Random Commanders Thoughts

Yeah, but Orakpo was a first round pick of the team and had been a 11 and 9 sack performer in his other full seasons.

Besides he was coming back on the last year of his rookie deal and didn't cost the team what his talent indicated he could produce.

Carriker is 30 and when healthy is a solid but unspectacular player. His upside from 2011 if he can get back to that level to me is limited.

At 27 Orakpo is just entering his prime.
 
Bulldog's Twin said:
Yeah, but Orakpo was a first round pick of the team and had been a 11 and 9 sack performer in his other full seasons.

Besides he was coming back on the last year of his rookie deal and didn't cost the team what his talent indicated he could produce.

Carriker is 30 and when healthy is a solid but unspectacular player. His upside from 2011 if he can get back to that level to me is limited.

At 27 Orakpo is just entering his prime.
Click to expand...


Honestly I think Carriker was a massive missing piece last year. We lacked the brute strength inside of Kerrigan/Orakpo which allowed teams to scheme better. He's not J.J. Watt by any means, but having him at DE helps the OLBs.
 
The DL right now with Carriker, Bowen and Cofield is very costly under the cap for 2014 and all of these players are 30 or over. Carriker and Bowen have not been able to stay healthy.

Makes sense to cut some here and begin bringing in younger players as well as giving guys like Baker time at their natural positions.
 
Everyone is right. Carriker was missed, but he never made a huge impact. Just a steady performer, who we never adequately replaced. But, at his salary and for what he brings, we should be able to find a much cheaper option (including bringing him back at a lower number). I'd worry about his health after missing almost two full seasons, though.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
For the last five years, I always felt that a name change was a 100% certainty.

Lately, I have felt differently, and really believed that this topic may have been quelled, at least for another year or two.

Now I don't know what to think. This doesn't look so good for those wanting to keep the name.

Congress members call on league to push for Skins name change - WTOP.com
 
This is the line that concerns me:

The two Congress members say the league is "on the wrong side of history" and adds that "It is not appropriate for this multibillion-dollar ... tax-exempt organization to perpetuate and profit from the continued degradation of tribes and Indian people."

A....is the NFL really tax-exempt? I find that hard to believe.

B.....if they are tax-exempt, that sounds like a threat.
 
Yeah, this isn't looking too good. These guys aren't schmucks--they carry a lot of weight. We're about to find out how far Goodell is willing to go to stand by the team:


The letter is significant because each lawmaker has the perch to increase the public pressure on Snyder and the Redskins.

Cantwell is chairman of Senate Indian Affairs Committee, holding both the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. That panel helped drive the investigation into the felonious lobbying activities of Jack Abramoff and his associates, for fleecing tribal clients.

Cole is a very popular member on both sides of the aisle and a senior member of the appropriations committee, which has in the past been used as a battleground to impose Congress’s will on certain subjects. NASCAR and the Defense Department, for instance, have battled appropriators who’ve tried to limit the Pentagon’s ability to sponsor race cars and events. Cole, a member of the Chickasaw tribe, is one of just two Native Americans in Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service.
 
McD5 said:
This is the line that concerns me:

The two Congress members say the league is "on the wrong side of history" and adds that "It is not appropriate for this multibillion-dollar ... tax-exempt organization to perpetuate and profit from the continued degradation of tribes and Indian people."

A....is the NFL really tax-exempt? I find that hard to believe.

B.....if they are tax-exempt, that sounds like a threat.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are tax exempt because they are classified as a "non-profit" organization. I don't know how they pulled that one off, but they sure did.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
The tax exempt thing isn't as big as it sounds. The NFL passes all income to the teams which are taxed. The teams in turn fund the NFL as an organization to promote and govern the sport. So while there are some tax issues they are not on the 9 billion figure the league makes.
 
Well, if I held the positions, and assumed power these yucks do, and this pathetic, accomplish nothing, grand standing waste of time, was the best thing I could come up with to help Indians, with the multitude of problems they face, I'd hang myself in shame. They are assholes, squared.
 
Name change

(reply to McD), I believe it's only a matter of time before the name is changed.

We have a similar situation here in the Premier League with my team Tottenham Hotspur (appears I seem to love a bit of sport team name controversy), and our use of the collective term 'yid army' to describe ourselves as Spurs fans. Used as an insult by rival supporters, 'Yid', (literally 'Jew', derived from 'Yiddish', ''a language spoken as a vernacular by Jews in Europe''), often prefixed 'dirty' etc, was hurled in our direction from the stands, due to the high number of Jewish migrants that flocked to Tottenham in North London after the war.

As a counter to the often vile abuse, Spurs fans dubbed themselves the 'yid army', and have worn it as a badge of honour ever since, using deep, gutteral 'Yid Army' shouts as a rallying cry both home and away. Over the years, as our adoption of it was heavily dulled as an insult, it's no longer a middle finger to opposing supporters seeking to insult us, but, as I say, a rallying cry for the team and fellow fans to pick up its efforts.

Much like the 'Redskins', the debate over its context has reared it's head a few times over the years, and gone away again, but it seems now that too much pressure is coming from too many directions to sit back and wait until it goes away.

I can tell you that the club has handled the matter appalingly; sending out fan 'consultation' documents (the process was outsourced, documents went straight to peoples junk email folders, and only 11,500 responses were recieved from an utterly farcical 'rigged deck' of a questionnaire). They have also been handing out banning orders like they're going out of fashion. 3 Spurs fans are awaiting court dates for racially aggravated incitement. All this while Chelsea and West Ham fans turn up and hiss (simulating gas chambers) throughout the game and other such charming things...

The difference I suppose is that one is easier to 'police' than the other. Redskins merchandise will be withdrawn and replaced in the hope that over time people will just get used to it. The parallels will begin in say 5 years when FedEx stewards start handing out banning orders to any fan heard uttering 'Redskin' in whatever way it was intended to be recieved. It will happen!

While it's horribly unfair that fans of Tottenham are given banning orders from the stadium of their home team for doing no more than cheering on their team, while opposing fans hiss away and salute to their hearts content, my default question is always 'what will our stadia be like in 50 years? My feeling is that youngsters attending Spurs games in 50 years will consider it fairly barbaric that we ever used 'the Y word' in any context. I can't help but think that 'Redskin' is just as much of a dinosaur.

And not to completely alienate myself from you guys on this, my first lengthy post, I see this as an inevitability, and not something that will recieve my backing.
 
You should post more lengthy posts. :) That was insightful and a welcome differing perspective.

I suspect a name change will happen too, though I don't know about timing. If Griff comes back throwing up huge numbers and we start winning again, it will happen sooner rather than later. If not, it won't.

Which tells you an awful lot about the legitimacy of this "quest".
 
Agree

Agree entirely with that. Much like RG going to dinner at Dans house wasn't a big deal when we were winning the East, but was a national scandal 3 months ago.

It's going to be a messy PR exercise either way, but keep your eyes peeled for any press releases after winning 4-5 in a row, with win 4 or 5 coming against the c*****s?!?!
 
Great post, UK. As one of the resident Jews here (and fully aware of where the term Yid comes from) I'm not sure how I would feel about a team calling itself the Yid Army. To be perfectly honest, it sounds kinda cool. :)

Maybe this is how Native Americans here feel about it. I don't know. But it does provide an interesting perspective.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
 
RedskinsPark_UK said:
(reply to McD), I believe it's only a matter of time before the name is changed.

We have a similar situation here in the Premier League with my team Tottenham Hotspur (appears I seem to love a bit of sport team name controversy), and our use of the collective term 'yid army' to describe ourselves as Spurs fans. Used as an insult by rival supporters, 'Yid', (literally 'Jew', derived from 'Yiddish', ''a language spoken as a vernacular by Jews in Europe''), often prefixed 'dirty' etc, was hurled in our direction from the stands, due to the high number of Jewish migrants that flocked to Tottenham in North London after the war.

As a counter to the often vile abuse, Spurs fans dubbed themselves the 'yid army', and have worn it as a badge of honour ever since, using deep, gutteral 'Yid Army' shouts as a rallying cry both home and away. Over the years, as our adoption of it was heavily dulled as an insult, it's no longer a middle finger to opposing supporters seeking to insult us, but, as I say, a rallying cry for the team and fellow fans to pick up its efforts.

Much like the 'Redskins', the debate over its context has reared it's head a few times over the years, and gone away again, but it seems now that too much pressure is coming from too many directions to sit back and wait until it goes away.

I can tell you that the club has handled the matter appalingly; sending out fan 'consultation' documents (the process was outsourced, documents went straight to peoples junk email folders, and only 11,500 responses were recieved from an utterly farcical 'rigged deck' of a questionnaire). They have also been handing out banning orders like they're going out of fashion. 3 Spurs fans are awaiting court dates for racially aggravated incitement. All this while Chelsea and West Ham fans turn up and hiss (simulating gas chambers) throughout the game and other such charming things...

The difference I suppose is that one is easier to 'police' than the other. Redskins merchandise will be withdrawn and replaced in the hope that over time people will just get used to it. The parallels will begin in say 5 years when FedEx stewards start handing out banning orders to any fan heard uttering 'Redskin' in whatever way it was intended to be recieved. It will happen!

While it's horribly unfair that fans of Tottenham are given banning orders from the stadium of their home team for doing no more than cheering on their team, while opposing fans hiss away and salute to their hearts content, my default question is always 'what will our stadia be like in 50 years? My feeling is that youngsters attending Spurs games in 50 years will consider it fairly barbaric that we ever used 'the Y word' in any context. I can't help but think that 'Redskin' is just as much of a dinosaur.

And not to completely alienate myself from you guys on this, my first lengthy post, I see this as an inevitability, and not something that will recieve my backing.
Click to expand...

wow! what a scary fascist future you predict!

are the people there going to lay down and roll over? or is there a threshold at some point in which there is push back?
 
It's a really thorny issue Henry. There are a number of Jewish Tottenham fans who consider being a 'Yid' and a member of the 'Yid Army' as fine, and others who actively take pride in it. Of course, there are those who find it offensive. There is a Jewish 'comedian' here in the UK named David Baddiel who, while attending a Chelsea v Spurs game (he's a Chelsea fan btw) was horrified when a fan sat behind him responded to a chant of 'yid army' from the travelling support by shouting 'f**k off you filthy f***in yids'. Now, David, instead of reporting this fan to a steward or a member of her majestys police force, set out on a campaign to stop Spurs fans from referring to themselves as the 'yid army'.

I'm not casting any aspersions over his motives (althought the debate is often stirred up whenever he happens to have a new book out or TV show appearance coming up), or direction of his effort, so putting personal feelings for him aside, I find myself in agreement with him more and more.

Many fans have made the debate so personal, like taking 'yid' away was an infraction of their human rights. It's all: 'I'll stop saying it when them lot stop their gas chamber hissing', but it misses the point.

Not being Jewish myself, I am not comfortable to counter with 'get over yourself mate, it's meant in a good way!'. Similarly, if a native American said he was offended by 'Redskin', who am I to tell him to stop being so soft?

Some Spurs fans consider 'Yid' to be their word, and they've barked it out from the terraces for so long that they have in fact taken ownership of it; not only from the vile nazi saluters, but from the Jewish community themselves. Yid= Spurs fan, and that's all there is to it.

When others asked me who I support, depending on who it was doing the asking, I'd often reply 'I'm a Yid'. It's a defiant way of saying 'I support Tottenham'. All sport has it's tribal posturing afterall; it's as good a one-fact introduction as you're ever likely to deliver. However, I can't even remember the last time I used 'the y word', and won't be referring to myself as a 'yid' again, lest I be labelled as something I'm not.

If you replace 'y word', with 'n word' in this debate, there is absolutely no justification for its use in civilised society. Baddiel has made a hash of getting his message across, but I believe this is the crux of the argument, and like I say, I could imagine that in 50 years time, yid will be cringed at just as much in a sporting environment as n*****. How about 'Redskin'?
 
It's not quite that bad fansince62... although I do have to keep checking if we're at war with Eurasia or Eastasia :yes:

It's tough. Most people just want to go and watch the game and want nothing to do with anything overtly political during game time. Others are getting beer'd up (or not) and defiantly roaring away, running the risk of banning. There are no mass protests planned. Football has become a middle class game, and frankly, if you refused to renew your ticket in protest, there's a 40k waiting list of chumps ready to pay over £1000 a year to be told to 'sit still and keep your mouth shut'. That's certainly what the club want. Pay your money, eat your overpriced burger, drink your terrible beer, and scuttle off.

However, I don't believe being in a sports arena should give carte blanche to any and all offensive remarks, all of a sudden becoming ok.

I've not been to White Hart Lane in 3 years, and don't plan on returning any time soon. I've been to a couple of away games which are the only ones worth going to, as you get the 'hardcore' rain-or-shine fans who make the experience enjoyable.
 
RedskinsPark_UK said:
It's a really thorny issue Henry. There are a number of Jewish Tottenham fans who consider being a 'Yid' and a member of the 'Yid Army' as fine, and others who actively take pride in it. Of course, there are those who find it offensive. There is a Jewish 'comedian' here in the UK named David Baddiel who, while attending a Chelsea v Spurs game (he's a Chelsea fan btw) was horrified when a fan sat behind him responded to a chant of 'yid army' from the travelling support by shouting 'f**k off you filthy f***in yids'. Now, David, instead of reporting this fan to a steward or a member of her majestys police force, set out on a campaign to stop Spurs fans from referring to themselves as the 'yid army'.

I'm not casting any aspersions over his motives (althought the debate is often stirred up whenever he happens to have a new book out or TV show appearance coming up), or direction of his effort, so putting personal feelings for him aside, I find myself in agreement with him more and more.

Many fans have made the debate so personal, like taking 'yid' away was an infraction of their human rights. It's all: 'I'll stop saying it when them lot stop their gas chamber hissing', but it misses the point.

Not being Jewish myself, I am not comfortable to counter with 'get over yourself mate, it's meant in a good way!'. Similarly, if a native American said he was offended by 'Redskin', who am I to tell him to stop being so soft?

Some Spurs fans consider 'Yid' to be their word, and they've barked it out from the terraces for so long that they have in fact taken ownership of it; not only from the vile nazi saluters, but from the Jewish community themselves. Yid= Spurs fan, and that's all there is to it.

When others asked me who I support, depending on who it was doing the asking, I'd often reply 'I'm a Yid'. It's a defiant way of saying 'I support Tottenham'. All sport has it's tribal posturing afterall; it's as good a one-fact introduction as you're ever likely to deliver. However, I can't even remember the last time I used 'the y word', and won't be referring to myself as a 'yid' again, lest I be labelled as something I'm not.

If you replace 'y word', with 'n word' in this debate, there is absolutely no justification for its use in civilised society. Baddiel has made a hash of getting his message across, but I believe this is the crux of the argument, and like I say, I could imagine that in 50 years time, yid will be cringed at just as much in a sporting environment as n*****. How about 'Redskin'?
Click to expand...

The thing to remember is that the word "Redskin" never had that connotation to begin with. There is no equivalence to use "n******" for Redskin anymore than it would be to replace the Dallas "C words" with the Dallas "N words".

You can replace anything in that fashion, to make it unacceptable. That's rather disingenuous to apply the logic like that though, when there isn't the history behind it to warrant the replacement.

Question: what does Arsenal do to you guys? :p
 
I would disagree. A 'Yid' is a European Jew, in the same way a native American is a 'Redskin'. Names that I'm sure would be acceptable to self apply among either group, but not really appropriate for you or I (assuming you're neither Jewish nor Native American) to throw around in their company? Maybe Redskin is a perfectly acceptable way in which to address a Native American, I really don't know, but I wouldn't address anyone I knew to be Jewish as 'Steve the Yid', for example, unless I was incredibly sure of the ground I was treading on.

I'm sure there were a great number of people 100 years ago who wouldn't bat an eyelid at calling an African American a ... The point here is that this description is outdated and offensive, which is where I believe these words are going.

The problem comes when 'dirty' and other such words are added for it to be delivered with vitriol. Put 'dirty' in front of yid or redskin and we're in the same ballpark, surely?

You really want to go there with the Gooners? Haha, I did enjoy watching them on Saturday, almost as much as I enjoyed watching us yesterday :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 12, Members: 0, Guests: 12)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 116) Show all

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top