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? 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. 1) Not by the senate (that I am aware of), but by Native American organizations. 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.

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. 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. 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 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. 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?

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.

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? Does that mean that I don't have the right to express my opinions about the Bills because I am from Rochester?

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.

So, is your post supposed to mean something? Or, is it just a random pile of letters scattered on a page?

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. Of course, it could never happen, for a myriad of reasons.

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

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.

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.

I think both of these points are true. The Jauron years were dark days, indeed.

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. Let's hope.

I've been living in L.A. for over 20 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and have been following the LA/NFL situation fairly closely. I think the Chargers are pretty much safe in San Diego. That's a solid market. Apparently, the Jags are off the table for moving anywhere. I would say that the Rams, and the Raiders are the top two candidates, in that order, with the Bills third. But, I think it is a mistake to think there is a race to LA. If someone bought the Bills with the intention of moving them after seven years, they wold have to have a deal already worked out with Los Angeles AND the NFL. That would exclude another team from moving in before them. A Bills move to LA seems unlikely at this moment-- and the sooner a sale takes place, the less likely it is. But, it's not outside the realm of possibility.