NFL Football Thread

[Sylent_Asassin Black Lantern Find all posts View Profile Close Sylent_Asassin]

On the radio this morning, the talking heads were breaking down the language in CK's contract, and said that because of the wording and clauses, it could be as little as 2 years for 28 million, which would give the team the freedom to sign other players.

http://deadspin.com/colin-kaepernick...full+(Deadspin)

[Big Blue Lantern Corps Honor Guard Find all posts View Profile Close Big Blue Lantern]

Yeah, I'm sure CK's contract will hamper the Niners down the road, but I don't think teams make the playoffs without a top tier QB.

It should be obvious at this point that neither Eli Manning or Joe Flacco are top tier QBs, and yet they are both SB champs. There are a lot of pieces needed for a championship, and an organization can't sacrifice too many for the most important one. It's a delicate balance.

On the radio this morning, the talking heads were breaking down the language in CK's contract, and said that because of the wording and clauses, it could be as little as 2 years for 28 million, which would give the team the freedom to sign other players.

http://deadspin.com/colin-kaepernick...full+(Deadspin)

I'm a Kap fan, but I acknowledge that he needs to step up his game this year. So far, he's benefited from being on a team that was built around the run supplemented with a miserly defense. Remember, the 49ers were one step away from the SB before Kap took over. However, some of the players that made 2011 special are aging or gone. Kap really needs to show that he can take over the big games with the 49ers putting this kind of faith in him.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

When I say top tier, I don't mean "elite" like top 5 QBs in the league, but it certainly helps. When Eli struggles, so do the Giants and he was far from a top tier QB last season as he only threw 18 TDs and 27 INTs. Last year, Flacco threw 19 TDs and 22 INTs. So, please allow me to rephrase, teams cannot make the playoffs with a subpar QB.

[W.West Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close W.West]

Eli struggled because we have the worst offensive line in the league.

[Booster Beetle Will break before he bends Find all posts View Profile Close Booster Beetle]

I think you mean 2nd or 3rd worst, aren't you forgetting about the Falcons and the Cowboys?

[Sylent_Asassin Black Lantern Find all posts View Profile Close Sylent_Asassin]

Kap really needs to show that he can take over the big games with the 49ers putting this kind of faith in him.

With his arm. We all know he can run, but I'd like to see a progression in reading defenses. Some of this throws makes you scratch your head and say, "WTF was he thinking?!?" I'd also like to see him start to look off receivers. Usually, he looks to a target and throws there with the defense watching his eyes.

Eli struggled because we have the worst offensive line in the league.

Seeing this post reminded me of an old Rome caller years ago that said, "I'm going as Aaron Rodgers for Halloween this year, so I'm going to lay on the ground."

[Hypo Lil' Leaguer Find all posts View Profile Close Hypo]

The US Patent Office has cancelled several Washington Redskins trademarks calling the name "disparaging to Native Americans".

The same ruling occurred in 1992 but was overturned on appeal due to lack of evidence that the name was disparaging.

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

Without any sort of actual substantial history behind the word, not sure how there could be anymore proof than there was in 1992. It's such an interesting dilemma because there are many native american high schools throughout the country on reservations who's school nickname are "Redskins". I'm all about not utilizing racist monikers, but something has to be said for a name having history in order for it to be racist. And there just isn't much of a conclusive history behind Redskins.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

Yeah, I doubt there are anymore evidence to add since 1992, but I think because of social media there is more awareness of "Redskin" being a slander against Native Americans. And as such, there is more pressure on the team to change their nickname. The team owner is dead set against changing the team name, so I doubt it will happen.

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

But that's just it, is anyone really going around calling native americans "Redskin" in a derogatory fashion? That's why the history of the word means so much. If we haven't been using it as a slander in the past, then why would anyone start now?

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

To be politically correct. Again, I don't think the team name will change, just more people are aware that's it's a derogatory term against Native Americans.

[Fearless Agent Orange Find all posts View Profile Close Fearless]

That's still kinda shitty, though. I mean, if we're aware of a national sports team named after a derogatory term, then why shouldn't we change it? To protect a franchise brand? That's a bullshit excuse for being lazy and uncooperative.

[Hypo Lil' Leaguer Find all posts View Profile Close Hypo]

But that's just it, is anyone really going around calling native americans "Redskin" in a derogatory fashion? That's why the history of the word means so much. If we haven't been using it as a slander in the past, then why would anyone start now?

I think the flaw with this stance is that as time goes on the language evolves, when it comes to slang different time periods lend different meanings/connotations to the word, this article sums it up a lot better than I could:

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.”

And I guess another question to ask is if you're identifying an entire society/culture/race based off the color of their skin is that inherently disparaging? I don't have an answer to that.

Circling back to your point on history though the National Congress of American Indians first started protesting this back in the 60s so it's not like it's a new development.

I guess what it boils down to for me personally is that I can't possibly see another team/organization/company using a name like Blackskins or Yellowskins and getting away with it...so if the Native American population feels like the term is disparaging then it should be changed.

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

But that's just it, who gets to decide that it's a derogatory term or not? This is why the history of the word makes such a difference, as the historical use of it supersedes any subjective feelings one native american might have over another. And that's why the wishy-washy history behind the word can't lead me to completely side with its ban. Though if it does get banned I won't lose any sleep over it, and I'm not even necessarily against a change.

One theory is that that the Algonquin native americans would use paint to cover their body, and the term redskin was in reference to the paint used and not their skin color. There's also historical context for 19th century tribes to use redskin when referring to themselves in direct comparison to European settlers.

The term doesn't have a direct link to negative history, like - nigger, chink, chinaman, spik, wetback, and so forth...

Just because some sensitive Susans in the 21st century don't like it doesn't mean it deserves a ban. But the opinions of current native americans shouldn't be cast aside either. It's why I really don't have a strong feeling one way or another concerning it, I really just think the debate is interesting. Also, historical context is just as important as the evolution of language and how the offended feel during the current time period.

[Trey Strain Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Trey Strain]

The NFL will never institute testing for HGH, because if it did the number of 300-pound linemen would drop from 100 percent to 10 percent, and that would be just too damned embarrassing.