The Big Cat

I think the mulligan is a step-too-far. Otherwise, all your points are good.

When the starting quarterback and two of the top three receivers are rookies, why would you want a complicated offense? /thread

I think this is a great idea. And to help even things out a little more, every year the Super Bowl champion should be able to hand pick any player off the remaining 31 teams rosters and sign them for league minimum.

Precisely why watching YouTube videos does not a personnel expert make.

And while you're cleaning up the Baby Boomers mess (to the prior point), you've grown the affinity of cultural gems like cosplay. So, thanks for that? :-) Also: look, ma! no collar! http://www.nflshop.com/product/index.jsp?productId=20377386

We have no NT to run a 3-4 line around. Alan Branch aint it. It is most definitely a need.

I'm posting this again. Because damn it, I liked it!

The Doug y Doug era has begun

He's answered that Warrick Dunn question before...

Great. One more gigantic, desperate and penniless psychopath wandering the streets. I hope he figures it out.

Ladies and gentlemen: Florida.

heh heh heh

Definitely thought the title of this thread said something about Amy Reid...and we're moving right along, moving. right. along.

1,000 followers or GTFO.

Yeah, I realized that a bit too late. And you know, this was my obvious line of thinking, as well. But then I considered "what if he really likes the role he's in now and doesn't care to be full-fledged GM?"

Also, please excuse: it wasn't until I was pressing "post" that I considered this discussion might be taking place in the mammoth Nix-retiring thread I excused myself from shortly after the announcement was made.

Has anyone begun to explore the possibility that they might be looking to hire outside the organization, keeping Whaley in his current position? I'd be just as shocked as the next guy if this happened--but nobody seems to be willing to consider the very real, albeit small, chance it could happen...

I don't oppose the name change, and I think that invoking the constitution in vehement protest is utterly ludicrous. But, as I've said, I am irked by the campaign (from NA's themselves, mind you, not--as you've suggested--from Redskins staff sitting around saying, "ya know..."). I also think that a name change at their request puts Snyder, et al in a dubious position, politically. And while I know we're talking about the Redskins here, I'm curious which ones they are proud of...after a seven-year hiatus Chief Illiniwek may be making a comeback, yet I'm still befuddled as to what was offensive about him in the first place. What's the difference between the Fighting Irish and the Fighting Sioux? How bout the Ragin' Cajuns? The Quakers? The Mountaineers? Surely folks from West Virginia might prefer they not be represented by a rifle-wielding man in a coonskin cap! As for Redskin being pejorative...fine. How bout Illinois's own Pekin High School who--until 1980--were called THE CHINKS!? The point being, I don't personally care for the ever tightening pejorative line when "real" problems continue to pile up--seemingly without end.

Well there are two questions, and we only agree on the answer to the first one: Why should the Redskins change their name? Because Native Americans find it offensive. Why do Native Americans find it offensive? Derp. I might pose an entirely separate question: Why aren't the Native Americans proud of a culture of such bravery, honor, ferocity and strength that multiple teams across multiple sports across multiple levels of competition want that culture to epitomize their spirit? How would they rather be depicted?

It's a "bad" thing when "groups" (as they're prone to) start keeping tally of "disrespect" as an excuse for what ails them. My issue is that putting the focus on what we're called distracts from what the real "issues" might be. So, I see these campaigns as a waste of perfectly good intentions but nothing ever really changes, because nothing is ever really addressed. Instead, everyone not associated with the problem is just guilted into "respect"--which, by the way, is the worst means for earning respect there is. Yes, it's a separate issue because it's the issue. So why are we focused on what we're being called when there are far bigger fish to fry? Do you understand what I mean?

And that's all well and good, but it's not really the issue here. In 2013, the dismal fate of the Native American has nothing to do with government policies, land grabs or "genocide" (never mind the fact that European disease, not European swords killed the majority of Native Americans), nowadays the "negative" stereotypes surrounding Indians have more to do with them living in drunken poverty on and/or near a tacky casino. I'm extremely skeptical that their present lot is--in anyway--entirely inescapable. So, I'm not entirely certain how exactly they're victimized by sports mascots.

!@#$ing nailed it.

Haha, you do recall when the ROOF COLLAPSED in Minnesota, right? I agree that the Bills are due. But the Vikings were over due.

Agreed, it's not about free speech, at all. My right to call somebody a '!@#$' is as in-tact as ever. Just because I can doesn't mean I would, to your point. But I do disagree with the campaigns to change perception through names. I believe them to be wasted calories, and also an indication that there's a reluctance to address the real "problems."