• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         0
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins 2019
       
      9/15/19
       
      Do I look like I'm playing? I'm not playing. This is the Washington Redskins versus the Dallas Cowboys. If you are a fan of this game, and this one does not get you excited you might want to check your pulse.
       
      Hello my friends it is I, JimmiJo, back for another year of this wonderful thing we call Redskins Football. This makes season 14 for me. I am joined by The Spaceman Spiff who will hereafter be known as "The Spaceman Spiff." 
       
      Where's that dude that gets the big tattoos on his back? There's his next one.
       
      So how important is this game? I don't know. What is the different between 1-1 and 0-2? The difference between batting .500 and zippy?
       
      Throw in that this is their 2nd division game to start the year AND a home game and you have a critical match.
       
      And once again they contend with critical injuries to start the year. Last year it was  their rookie star running back. This year its their 2nd year star...well you get the rest.  Darrius Guice is gone and not coming back this year. I think this really hurts him moving forward. Not sure who will build a scheme around him given his first two seasons.
       
      So it is down to the veteran Adrian Peterson. I have no worries of ring rust for hum. None whatsoever. He knows what to do.
       
      Anyway, almost time. Please share your thoughts.
       
      Stand by...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 12 QB Colt McCoy
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 31 Fabian Moreau
      o   No. 64 C Ross Pierschbacher
      o   No. 67 G Wes Martin
      o   No. 86 TE Jordan Reed
      o   No. 93 DT Jonathan Allen
       
      The Cowboys declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Tavon Austin
      o   No. 37 S Donovan Wilson
      o   No. 57 LB Luke Gifford
      o   No. 61 C Adam Redmond
      o   No. 69 G Brandon Knight
      o   No. 79 DT Trysten Hill
      o   No. 97 DE Taco Charlton
       
      Follow along in-game at Twitter @Skinscast 
       
      JimmiJo
       
      Head coach Jay Gruden said it is not time to press the panic button when asked if staff changes could occur on the defensive coaching staff. It may not be for him, but he might want to pay attention to the sounds coming from the owners suite at Redskins Park.
       
      For example the sound of shouting and heavy objects striking walls could portend an early offseason for someone.
       
      The Washington Redskins are now 0-2 to start the season. They are 0-2 in the division.
       
      If that is not panic-inducing, they face a Chicago Bears football team (themselves in need of a solid win) on Monday Night Football next. A series they do not typically do well on.
       
      In both games to open the campaign the winning teams had the game well in hand at the start of the fourth quarter, despite Washington taking leads in each of the games.
       
      Against Dallas, the team began well again; taking a 7-0 lead into the second quarter. This was not quite the 17-0 start they had in Philadelphia. Nor did it take until halftime for the Cowboys to adjust.
       
      It happened on Dallas’ fourth drive. Starting at their own 3-yard line at 9:44 in the 2nd period, the Cowboys employed a combination of runs up the middle and quick outs in the flats and sideline to advance the ball 97-yards in 7 plays and tie the game.
       
      Following a three-and-out by Washington, Dallas went 74-yards on 11-plays to take the 14-7 lead at halftime.
       
      The 3rd Quarter began with the Cowboys receiving the ball at their own 25. Nine plays  and 75-yards later they were leading 21-7.
       
      The Redskins made it interesting with their own 11-play, 70-yard drive to cut he lead to 7.
       
      But Dallas responded with a field goal. And would add another touchdown in the fourth quarter to extend the lead to 17.
       
      Washington’s consolation score with just under 3-minutes remaining allowed rookie Terry McLaurin to add a touchdown to his debut season.
       
      The Redskins have developed a reputation for not responding well to adjustments. They had little answer for the adjustments Dallas made to their offense. Ditto the game in Philadelphia.
       
      In both, Washington had a lead to protect and could not.
       
      Coming into the season the defense was expected to the be the strength of the team. Yet in two games they have surrendered 910 yards (445 per game) and 63 points. Not exactly setting the world on fire.
       
      Statistically the Redskins defense are near the bottom in points allowed and yards surrendered.
       
      The coach wants to blame injuries. Not only the their excellent young nose tackle in Jonathan Allen, but also to the secondary which has already gone significant realignment to accommodate injuries to Quinton Dunbar and Fabian Moreau.
       
      Still, with the specter of a season going off the rails after only two games, the fans want someone to blame.
       
      Wont be the quarterback. Case Keenum has completed 68.2 percent of his passes. He has thrown 3 touchdowns against no interceptions.
      Ditto other skill positions. Adrian Peterson did not his best outing but the team abandoned the run early. The receivers are doling their own, with guys like McLaurin shining.
       
      And as bad as the collapse was last week and the home loss this, it feels too early to call for the head coach.
       
      That leaves those in charge of the defense. Specifically, Defensive Coordinator Greg Manusky.
       
      Fan ire seems more and more to be falling on Manusky, if sentiment on twitter and sports radio means anything.
       
      But they don’t decide who stays and who leaves. That is the job of the head coach who so far, is backing his guy.
       
      But there is a higher authority at Redskins Park. Legend has it owner Daniel Snyder once put a gallon of vanilla ice cream outside a Redskins defensive coordinator’s door following a poor performance by the defense.  
       
      Given the start to this season, Manusky could be hearing the ice cream truck in his sleep. And that would be better than what many of the fans are wishing for him.
       
Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

Lol the heads on ESPN podcast Michael Smith and Jemele Hill today said that the mascot was racist too

 

So now Chief Zee is racist, gotcha

 

He's not racist 

 

YOU GOTTA CHANGE THE TEAM NAME IT'S RACIST YOU GOTTA GET RID OF THE RACIST MASCOT

 

Hohw is Chief Zee racist

 

How is the logo racist

If we change the name change it to Blackhawks or Skins 

 

That simple

 

You have Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhawks and the HUBBUB has died down there so why not change the name to something similar 

It's not about a racial slur. That's just a small portion of the propaganda. Native Americans do not want to be represented in sports. Period. If we change the name to something similar, we'll be fighting the same battle in 20 years!

 

It's a losing battle and if we don't change it soon my grandchildren will ask me why I'm hanging up racist jerseys in my den. I love the history of the Redskins and I don't want them to take that away, too.

Edited by S.TaylorMade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from the post comments section....saqster

11/5/2013 11:50 AM EST  Oneida and NCAI will come after this name as well. Read the official position paper on the NCAI's website. They want ALL nicknames and mascots associated with American Indians GONE. Redskins is just the beginning. The Skins are being singled out with the hopes that they will be the first domino to fall.  
 
Again, what other "SLUR" is defended like this. In just about every article across the Internet written on this topic, you will find similar comments from American Indians: 
 
"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. & In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Redskin is also a profession.   The 1st Cowboys were Hispanics.   Vaqueros, should they be offended by the Pic then?  Your third question, you are starting to come around.    They shouldn't, just like Native Americans or special interest groups should not find the Washington Redskins as Offensive.   There is no Negative Intent.

What profession is Redskin? I don't recall the team (or anyone else, for that matter) ever once making that argument or even saying that was the case.

And I'm pretty sure early vaqueros included some Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about a racial slur. That's just a small portion of the propaganda. Native Americans do not want to be represented in sports. Period. If we change the name to something similar, we'll be fighting the same battle in 20 years!

 

It's a losing battle and if we don't change it soon my grandchildren will ask me why I'm hanging up racist jerseys in my den. I love the history of the Redskins and I don't want them to take that away, too.

 

A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh.  I'm a super liberal and I don't want the name changed.  Try backing away from the politics part and just stick to the name.

 

Funny, Redskins came from a play on Red Sox.

 

NC21, I love you and we recognize there are individuals who have not subscribed to every component of academic postmodern liberalism, but to deny that this is solely the project of the contemporary academic Left would be to deny reality.  The war on language and the elevation of sensitivity to the detriment of both freedom of speech and historical heritage is part of that project. 

 

I would agree that there are tons of liberals (check out online boards for the Chronicle, as an example) who are "old school" and do not support every aspect of this agenda.  Just as there are liberals who support 2nd Amendment wholly and without qualification, but it would be a mistake to ignore that the main basis of self-defense rights supporters are 'rightist' (even if not GOP or some other particular faction.)  It's just how it is in our polarized society. Exceptions simply prove the rule, they do not, unfortunately, adequately inform popular debate.

 

Hell, we keep hearing racial slur but no one has actually looked enough at the history of the world and we still have people (whites mainly) saying the name is offensive because they decided to define it that way.  Well, if I launch a war against any word, eventually people will assume it's offensive.  Calling someone "Lame" has not yet been made a shunnable offense, but mark my words--it's coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority. 

Their voice is stronger. That's all that matters.

 

"It's not what you know. It's what you can prove."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A PC collection of native americans are driving this, not the majority.

So you know what the majority of Native Americans think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the people that just gave up after reading the news today. Problem is your not Dan and this changes nothing as of right now.

There going to appeal this decision and it could take up to 5 years for a ruling. This isn't the first time this has happened and the REDSKINS won the last appeal.

I for one don't mind a new name like Warriors, Redhawks and so on as long as the logo and uniforms stay the same.

With that being said I'm going to support the REDSKINS, because that's what I grew up knowing them as. I for one didn't even consider REDSKINS a bad word or slur when I was young and don't now.

Than again I don't get affended by words and I'm not trying to live in the past. I didn't even know what racism was until I learned it as a young boy in school.

People that cry about this word and any other word are the ones that keep racism alive.

Edited by Smurf85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this and hope it never changes. I'd compromise though and go back to the script R helmet or something new that's similar, remove all other NA imagery/themes.

Keep the name Redskins. It refers to us, because the football team wears Red(burgundy).

Without any reference to native Americans, would it still be offensive?

I think the whole argument is pretty silly. Context matters. Definitions can change too.

Look at recent history with the word f-a-g. Wasn't originally defined as a slur or had any negative meaning behind it...until it did for years and became offensive. Now, nobody in their right mind would call a homosexual that, and rightfully so.

Redskins might be the exact opposite of that. Even if you concede( which I don't) that the word started at as a slur or was temporarily used as a slur, the only context that the word is relevant to in today's society is the NFL football team in Washington DC.

Everybody has to be offended by something now...

 

But we know for an utter and absolute fact that Redskin didn't even start as a slur, but a self-appellation by which American Indians distinguished themselves from white settlers.  

 

Look at Redskin sort of like the word, "Jew" or "white" or "black."  People use those ALL the time as slurs but not one suggests that they are in and of themselves slurs. we went from "Colored" being an insult to being incorporated into "People of color."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you know what the majority of Native Americans think?

Do the people that are arguing against the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are forced to change the name....we should just be the SKINS - the arrow logo and the R

And if we are re-named the Skins, what does the R stands for?

Do the people that are arguing against the name?

No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What profession is Redskin? I don't recall the team (or anyone else, for that matter) ever once making that argument or even saying that was the case.

And I'm pretty sure early vaqueros included some Native Americans.

 

I can't be held responsible for what the team did or did not do.  All I'm saying is that a Redskin is also a professional, as in a Professional player playing for the NFL Washington Redskins.  

 

As to your point about Native Americans being Vaqueros, perhaps that's true.  I don't know of any 1st hand and it would depend on what you mean by the term "Early" but if that's the context in which we are discussing this, you can also say that various different Races were also raised up as Native Americans so do that mean that because there were White people or Black people or Hispanic people have a say in this and if that's so and they disagree with it being offensive, what exactly does that mean?

 

Let me help you, it means nothing, just like the Indian Vaquero Argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin.

How many is "quite a few?" Is it the majority? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the people that are arguing against the name?

 

No, but when they start trying to force somebody to change things, that's when this point might take on meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you know what the majority of Native Americans think?

They've conducted at least two polls on the subject, which demonstrate pretty conclusively that this is not a majority.  More importantly, if you know that Susan Harjo is leading this and lead the campaign against the word "squaw" by essentially lying about its origins and uses.

Think of this like one person's mental illness or obsession becoming society's problem. It's also a way for a smaller or less powerful group to get the dominant group to engage in restraint of power or work for the privilege or power of the smaller group.  This is, ultimately, behind much of the social justice stuff, at least rhetorically.  I also think there is a totalitarian impulse in the postmodern left that has very much placed us in the same realm as the "struggle session" and show trials of communist regimes because your actions or the law don't define your value to the society but now your very thoughts and intentions are subject to the analysis and to the impositions of outside forces.  It's very much an imposition of a flavorless, ahistorical monoculture upon the entire planet (start here because our traditions have been weakened, but eventually move on to the entire world.)  They just leave the Amish alone because they are not seen as participants in the wider society...but give them time. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be held responsible for what the team did or did not do.  All I'm saying is that a Redskin is also a professional, as in a Professional player playing for the NFL Washington Redskins. 

 

You mean all those years when people were saying Chris Cooley "is a Redskin", they didn't mean he was Native American?

 

mindblown6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean all those years when people were saying Chris Cooley "is a Redskin", they didn't mean he was Native American?

 

mindblown6.gif

 

I confess, I was also shocked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if we are re-named the Skins, what does the R stands for?

No, but it's quite obvious that quite a few oppose the term Redskin.

 

People can be convinced to oppose anything.  Do you ever use the "R-word" in conversation?  What about lame? What about stupid, dumb, idiotic or cretin (all clinical terms for people of low or impaired intelligence)?  What was offensive in intent about Negro?  But it became offensive.

 

But when you let a small group decide what they will be called you are tempting them (and every other group) to invent or hold onto slights so that they can exert power, however small, over you.  It's somewhat similar to people who have "chemical sensitivity" making everyone in a work place eschew fragrances, or even sorts of food.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are offended, I will change it.  See how easy that was!

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U5jCHcHHKBR.facebook

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March:

"...the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

 

If he's offended, I will keep it. See how easy that was!

 

 

I see this being tied up in the courts for years.....but I guess this one step closer to a name change. Sad day.   :(

 

Go back to the original name....Braves.  

 

Washington Braves or Braveskins   The fight song won't have to change much. 

 

 

It's funny how some on here are giving it next year to 2016. The appeal was held up in court the last time for 7 yrs. Probably for around 10 this time. When it comes to name changing, Snyder is no Pollin. If we change the name to 'Braves' then the fight song (HTTB) will go something like this:

Hail to the Bra-aves

Hail vic-tor-y

REDSKINS on the warpath...

 

That's right... try and take THAT away from after a score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many is "quite a few?" Is it the majority? Maybe they should have worked on finding an answer before letting their righteous indignation run amok.

Even if the majority has no problem with it, does it make it right?

If you were sitting in a restaurant with 3 black guys and you called the the n-word and they had no problem with it, but I did. Is it acceptable? No. Again, I'm upset about the name change too, but if Native Americans have a problem with it, I say we change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the name changes, the team will always be the Redskins to me and I will likely cheer for the Redskins still. If anyone gets offended by it, I won't cheer in their face but I won't let them control what I say, when my intent is not to offends or disparage anyone.

Edited by Braxford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im confused by this statement

what if a person has gotten educated on the name and learned that it offends people? There was a time when it was perfectly fine for us to have 2 separate bathrooms for each race. Does a person who entered a whites only bathroom as a younger person, but now is bothered by it and wants it changed, does that make them a hypocrite?

we dont really have any factual evidence either way.

There is nothing to be confused about.  If you bought a crap load of gear prior to learning that the name offended people and you take the side that the name is a racial slur, offensive to Native Americans and you continue to wear the gear, then you're a hypocrite.  

 

Because if one truly believed that it was offensive and a racial slur, then why would they wear any merchandise with said racial slur written across it?  If they want it changed and truly believe its offensive then they would not continue to wear clothing, etc. with the name on it.  If they do, they are a hypocrite.  

 

This topic is pretty cut and dry, you either think its a racist slur and want the name changed, or you don't.  It can't be non-offensive/racist when you want it to be and vice-versa (i.e. ok to purchase merchandise or continue to wear it but claim that you think its racist and offensive and should be changed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.