BarleyNY

Jeebus. Is my clarification/correction that I meant it was from his POV and not mine - after you pointed out that it came across as my personal opinion - not clear somehow?

The opinion of his value isn’t mine, it’s his. You’re obviously welcome to your own opinion of his value. Likewise the 49ers have their own. Both the player and team are free to act accordingly. Mostert thinks he’s undervalued and he’s trying to get paid. Fine. Personally I would very rarely pay a RB so I’m not a good gauge here.

I don’t blame a player who’s way outperforming his contract for wanting more money - especially when that player is in a spot like this 28 year old RB is in. And I don’t blame a team for not wanting to pay a RB. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

Shhhh!!! Exactly what I always say

Yup. But much like when the shoe was on the other foot, the side with the upper hand wants something before they make a concession. The league shanked this one in the CBA and they might have to take it on the chin a bit because of that. No football is a very real possibility (probability IMO) at this point. I think that the horrific mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic by many (no names as to not take this political) is going to cause a lot more than football to be shut down soon. At this point I’d be happy if we get any football at all. Late season 32 team tournament bracket in lieu of a season and playoffs anyone?

No idea who will actually come available, but I’m probably looking at Ertz and the lines. A vet like Lane Johnson or a player coming off their rookie deal that they can’t afford to keep Maybe someone who wouldn’t be expensive like Hassan Ridgeway to rotate at DT. Dunno, but something has to give. It’s such a weird situation. Their cap structure looks like what you’d see for a team with a franchise QB at the end of his career where they’re just trying to milk out one more SB run before a tear down. It’s like an industrial strength version of what the Steelers have done.

I am not much of a soccer fan, but I’ve always loved the name D.C. United. Super patriotic in a completely non-partisan way. I’d say that they should just buy the rights and use it except for their commitment to their current color scheme. It only works with red, white and blue. So I’m back to Hogs (or Razorbacks).

Yup. Hogs. With all the pork in Washington it’s the perfect name. Plus the historical OL thing.

Yup. If they can void his guaranteed ($4.8M) portion of his salary then he’s probably gone. That would make it a slightly positive cap move this season and would knock $9M off the books next season (less his low cost replacement). This situation really illustrates the pitfalls of playing the restructure game to create cap space. It’s not that bad with Jackson, but if this had been one of their highly paid DLmen or one of a few other players it would be way, way worse. Still, their WR situation could be really bad. Alshon Jeffery is pretty much done in Philly and likely now DeSean Jackson looks that way too. They’d better hope their rooks came ready to roll because that unit looks like it could torpedo an otherwise talented and very highly paid roster.

Honest take on his continued employment here. The Iggles are thin at WR even with him. I wonder if they’re only keeping him until they can replace him, whether that’s tomorrow because they can work a trade or after the season.

This is spot on. Even with him saying that he didn’t understand what the quote really meant, I do not understand how he could’ve misunderstood THAT much.

Absolutely. That definitely is a very real possibility.

I grew up and spent most of my life in Cleveland. Chief Wahoo was retired a couple years ago. Even when they built The Jake/Progressive Field they didn’t put it on anything remotely permanent. So the writing has been on the wall for a long time. I was really surprised that they used the Wahoo caps in the World Series against the Cubs. Personally I don’t care much about names and mascots. Cleveland Spiders is fine with me. Buffalo Bisons would be fine. Cleveland Bulldogs would be fine. If a name bothers a lot of people or has an offensive history/meaning, then change it. To me it is such a a small gesture showing respect toward others. If you don’t give respect, then you don’t deserve it back. Which leads me to a question that was already dodged by one poster on here. If there are two (or more) words for someone or something and one is offensive to a lot of people, then why insist on using the offensive one? I’ve yet to get any answer, much less a good one. Why wouldn’t Americans proudly wear a name that was only used derogatorily by traitors?

I had addressed it somewhat in previous posts and just touched upon some obvious issues in my response to you. Even if one ignores the inherent bias of a poll conducted by an entity that would benefit financially from a given outcome, there’s plenty of other red flags. The fact that they accepted self identification as a Native American, that most respondents could not name a tribal affiliation, that they skewed the polling heavily to older people and that they won’t disclose their raw data for peer review are all issues. But I’m curious why you’d accept the results of a pretty questionable poll at face value, but he highly critical of a much better conducted and completely open poll? I mean, the WaPo poll doesn’t even pass the sniff test. Who can get 90% of any group to agree on anything these days? I’m not sure that 90% of people here would agree that the Earth is a sphere. But 90% of Native Americans are totally cool with the term “Redskins“ even though they’ve been trying to get it changed for 50 years? Come on. How can you even convince yourself of that?

Totally agree. He’s still so young that these sort of issues had to be expected. I am looking forward to seeing him mature as a player. The sky really is the limit for him if he cleans up a few things - particularly his run fits.

Lol! So that poll is somehow worse than a poll conducted four years ago by a newspaper with direct financial ties to the team and who won’t share their raw data? Because you seem to be standing firmly by that one.

I don’t have a sub and I could read it

Seems like that was a pretty bad survey for a lot of reasons. It’s telling that WaPo won’t release it’s raw data or other important information about the poll. Here is a follow up survey that got very different results.

Easy question. Man up and answer or don’t.

Still not answering the question, huh? I figured as much. It’s ridiculous to say that the historical context of the word doesn’t matter, especially when it’s as horrific as this one. And hiding behind the BS “I don’t mean any offense” excuse is pathetic. How is that even relevant? Sure, it’s a horrible racial slur that offends a bunch of people, but if you don’t mean anything bad by it then you think it’s okay? That’s really something. And I think that it really says a lot about you. I’ll leave it there unless you stop dodging and actually answer my question.

The salary cap is based on revenue. So if league wide revenue takes a big dip, then the cap takes a big dip and the owners (immediately) and players (eventually) take it on the chin. There would also be downstream issues around teams that are unable to get under the cap and that could even result in penalties like lost draft picks. There is a CBA clause that states that both sides agree to negotiate if something like this were to happen, but players have an advantage in those negotiations since teams are on the hook for their salaries this season even if there are no games. This article from PFT explains the situation well: https://www.google.com/amp/s/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/04/22/nflpa-acknowledges-lack-of-force-majeure-clause-in-cba/amp/

You asked why you should be considered racist if you use the word “Redskins”. I am simply asking for you to explain why it’s so important to you that you be able to use a word that many consider a racial slur when a different, inoffensive word could easily be used in its place?

Well, it’s a BS poll. Link It suits your agenda, but it wasn’t a real poll and even a cursory examination shows what it was. Why not answer the questions I posed? Why hide behind some BS poll? Why use a slur when you could just as easily use another name? Why is it so important to you to be able to say “Redskins”?

It’s not a minority among the native population. In any event it’s a whole lot of people who view “redskins” as a slur. It’s also kind of ridiculous to point to intent. It’s something that a lot of people view as a racial slur and there’s certainly good reason why. To me it’s similar to this true story. I have had a friend since kindergarten and I’m 51 now. I used to call him Billy. We were kids and it differentiated him from my uncle Bill. One day when I was in college he says to me “You know, you’re the only one that still calls me Billy.” He was telling me that he knew it wasn’t intentional, but that it was disrespectful. So I started calling him Bill. It cost me nothing to do that and it was a respectful way to treat another person. That’s what this amounts to with Washington.

You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth. I responded to someone who asked how someone who continued to refer to the team as the Redskins should be perceived. Feel free to respond to that. When referring to the team historically I’d say it depends on context. I’d think that rather than use a racial slur people will use the new name if the context is simply old records or wins. Everyone will know who they mean. In years to come newer/younger fans won’t associate the old name with the team anyway. So why would you deem it necessary to use “Redskins” when referring to Washington’s past? Everyone would know what team you meant if you used the new name. What’s gained by insisting on using a slur?