BarleyNY

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?

Most people, I’d think. Why else would someone intentionally continue to use the old name other than because they are acting out?

Brown is likely due a suspension if/when he is signed by a team, no?

The Bills have a poor TE corps and it’s easily the worst unit of the team IMO. But I still wouldn’t trade anything of value for Njoku. He is supremely talented athletically, but he is an unwilling blocker and he drops far too many passes. His attitude has also been an issue in Cleveland. That said, the Browns still need him for at least this season due to Stefanski’s use of 2 TEs so much of the time. Another issue with Njoku and the Bills is that he’s a flex TE. Using him and an in-line TE would take Beasley off the field unless we wanted to go empty backfield. He doesn’t make much sense here.

No. Hunt is on his fourth year tender contract. He’ll be a FA after this season. That’s just Berry’s way of saying “no” to trading him. Unless some team wants to get stupid.

That is correct at this time, but he was overrated on this board by most posters nearly the whole time he was here. If Allen doesn’t improve then I suspect he’ll get much the same treatment.

Bill Murray, my son and three of my best friends or Bill Murray Jon Stewart Michelle Obama Noam Chompsky Alyissa Milano

Please link. I remember hearing the podcast, but cant find the article you’re referencing with Google.

This is so wrong it hurts to read. The people at PFF have a specific way of collecting and analyzing data that they use to rate QBs. Allen does poorly by their metrics. He did poorly in college and he’s done poorly in the pros. It is what it is. If he improves, then they’ll rate him better. If he becomes a successful NFL QB despite doing poorly with their metrics, then they’ll take a look at changing their metrics. I’ve literally heard them say exactly that when talking about Allen.

Where’d that come from? Because I heard the original podcast.

Just to further clarify what was said by PFF, it was a highly qualified comment about Hodges and Allen. It was something to the effect of Hodges having been graded higher than Allen in the couple games leading up to the Bills v Steelers game. The guy made a point of how difficult it was to find any positive thing to say in regard to the Steelers offense and Hodges versus the Bills.