• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Alaskins

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

Recommended Posts

Thank you Bang, you guys nailed it. Way too funny. You really made Skip out to be the idiot he really is .....two big thumbs up. :D

 

I agree with whoever said it up top. Skip lost the coin flip on who was going to argue against the name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, because i promised and i love to say how much i hate to shill even though i shill every chance i get..

Here's this week's Bang radio Hour with the full comments from Stephen A smith and Skip Bayless last week regarding Snyder's letter.

http://bangradiohour.com/

NOT safe for work. (Or adults, for that matter.)

Enjoy the show.

~Bang

 

 

ok, so skip (from oklahoma, lol) not only says 'if ones offended, you have to change the name', he uses the Oneida tribe (which he mispronounces, no less. way to act like you got their back, when you dont even know how to SAY THE NAME OF THE FREAKING TRIBE. douche.) as an example of 'offended' native americans.

 

ya know- the oneidas, led by ray halbritter, the corrupt casino boss. they guy the oneidas themselves voted out of office only to have the US govt reinstate him. 

 

way to go, skip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Due to all the negativity, shame, humiliation, dissent, polarization, adversity, defiance, animosity, contempt, discrimination, division, counter-productivity and hostility associated with it, the Washington Redskins are changing their name.

 

They will now be known simply as the Redskins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland Lawmaker is Pushing a law to ban/outlaw the Redskins name

http://m.bizjournals.com/washington/morning_call/2013/10/maryland-lawmaker-pushes-bill.html?r=full

I guess I'm going to jail

This could work in Snyder's favor, since Congress wants to include themselves.  All Snyder has to do is agree to change the name if Congress comes up with a bill that outlaws all Native related names (Chiefs, Indians, Braves, etc.).  This might go against the first amendment, but it puts the pressure somewhere else. 

 

We all know Congress can't agree on anything.  Imagine trying to get a Congressman from Kansas City or Atlanta to go along with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Due to all the negativity, shame, humiliation, dissent, polarization, adversity, defiance, animosity, contempt, discrimination, division, counter-productivity and hostility associated with it, the Washington Redskins are changing their name.
 
They will now be known simply as the Redskins.

 

 

What's the over/under on the number of times this joke shows up in this thread?

 

We are up to three times now, I think. I say 7.5.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the over/under on the number of times this joke shows up in this thread?

 

We are up to three times now, I think. I say 7.5.

 

Or the one about the red skin potato.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Could someone remind me how many millions of people died at the hands of the Washington Redskins organization? 

 

I'm sure a few fans have offed themselves in the past 20 years, particularly when Zorn was the coach (I stand by my statement that they were the worst team in NFL history through the first 6 weeks of 2009.). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the over/under on the number of times this joke shows up in this thread?

 

We are up to three times now, I think. I say 7.5.

 

It's so lame, too.  It's the equivalent of an old Morning Zoo Groaner you'd hear on the Jack Diamond Show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same reason that the argument about Native American schools using the nickname "Redskins" is rather pointless. A group can call themselves whatever they want but that does not give another group tacit permission to use that word.

 

Yes, and there are many people with NA decent who are part of the Washington Redskins fans group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe he would disrespect Native Americans in that way, by making the Native's nose crooked.

Marketing 101. Most people would never notice but in the back of their mind think the logo is disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I dreaming or did I really just see the Redskins logo compared to the swastika?

 

They are just backing up what most already know, which is that those who bring up Nazis as a comparison in a debate are usually morons going for extremism because they are too stupid or emotionally blinded to derive rational arguments and comparisons.

 

It's also ironic they themselves display hate and ignorance while trying to bash the Redskins for it with the Nazi comparison, since the logo they are comparing to a swastika was designed by a Native American and endorsed by his tribe.

Edited by elkabong82
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations."

 

i like krauthammer. while i get his (and others point) that language evolves- words change meaning- im not at the point where i get this as it applies to 'redskins'. yes, i know, i wouldnt say it to a native american, but thats the whole point. the word is the football team. i havent seen much (any, really) evidence that its actually used in reference to an actual native american. you say 'redskin', you think football team. you just do.

 

thus, i dont see the word 'evolving' to one with a negative, derogatory connotation, which is krauthammers whole argument above. the fact that the vast majority of native americans appear to agree with this stance only solidifies my belief. 

 

i get that 'gay' and 'retarded' has evolved- i just do not see 'redskins' as an equal comparison to those words. 

Edited by grego
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..
"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "
"
Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."
 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..

"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."

 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

 

 

He's not offended. He had a deadline and didn't have anything to write about the shutdown or how he was wrong about so much of it. So...pivot to something easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Krauthammer's article, which i find to be the crux of my opposition..

"I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.... "

"Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way."

 

 

So unless I am misreading here.. He doesn't want to use a word that HE thinks defines a people, even if the people tell him that is not how they define themselves, and even though many of them proudly identify themselves with the use of this word,  and like the word as an honorific.

 

Now WHO exactly is offended here?

He is.

 

Also, since the evolution of words is important, again, what does "redskin" mean in today's society?

if you say "Native American", you're the one with the race problem.

 

~Bang

 

This is the premise of the entire political correctness movement.   In the event one person is offended, it's too much.   This name change is picking up steam because people don't like the word Redskins.   It's that simple.   It "SOUNDS" racist and that's enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the premise of the entire political correctness movement.   In the event one person is offended, it's too much.   This name change is picking up steam because people don't like the word Redskins.   It's that simple.   It "SOUNDS" racist and that's enough.

 

which is ignorant.  The madness has to stop some time.  

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.