2013 NFL Season.

no, there could be 4 teams with 0-0-1 records. it could happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

This is the part where I'm still looking for answers though.

If that's the case, why is our team still having the same problems even with all different parts? I mean, blowing leads is very specific, why are we still doing that better than any other team even with all the coaching and player changes? What are the odds?

---

It's because opposing teams don't see the run as a threat from the Chargers, so they start blitzing and putting the pressure on Rivers. It was different when he had a legit running back several seasons ago.

I love Film study.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/d...g-offense.html

example:

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1378950242

Quote:

---

We’ve talked before about packaged plays, which combine a run and a pass in the same play call and are what Smart Football’s Chris Brown calls the “newest form of option football.” The Eagles show off just such a play here, which puts together a possible handoff (1), a tight end running up the seam (2) and a wide receiver screen outside (3) all in the same play. In this case, Vick is reading the linebacker closest to Celek. If he breaks on the run, as he does in this case (4), the seam route is wide open (5). If he instead jumps on the pass route, Vick hands off or throws the screen (depending on numbers outside). One interesting thing to look at in frame three is the double block with Kelce and Mathis. Because this is a play that might include a forward pass, neither can risk moving downfield to block the linebacker. Shady is amazing at making that one unblocked guy miss, but that’s a definite weakness with this type of play.

---

WTF is with the Redskins name issue and when did it become the politically correct topic du jour? I get that it might be offensive to some, but as far as I'm concerned the majority overules the minority. That said, I'd like the White press to shut the fuck up and let the American Indians speak. I know there will be a protest in Lambeau this week, but in order to really change my perception on this issue I want and need to hear more from the American Indians. Not the guilt-ridden white press.

Personally, I've never heard the name used or referred to in a racist manner in my nearly 34 years of living. To me, and I'm sure to millions of others, it's just a team name. Have you? Answer that question honestly. When have you ever heard the name Redskins used in a derogatory way?

Also, I know it's not much, but my physical therapist is part American Indian (he's very active in the culture and aware of his heritage) so I asked him about the team name. Guess what? He doesn't give a shit about the team name! The only people making the biggest noise are white people. If I saw a national rally of American Indians where the majority wanted the name changed, then hey, the majority has spoken and I'd respect that. However, the way this issue is being forced down our throats by the white, liberal media drives me insane!

Well, plenty of Native Americans are offended.

Regardless, would caution against making "majority rules" the guiding principle here (is that really a good idea for issues of race, gender, sexuality, etc?).

And plenty of non-Native Americans are offended by the name. It is a racial slur (albeit in some disuse today) that recalls an era where non-majority cultures were marginalized (sometimes for the very "majority rules" reason espoused here).

We can (and should) do better.

I had a discussion with my wife and her friend about this recently.

I looked into it and there's evidence that native americans both totally don't fine it offensive and want it changed. It just depends which study you look at. It's been a controversy for about as long as it's been the teams name. I don't see a problem, in my opinion making it a big deal gives that name power as a derogatory word that otherwise it's losing as the years go by.

My whole thing is that the Redskins have a history that is explicitly and proudly racist. They have moved beyond that, obviously, but why even bother stepping into that doo-doo again.

White people are the ones that used the slurs to marginalize people; so I don't see the dissonance coming from white people who want to bury the words and move on.

I did some digging on the term "redskins" and it's enough of a gray area that I can see both keeping and not keeping the team name. But again, it's a gray area.

Doesn't sound very gray to me (from Wikipedia):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikiped

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor for Native Americans, the origins of which are disputed. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] "taboo" [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

The term derives from the use of "red" as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, "Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."[7]Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[8]

Historic use

"Redskin" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' error.[9] The first use of red-skin or red indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre.[10] Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.[11] The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States.[12]

Many claim the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[13] The claim often centers around a proclamation against Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[14][15] The proclamation orders, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” The colonial government paid 50 pounds for scalps of males over 12 years, 25 pounds for scalps of women over 12, and 20 pounds for scalps of boys and girls under 12. Twenty-five British pounds sterling in 1755, worth around $9,000 today —a small fortune in those days when an English teacher earned 60 pounds a year.[14] However, since the proclamation itself does not use the word redskin, citing it as the origin of "redskin = scalp" has also been called "revisionist history".[16]

A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasingly negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc.; while benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner.[9] The term continued in common use until the 1960s, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly (aside from the football team - see below). As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

My whole thing is that the Redskins have a history that is explicitly and proudly racist. They have moved beyond that, obviously, but why even bother stepping into that doo-doo again.

White people are the ones that used the slurs to marginalize people; so I don't see the dissonance coming from white people who want to bury the words and move on.

---

That's some strong language. Sounds as if the KKK were running the team. If Marshall were as racist as everyone is making him out to be, he wouldn't have hired an American Indian (Sioux) as the first head coach of the Redskins team. In fact, it's been said that the team name was in honor of its head coach, not a racial slur.

If white people have a problem with the word, then they can fuck off, imho. As far as I'm concerned, the only person who has a say in this matter are American Indians, not white people. We're talking about a word that WAS NOT CREATED BY WHITE PEOPLE LIKE THE N-WORD. We're talking about a word that was created by Indians and used among themeselves in a non-derogatory way.

I can't stand it when white people project their guilt onto others, forcing change just so they can have a clear conscience, all the while ignoring the very people they're supposedly trying to help. I'm pretty sure that the American Indians in this country have way more important issues to deal with than the name of a football team they most likely support.

Do you really think this is all for the Indians, as an act of compassion? What's going to happen if the name changes? Are the American Indians going to receive any more support from Whitey? I'm willing to bet the answer will be "No". This is just the latest PC topic du jour. I hope Snyder ignores the white press and seeks the opinon from only those who truly matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Type Ryan

WTF is with the Redskins name issue and when did it become the politically correct topic du jour?

---

Old topics are new again. It's the same thing as the Indians, which living in Cleveland means I've heard about my entire life. Since the Redskins are the same issue it usually comes up at the same time, but I can attest to the discussion being at least 20 years old.