same thing. Often, when we watch a game, we walk away enraged. "WE WERE ROBBED!!!" Or, just the opposite: we walk away mopping the sweat off our brow, "how the hell did we pull that off???" When we watch a football game, we are watching a microcosm of the human experience. Football is the greatest spectator sport in the history of sports, because football has everything. Does anyone feel that watching a football game is too emotional? I certainly DO believe that we should hold the refs to the highest standard possible, they should be well compensated, and we should protect against graft, and corruption. But, do we need to protect against outrage? The way I see it, the refs are almost as much a part of the game experience as the players. Yes, they're fallible. But, this isn't a video game. I guess I just prefer the human element to technology. And, if we continue to use technology to "level the playing field," what does that make us? At what point do we replace the refs with computers? And, make no mistake, the refs COULD be replaced with computers this coming season. The technology exists. And finally, there is something about mandating the instant replay for every play that feels to me like mandatory sentencing across our judicial system, that takes the human experience, and judgment out of the equation (and in my opinion, has made us a less equitable society). We want to hold the refs to a higher standard, not remove them from the standard.

Are you suggesting the Redskins are a crude joke? That may be the most cogent argument you've made!

Fair enough, and thank you for the thoughts.

I think there are several relevant points here. One, is that Viking heritage is not just about the raids against the rest of Europe, which occurred over 1,000 years ago. That is European history, and Anglo-Saxons, Gauls, Romans, etc were all guilty of expansionism. But, more to the point, is that the Viking legacy of Northern raids is not the legacy of the United States. The Native American genocide is every bit as much of our national identity as is slavery. And, the NFL team, the Redskins, is representing our nation's capital. Friends of mine occasionally call me a Viking, to my face, and it is usually meant as a compliment. Conversely, I have never heard anyone decry the destruction of their heritage by the Vikings over 1,000 years ago. Just my opinion.

My mother's maiden name is Whicktor. I have proud Viking heritage, and the term "Viking" has never occurred to me to be derogatory in any way, to anybody. But, I think this is pretty obvious to everybody. What's not obvious is why it would be a relevant point.