ESPN (New York): Antrel Rolle "Giants the better team"(merged)

[Commander PK]

Well, technically proper or not...which option sounds better.

1.) The Washington Redskins is not a better team than us.

2.) The Washington Redskins are not a better team than us.

I don't agree with the interpretation that Washington Redskin(s) is not plural either. If it was not the intention of the person that named the team for the name to be plural, why not just call the team the Washington Redskin (i.e. the Cardinal).

This is like that "never end a sentence with a preposition" rule that we all learned, and now they teach that it is perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition.

Eh, I'm no teacher, and I don't remember half of what I learned in college, so whatever. My two cents.

---------- Post added September-14th-2011 at 03:16 AM ----------

If my name was Jim Jones, people wouldn't say, "Jim Jones are good at grammar" simply because Jones ends with "s".

Yes, but you are a single entity. The term Washington Redskins denotes more than one. A team of "Redskins" as it were.

[Wildbunny]

Teams are always plural.

Why?

Because there's no "I" in TEAM

[RansomthePasserby]

Santana Moss is a Redskin. Cooley and Davis are Redskins. Redskins refers to the team as a group, and is therefore plural.

[Commander PK]

Whatever you say, Antrel. You clearly have a clue as to what you're talking about.

You know, looking at that picture you almost have to wonder if Rolle would say something along the lines of the Iraqis who refused to believe we had killed Saddam's sons.

To paraphrase: "The picture is faked. Those Americans can do amazing things with effects...have you seen their movies?"

[SkinsFTW]

Rolle thought he did nothing wrong. "I definitely didn't lead with my helmet," Rolle said. "To say I led with my helmet is definitely crazy. I've never, ever tackled any opponent by leading with my helmet."

I guess he think that since his hands were on him first that he didn't lead with his helmet. What an idiot.

[sean_e_b]

Well, technically proper or not...which option sounds better.

"The Washington Redskins are not a better team than us" sounds "better" because that's how we are used to hearing it.

I don't agree with the interpretation that Washington Redskin(s) is not plural either. If it was not the intention of the person that named the team for the name to be plural, why not just call the team the Washington Redskin (i.e. the Cardinal).

Yes, but you are a single entity. The term Washington Redskins denotes more than one. A team of "Redskins" as it were.

General Motors (a corporation consisting of numerous individual brands and divisions) is a collective noun just like Washington Redskins. General Motors, like Washington Redskins, ends with an "s". General Motors, like Washington Redskins, is not plural.

Which sounds better?

1) General Motors is a corporation.

2) General Motors are a corporation.

In the above case, option 1 sounds better AND is grammatically correct.

[s0crates]

sean_e_b, you are still wrong.

I do not know how to make this any plainer, but I will try:

Washington wins (singular).

The Redskins win (plural).

Washington scores (singular).

The Redskins score (plural).

Washington looks good this season (singular).

The Redskins look good this season (plural).

If all that sounds right, then it follows you should say:

Washington is . . .

The Redskins are . . .

---------- Post added September-14th-2011 at 04:27 AM ----------

"The Washington Redskins are not a better team than us" sounds "better" because that's how we are used to hearing it.

General Motors (a corporation consisting of numerous individual brands and divisions) is a collective noun just like Washington Redskins. General Motors, like Washington Redskins, ends with an "s". General Motors, like Washington Redskins, is not plural.

Which sounds better?

1) General Motors is a corporation.

2) General Motors are a corporation.

In the above case, option 1 sounds better AND is grammatically correct.

A couple things about the General Motors example. First, General Motors is shorthand for General Motors Company. Second, it is not a parallel example to that of mascots, which is what is in question. Mascots are treated in the plural. There is a reason for this. Consider: London Fletcher is a Redskin. London Fletcher and Santana Moss are Redskins. "Redskins" is a plural word referring to all (or some) of the members of the team, not a singular word referring to the team as an entity like a corporation. General Motors is not like this. It IS an entity, and thus singular. The "s" is irrelevant. You cannot say, for example, that Chevrolet is a General Motor. Chevrolet is a subsidiary of the General Motors Company.

I am not trying to give you a hard time. You are not alone in this mistake; I have seen widespread confusion about this. So consider this grammar lesson not as an attack on you, but instead as a public service.

[SkinsFTW]

sean_e_b, you are still wrong.

I do not know how to make this any plainer, but I will try:

Washington wins (singular).

The Redskins win (plural).

Washington scores (singular).

The Redskins score (plural).

Washington looks good this season (singular).

The Redskins look good this season (plural).

Yeah, something about "The Redskins is going to win the ballgame" doesn't work.

[sean_e_b]

sean_e_b, you are still wrong.

I do not know how to make this any plainer, but I will try:

Washington wins (singular).

The Redskins win (plural).

Washington scores (singular).

The Redskins score (plural).

Washington looks good this season (singular).

The Redskins look good this season (plural).

If all that sounds right, then it follows you should say:

Washington is . . .

The Redskins are . . .

Washington, Redskins, and Washington Redskins are 3 different things. I'm not a fan of Washington (the state or the district). I'm not a fan of Redskins. I'm a fan of the Washington Redskins. Washington Redskins is a proper noun. It is a unique entity that can not be looked at in the same terms as a common noun. General Motors and Washington Redskins are the same type of nouns. They are both proper nouns, collective nouns, and end with an "s". Both may look plural, but are definitely not.

If I try the same type of example you attempted, using General Motors, I get:

General rocks.

Motors rock.

The above statements don't say what I want them to say. I obviously should say, "General Motors rocks".

General Motors can not be separated into two items. Just as Washington Redskins can not be separated into two items.

Other examples:

1A) The New York Times is a newspaper.

1B) The New York Times are a newspaper.

2A) Dominoes is a fun game.

2B) Dominoes are a fun game.

3A) Checkers is a game of logic.

3B) Checkers are a game of logic.

4A) The United States is a country.

4B) The United States are a country.

Team and Washington Redskins should be interchangeable, since the Washington Redskins is a team.

By the way, this works the same way for band names. Rolling Stones is a band. The Beatles is the best band ever.

[s0crates]

sean_e_b:

Still wrong, and now completely missing the point as evidenced by the irrelevant tangent about singular words that end in 's'. The point is that team names are treated as plural, and this has nothing to do with the 's' in Redskins.

Don't take my word for it if you don't want to (and you obviously do not). Ask an English teacher, or look it up yourself.

Here, I looked it up for you: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/how-to-treat-names-of-groups-and-organizations/

In the United States, names of athletic teams are always treated as plural, regardless of whether the name is a singular or plural term:

“The Magic are headquartered in Orlando, Florida,” not “The Magic is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.” (Note that the house style of the New York Times is an exception.)

“The Giants are headquartered in San Francisco,” not “The Giants is headquartered in San Francisco.” (But “The San Francisco Giants baseball team is in the National League of Major League Baseball,” and “The team is headquartered in San Francisco.”)

In American English usage, metonymic team references, in which a team is referred to by the place name rather than the mascot name, are in singular form: “Orlando is on its way to the playoffs,” and “San Francisco is in a slump.”

In the United Kingdom and other countries where British English is standard, a distinction is made between the organization and the athletes as a group: In the former case, the singular form is used (“The Manchester United Football Club is the most successful football club in England”), but the plural form prevails in the latter case (“Manchester United are ahead by one point”).

You might also be interested in this tidbit:

Number agreement of proper nouns and verbs is also a significant issue. For example, in American English, names of music ensembles, whether orchestras or pop groups, are matched with singular or plural verbs depending on the name:

“Led Zeppelin was an English rock band,” not “Led Zeppelin were an English rock band.”

“The Beatles were an English rock band,” “Not the Beatles was an English rock band.” (Note, also, that the, when it precedes a band name, is not capitalized, even if band documentation uses a capitalized the.)

However, British English employs plural verbs regardless of the form of the band name: “Led Zeppelin were an English rock band,” and “The Beatles were an English rock band.”

This is the last I will say on the matter here, because I do not know what else there is to be said about it. Either you get it by now or you never will.

You can lead a horse to water . . .

[Rpredskins]

By the way, this works the same way for band names. Rolling Stones is a band. The Beatles is the best band ever.

So would you call a friend from a concert and say "the Beatles is putting on a good show"? Any statement which involves the members of the group is going to need a plural noun. I guess you could say "The Redskins is going to win" but that seems like it implies the organization is going to win and not the players. It almost sounds like a court case.

I certainly didn't read the entire however many pages of back and forth quoting so maybe this is more about semantics than common sense, but if you really think that saying is instead of are is more practical and appropriate, you are living in a different universe.

[sean_e_b]

So maybe this is more about semantics than common sense, but if you really think that saying is instead of are is more practical and appropriate, you are living in a different universe.

It's more semantics than anything. If you are referring to the collective as individuals doing separate actions, using plural verbs is absolutely fine. I actually don't have a problem with saying, "The Redskins are not a better team than us.", but Antrel Rolle shouldn't be treated like a moron for saying it the way it was first intended to be used.

============================

*back to s0crates

The book, No Uncertain Terms: More Writing from the Popular "On Language" has numerous opinions that feel very differently about what your link had to say about sports team names and whether to use singular or plural verbs. It also contains a number of opinions that go against mine.

With that said, I think it's time that I kept my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers rested) and let this thread get back to some civility. I should have united with my Washington Redskins brethren in tearing Antrel Rolle a new one, especially seeing as he most likely is half illiterate. I'm happy to see that you never backed down. I now concede. :giantsuck:

[ArmchairRedskin]

I love the Beatles. It is great?

I love the Beatles. They are great.

Grammar discussions on Redskins board are lame

A grammar discussion on Redskins board is lame.

[Rpredskins]

It's more semantics than anything. If you are referring to the collective as individuals doing separate actions, using plural verbs is absolutely fine. I actually don't have a problem with saying, "The Redskins are not a better team than us.", but Antrel Rolle shouldn't be treated like a moron for saying it the way it was first intended to be used.

============================

*back to s0crates

The book, No Uncertain Terms: More Writing from the Popular "On Language" has numerous opinions that feel very differently about what your link had to say about sports team names and whether to use singular or plural verbs. It also contains a number of opinions that go against mine.

With that said, I think it's time that I kept my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers rested) and let this thread get back to some civility. I should have united with my Washington Redskins brethren in tearing Antrel Rolle a new one, especially seeing as he most likely is half illiterate. I'm happy to see that you never backed down. I now concede. :giantsuck:

For the record, he refers to "Washington" as "they" around 0:45

So who knows. Maybe he is trying to make all kinds of points about grammar.

[redskindan07]

Antrelle keep rolling with that "L"

[The Bounty Hunter #21]

As ridiculous as Rolle's statement was, his sentence is not broken English. Washington Redskins is a single entity, not plural, so the word "is" is correctly used.

My bad my good sir. Thank you for the correction.

HAIL!!!!

[Arsenic]

[s0crates]

The book, No Uncertain Terms: More Writing from the Popular "On Language" has numerous opinions that feel very differently about what your link had to say about sports team names and whether to use singular or plural verbs. It also contains a number of opinions that go against mine.

With that said, I think it's time that I kept my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers rested) and let this thread get back to some civility. I should have united with my Washington Redskins brethren in tearing Antrel Rolle a new one, especially seeing as he most likely is half illiterate. I'm happy to see that you never backed down. I now concede. :giantsuck:

Fair enough. These grammar "rules" are admittedly somewhat fluid. It is not as though God handed Moses The Elements of Style on Mount Sinai.

Back to the topic at hand.

Hail!

[Xameil]

lol so a thread about a delusional CB turned into an English lesson? :doh:

[mhenry41h]

I wonder if he forgot that their only two scores came as a result of pressured 50 yards lollipop chucks by Manning that Landry would almost certainly have broken up? I like how they use the excuse that they were missing players on D when we were missing Landry, our stud rookie D-Lineman, and our stud LB was playing with a sprained ankle. I guess reality has yet to set in. I wonder if he still feels that way on rematch day when our record is 9-5 and theirs is 5-9?:giantsuck:

[kappaluvacee]

Yeah, you're better than the team that just beat you convincingly. Pass that man a Guiness!

[DieHard86]

Anyone who says this is a bum. Either you win or you don't, as we know here in Washington.

[Tom [Giants fan]]

Maybe the Giants will end up being better than the Redskins. Maybe not. We all know you can't make assumptions off of week 1. I don't care who is better than whom. If Rolle and the Giants really thought they were the better team, they should have played like it. The Redskins had more want, fire, and desire by far than the Giants did. The Redskins converted a fourth and long because they wanted to convert it. The Giants didn't convert a fourth and one because the Redskins didn't want them to convert it more than the Giants wanted to convert it. The Redskins got a defensive touchdown that was the turning point of the game because the Giants' OLine was too lazy to cut block the DLine of the Skins. I can go on but won't. The Giants will have ample opportunity to prove they are better than the Skins and anyone else. Just save this thread because I will have plenty of questions for Mr. Rolle on his radio time when the time comes if the Giants don't back up his big mouth!

[SkinsCrushCowboys]

we know that the Washington Redskins is not a better than us,” Giants safety Antrel Rolle..

well said dummy

[Destructis]

http://www.rantsports.com/washington-redskins/2011/09/14/antrel-rolle-was-not-impressed-with-rex-grossman-or-the-redskins/

That didn’t stop Antrel Rolle, though, who made some pretty interesting comments yesterday on WFAN in New Jersey.

Here’s how he started:

“We as a team and as an organization, we know that the Washington Redskins is not a better than us. We know that hands down. If we played them 100 times, they might win five.”

Wow, can we say poor loser?

Aside from the sub-par grammar, his math is a bit off too. In fact, Mr. Rolle, the Redskins and Giants have played 158 times, and the Redskins have won 62 of them (with four ties). That’s a winning percentage of 42 percent, as opposed to your claim that it should be around 5 percent.

Click link for rest of article

Yay, more bulletin board material for the Skins.

I wonder what the over/under is on sacks of Kolb