RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012

RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk

Message

John Childress -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/23/2013 6:51:44 PM)
"I've been real mum on talking too much about RG III. He wants his recovery to be fairly private, but I can tell you he's way ahead of schedule. His recovery has been unbelievable so far," Andrews told ESPN. "RG III is one those superhumans. First patient I ever had like that was Bo Jackson. And recently I, of course, had Adrian Peterson, who is also superhuman. They have an unbelievable ability to recover, where as a normal human being may not be able to recover." Andrews, who performed surgery to repair two of Griffin's knee ligaments on Jan. 9, was speaking to ESPN http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9089006/dr-james-andrews-robert-griffin-iii-recovery-unbelievable

Ian Joseph -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/23/2013 7:56:39 PM)
Good for him.. Hope he can stay healthy throughout his career. He doesn't play a position that is very forgiving as a runner.

Jeff Jesser -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/23/2013 10:10:31 PM)
That's up to Shannahn to me. If he keeps letting him run like that, he's an idiot. That kid is special. Let him be a passer who runs if need be.

David Levine -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/23/2013 11:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser That's up to Shannahn to me. If he keeps letting him run like that, he's an idiot. That kid is special. Let him be a passer who runs if need be. Absolutely. He's far too good of a passer to subject him to that kind of punishment. And if he's going to have him run, Shanny needs to look at SEA and SF. The way those guys run, I swear neither ever takes a clean hit - if they get touched at all.

John Childress -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/24/2013 7:28:23 AM)
You guys nailed it He does not have a Joe Webb arm Keep him in the pocket and work on his recognition and quicker release. The idea is to get rid of the ball quicker, not later

Guest -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (3/24/2013 4:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser That's up to Shannahn to me. If he keeps letting him run like that, he's an idiot. That kid is special. Let him be a passer who runs if need be. Absolutely. He's far too good of a passer to subject him to that kind of punishment. And if he's going to have him run, Shanny needs to look at SEA and SF. The way those guys run, I swear neither ever takes a clean hit - if they get touched at all. There is a reason the run option has never worked on a consistent basis in the NFL. It get's your QB pounded if the defense is smart. For instance when we looked so helpless against Washington's offense when we played them, we should have just continued to hit RG3 (Even after he pitched the ball) and they would have gone back to a more traditional offense later in the game. That dude (RG3) is good in the pocket, and out from what I've seen. They do need to change up some things to keep him upright.

John Childress -> Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 12:56:34 PM)
Is Redskins derogatory? http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/04/native-american-mascots-pride-or-prejudice/?hpt=hp_c1

Ian Joseph -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 1:08:48 PM)
They need to get over this shit.. really.

David Levine -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 1:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian Joseph They need to get over this shit.. really. Really?

Ian Joseph -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 1:31:34 PM)
Honestly, yes. I may be in the minority with my feelings on the topic, but this argument/debate has been around for years and years and years. Its the same small group of people who are on the forefront on this crusade. They certainly have a voice and express their opinion, but there has yet to be any actual muscle behind their movement. Privately, people like you and me will agree and/or support the cause. But, when it becomes time to actually mobilize and do something about it, its suddenly not important enough to participate. I'm just tired of all of this PC bullshit. Everything is offensive to someone. "Oh, the name <insert your favorite team name here> is offensive becuz it depicts said group of people in a negative light." Blah, blah, blah. Should the name "Redskins" have ever been chosen? No. But, in 2013, how ever many years that its been since, is anybody going to actually do something about it, other than bitch in an article? No. This issue is certainly controversial and has real merit. That is not in dispute. However, until there is some real political pressure to do something about it, its a spilled milk argument. These folks either need to mobilize and get some real political allies in Washington DC (which you would think should be super easy) to affect change or get over it and move on to something else. Again, its my opinion, but I think that's the gist of it.

David Levine -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 1:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian Joseph I'm just tired of all of this PC bullshit. Everything is offensive to someone. "Oh, the name <insert your favorite team name here> is offensive becuz it depicts said group of people in a negative light." Blah, blah, blah. This is not a case of "everything is offensive to someone". This is a case of something being offensive to everyone that fits under that particular umbrella. Its not a gray area word. Its not like Seminoles - its a completely derogatory term. quote: These folks either need to mobilize and get some real political allies in Washington DC (which you would think should be super easy) to affect change or get over it and move on to something else. Again, its my opinion, but I think that's the gist of it. I honestly can't figure out why it was so important for DC to change the name of the Bullets, but not the Redskins.

Ian Joseph -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 2:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Ian Joseph I'm just tired of all of this PC bullshit. Everything is offensive to someone. "Oh, the name <insert your favorite team name here> is offensive becuz it depicts said group of people in a negative light." Blah, blah, blah. This is not a case of "everything is offensive to someone". This is a case of something being offensive to everyone that fits under that particular umbrella. Its not a gray area word. Its not like Seminoles - its a completely derogatory term. quote: These folks either need to mobilize and get some real political allies in Washington DC (which you would think should be super easy) to affect change or get over it and move on to something else. Again, its my opinion, but I think that's the gist of it. I honestly can't figure out why it was so important for DC to change the name of the Bullets, but not the Redskins. My only thought process is that it was a nickname that allegedly glorified a contemporary issue of violence in the inner city. Personally, I didn't see the need to make the change, unless they were going for a franchise culture change, which, if that was indeed the intention, obviously hasn't worked. With regards to the "Redskins" nickname being derogatory to everyone under that umbrella, I don't disagree with you. Its no different than Indians, for the same reason, or Tar Heels, which has connotation to slaves, or Padres, which could be viewed as a not-so-subtle dig at the Mexican community. Whether or not there is a real necessity to change nicknames like these is always up for debate. But, until there is overwhelming support to get behind it, its not going anywhere. Honestly, the best thing to do is hope the NFL or the Redskins organization determines on their own that a change is needed, based on an outcry from the fans and the general football populous. I'm not sure billionaires like Daniel Snyder give a damn about what people that don't financially support his team have to say.

John Childress -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/7/2013 3:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Ian Joseph I'm just tired of all of this PC bullshit. Everything is offensive to someone. "Oh, the name <insert your favorite team name here> is offensive becuz it depicts said group of people in a negative light." Blah, blah, blah. This is not a case of "everything is offensive to someone". This is a case of something being offensive to everyone that fits under that particular umbrella. Its not a gray area word. Its not like Seminoles - its a completely derogatory term. quote: These folks either need to mobilize and get some real political allies in Washington DC (which you would think should be super easy) to affect change or get over it and move on to something else. Again, its my opinion, but I think that's the gist of it. I honestly can't figure out why it was so important for DC to change the name of the Bullets, but not the Redskins. It is clearly racist but Native Americans don't have the lobbying power of other groups. You can bet a team called the Coons wouldn't fly Denny's used to be Sambo's and before that it was Lil Black Sambo's

Lynn G. -> RE: Around the NFL (News) - 2013 (4/7/2013 3:54:36 PM)
It absolutely is derogatory, and it is the name I always immediately think of when people talk about sports team names that make your skin crawl. It's not like teams have never changed names, either to bow to social wishes or when they are moved to other cities. Changing a team name does not make the world collapse (hello North Dakota fans), but it CAN give you the opportunity to say your team name with pride rather than with a head duck in embarrassment. I've been surprised for years that there isn't a louder groundswell about the Redskins.

John Childress -> RE: Around the NFL (News) - 2013 (4/7/2013 4:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. It absolutely is derogatory, and it is the name I always immediately think of when people talk about sports team names that make your skin crawl. It's not like teams have never changed names, either to bow to social wishes or when they are moved to other cities. Changing a team name does not make the world collapse (hello North Dakota fans), but it CAN give you the opportunity to say your team name with pride rather than with a head duck in embarrassment. I've been surprised for years that there isn't a louder groundswell about the Redskins. Well said Very well

El Duderino -> RE: Around the NFL (News) - 2013 (4/8/2013 4:07:26 PM)
I will not refer to that team as anything other than "Washington". I don't care if other people don't mind their nickname. I do. I draw a lone between nicknames like "Seminoles" or "Illini" and ones like Washington in the NFL or Cleveland in MLB. The former are an attempt to honor the spirit of specific peoples from those areas, with attention paid to their particular heritage and customs. The latter are lazy and reductive, honoring no one at all, and Washington's in particular is flat out derogatory. I'm going to go with how Chris Rock put it: "Washington Redskins, that's not nice! That's a racial slur! That's kind of like having the New York ****s, okay?" The NCAA will allow teams to keep their mascots with no penalty if they can get the support of the tribe in question. Florida State, for example, was exempted after gaining the support of not only the Florida Seminole tribe, but also the Oklahoma Seminole tribe. North Dakota had the support of some tribes, but there were holdouts, so they were not given an exemption. To me, this is the correct approach. Which points to exactly why Washington's nickname needs to go - which tribe are they honoring? Who can they ask for permission? Beyond the fact that the name itself is a slur, its usage is entirely reductive - it doesn't make any distinction beyond the color of the skin of an entire race. It is nothing more than a pejorative wrapped up in tradition.

Todd M -> RE: Around the NFL (News) - 2013 (4/8/2013 4:21:53 PM)
Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive, Annenberg Data Show http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf That was 04. Have they done a newer survey that matches the % of WHITE people that seem to be offended? Is ANYONE going around calling Native Americans Redskins in an attempt to be offensive anymore? I'd bet Native Americans could use a lot more help than changing a NFL team's name.

El Duderino -> RE: Around the NFL (News) - 2013 (4/8/2013 4:25:34 PM)
I don't care. I'm not going to say it.

thebigo -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/8/2013 10:24:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Ian Joseph I'm just tired of all of this PC bullshit. Everything is offensive to someone. "Oh, the name <insert your favorite team name here> is offensive becuz it depicts said group of people in a negative light." Blah, blah, blah. This is not a case of "everything is offensive to someone". This is a case of something being offensive to everyone that fits under that particular umbrella. Its not a gray area word. Its not like Seminoles - its a completely derogatory term. quote: These folks either need to mobilize and get some real political allies in Washington DC (which you would think should be super easy) to affect change or get over it and move on to something else. Again, its my opinion, but I think that's the gist of it. I honestly can't figure out why it was so important for DC to change the name of the Bullets, but not the Redskins. And to change it to, of all things, the Wizards.

Ian Joseph -> RE: Is Redskins derogatory? (4/11/2013 11:59:22 AM)
Switching gears.. every single time Richard Sherman opens his mouth, he flushes another 3 or 4 million from his next contract down the toilet. He might as well smoke crack with all the money he is blowing. That ESPN First Take interview was about 10 million blown on its own.

John Childress -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (5/3/2013 6:38:05 AM)
2014 Vikings QB http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/michael-vick-beat-lesean-mccoy-in-a-40-yard-dash/ ha ha

Todd M -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (5/3/2013 6:52:37 AM)
Just looking at the football player why would anyone want a player that misses more games than Ponder, has thrown more picks, less TD's and fumbled more over the last couple of years. I'd rather resign Ponder for 10 years than suffer one with Vick.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (5/3/2013 7:26:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress 2014 Vikings QB http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/michael-vick-beat-lesean-mccoy-in-a-40-yard-dash/ ha ha Vick's proven time and again that he can run fast. What he's failed to prove throughout his career, in an ability to consistantly QB a team. Vick would not be a good option here.

marty -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (5/3/2013 9:51:34 AM)
But Vick might now have a HC that knows how to win. Vick does know how to play quick, and that offense might become hard to defend. I think Vick has abilities to pass and run, I'm just not sure if he has the right make up to be a good teammate and to be a winner. A long time ago, I think it was back in 2004 when there was debate about the Redskins' name, I read somewhere (it may have just been a joke, but the writer insisted it was the truth) that the name 'Redskins' had nothing to do with Native Americans, but instead came from something in regards to the Boston tea party, something about their faces appearing red as they dumped the tea into the sea. Anybody know anything about this ?

thebigo -> RE: Around The NFL (News) - 2012 (5/3/2013 10:39:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress 2014 Vikings QB http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/michael-vick-beat-lesean-mccoy-in-a-40-yard-dash/ ha ha Vick's proven time and again that he can run fast. What he's failed to prove throughout his career, in an ability to consistantly QB a team. Vick would not be a good option here. What has been proven is that Vick gets beat up every year as the season progresses, and his performance degrades significantly.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode