Random Commanders Thoughts

[MikeSr619]

Hot damn! The DNA test came back?

They said your DNA is ape like! Don't shoot the messenger

 

[fansince62]

trust....but verify.

 

[ntotoro]

I can have whatever I want. YOU AREN'T MY REAL DAD!!

 

[MikeSr619]

Washington Redskins should keep name, law professors say in court filing

The Washington NFL team should get to keep its canceled federal trademark registrations for the name "Redskins" on free speech grounds, according to a friend-of-the-court brief signed by 17 constitutional law professors who argue the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional.

The brief, to be filed Thursday with the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals, compares the clause to the emperor who has no clothes — "a naked exercise in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

An appeals board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relied on the Lanham Act when it canceled the team's trademarks last year. U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee ruled this summer that the board correctly found the team's trademarks "consisted of matter that 'may disparage' a substantial composite of Native Americans" when granted from 1967 to 1990. The team is appealing that decision in the 4th Circuit.

The Lanham Act's disparagement clause — linchpin of the case brought by Amanda Blackhorse and four other Native American petitioners — denies federal registrations for trademarks that consist of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter or which may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

The professors' brief calls this "a brazen exercise in viewpoint discrimination" and asserts that bedrock First Amendment principles "apply to laws that burden speech just as they apply to laws that fully censor it."

Floyd Abrams, the famed First Amendment attorney who is a visiting lecturer at the Yale Law School, and Rodney Smolla, dean and professor at Widener University Delaware Law School, wrote the brief and are among its signatories.

"I don't like anything about the Washington Redskins," Smolla tells USA TODAY Sports. "I don't like their name and I don't like their logo. But as a free-speech lawyer, you're often in the position of defending speech that you personally find distasteful."

USA TODAY

Redskins trademark ordered canceled by federal judge

The brief points out that most Americans find flag burning, cross burning and homophobic protests at military funerals deeply offensive. "Yet the First Amendment takes out of the hands of government the authority to channel those majority sensibilities into law and exercise viewpoint discrimination over such expression," the brief says.

Lee ruled that the federal trademark registration program constitutes "government speech" and is therefore immune to free-speech challenges. The professors' brief argues that turns First Amendment principle on its head.

"Trademark registration is not an exercise of the government 'speaking' as an incident to its act of governing," the brief says, "for the government possesses no general governing power to police offensive or disparaging speech."

Smolla, by way of example, points to the familiar copyright symbol: "We don't think of that as a statement of government approval or disapproval of a book. But that's what Judge Lee's opinion implies, that the government would somehow be seen as approving or disapproving of the Redskins' mark when they register it."

USA TODAY

Redskins president says team won't change name even if it hinders new stadium options

The Lanham Act was passed by Congress in 1946. Smolla says it has been unconstitutional all the while.

"We have to remember when it was passed almost none of the First Amendment law that we think of today had yet developed," he says. "So I can't blame Congress for putting those words in the statute at the time it wrote it, but the Constitution has passed the Lanham Act by."

The disparagement clause denies trademark registration to immoral or scandalous matter or matter that may disparage persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols — all things that are "normally what free speech is all about," the brief says. Given that language, Smolla says, "Everything you see on Saturday Night Live would be illegal if they tried to get trademark registration."

Smolla concedes Lee was likely right when he ruled the team's name disparaged a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time the marks were granted. "But the whole point of the First Amendment," he says, "is that it doesn't matter."

Nor does it matter, he says, that the team is free to use its name and market it even without the benefit of federal registration because the government is not free to attach unconstitutional conditions to the receipt of government benefits.

"If I were the owner of the Redskins franchise, or I were the NFL, I might very well, out of sensitivity to Native Americans, look for a new name, as so many colleges have over the years," says Smolla, who counts himself a Chicago Bears fan. "But the core point we make (in the brief) is that it is not the business of government to force that or to place pressure on that decision."

Its about time some people with common sense come through and lay it out like it is. I really dont care if people think its "racist" any more. I have found that most people are self centered and only out for their own cause anyways. Hail to the REDSKINS!!!

 

[micks113]

I guess it comes down to whether or not one trusts Scot McCloughan to make an informed decision on Gruden. Personally, I hope that informed decision will be based on more than just the final W-L record.

Also quote:
"I don't think you can have it both ways. Seems to me you either trust the guy to make an informed decision, or you choose to substitute your judgment for his."



BINGO OM! Glad someone finally posted it. Trust in McClou??? He hasn't earned it yet. And until he does, I have to wonder how his layoff from the NFL has effected his judgement and management. Certainly, he has to look at himself in the mirror and say, he who is without sin cast the first stone.

He won't fire Gruden during his contract. He has bought into the plan. That plan is to support Gruden with his side of the rebuild. He has to because if one of his picks don't work out, is it because the coach can't coach him or that his judgement was impaired? And why? No.....McClou has to prove himself just like the rest. The jury is still out for all. One key to look at is what the heck is he going to do about RGIII? We already saw the option signing. Controversial.

The best way for McClou to succeed is to buy into the plan and support Gruden with the players. Everyone wins. Baby steps man, it took balls to make the QB change to begin the year. Gruden means business, and McClou is on board.

 

[Om]

Not sure what kind of response you're looking for there, micks. That's all well and good, but also pure speculation.

Personally, I'm going to watch and see what McCloughan does after his first full season here--just as Gruden inherited a mess his rookie year, so did Scot inherit a mess in his. I'm liking what I see so far, but it's based on a very limited sample size. I think we'll all learn a great deal about Scot, and his vision for the team, and his relationship with ownership, etc., based on what happens this coming off season.

 

[micks113]

Not sure what kind of response you're looking for there, micks. That's all well and good, but also pure speculation.

Personally, I'm going to watch and see what McCloughan does after his first full season here--just as Gruden inherited a mess his rookie year, so did Scot inherit a mess in his. I'm liking what I see so far, but it's based on a very limited sample size. I think we'll all learn a great deal about Scot, and his vision for the team, and his relationship with ownership, etc., based on what happens this coming off season.

Agreed. yes its my own speculation. But is the reason why I don't think McClou is firing Gruden. The key is what degree of improvement does McClou see from last year to this, when he wasn't here last year. $64000 question in my mind.

 

[Miles Monroe]

Also quote:
"I don't think you can have it both ways. Seems to me you either trust the guy to make an informed decision, or you choose to substitute your judgment for his."



BINGO OM! Glad someone finally posted it. Trust in McClou??? He hasn't earned it yet. And until he does, I have to wonder how his layoff from the NFL has effected his judgement and management. Certainly, he has to look at himself in the mirror and say, he who is without sin cast the first stone.

He won't fire Gruden during his contract. He has bought into the plan. That plan is to support Gruden with his side of the rebuild. He has to because if one of his picks don't work out, is it because the coach can't coach him or that his judgement was impaired? And why? No.....McClou has to prove himself just like the rest. The jury is still out for all. One key to look at is what the heck is he going to do about RGIII? We already saw the option signing. Controversial.

The best way for McClou to succeed is to buy into the plan and support Gruden with the players. Everyone wins. Baby steps man, it took balls to make the QB change to begin the year. Gruden means business, and McClou is on board.

Do you honestly, at this point think that Gruden ever had any intent to start Griffin ? That decision was made long before the preseason games. It was just a ploy to take away much of the media heat thrown at the team which can be a huge distraction to the rest of the team. If Gruden had any balls, he would have fired Haz the minute he was hired as head coach, instead of setting us back for another season.

I also have to disagree on this other point you make. Scott need not buy into "the" plan and support Gruden. Scott is the person that is tasked with developing the plan and then executing it with whom he sees fit. Gruden may not be in the plan he has for all you know. This season is an audition for every person in the organization below Scott....

 

[Cycleans]

I don't understand why so many feel the need to connect the dots with Griffin and Gruden. I don't find it hard to believe the read option style qb transition is hitting some bumps in the road.It's putting a bunch of coaches in the hot seat. At best, it has shown some success with RG3 in his rookie year, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson a Kapernick all had at least one successful season. Nevermind the fact that Wilson has a ring and two NFC championships to hang his hat on. But at this moment in time Griffin has no trade value, Kap is on the Bench, and Wilson is having a horrible year...Was Gruden hired to save Griffin? I don't know, I wasn't there...but maybe no one could save Griffin but himself. The point is Griffin was given ample opportunity behind a crappy Oline...Would he play better behind this one? Didn't we already see that? I don't have issue with Gruden and MCLoo finding some sort of plan B if they signed Griffin to the extension and he gets hurt or concussed for the second time.

Do you honestly, at this point think that Gruden ever had any intent to start Griffin ? That decision was made long before the preseason games. It was just a ploy to take away much of the media heat thrown at the team which can be a huge distraction to the rest of the team. If Gruden had any balls, he would have fired Haz the minute he was hired as head coach, instead of setting us back for another season.

I also have to disagree on this other point you make. Scott need not buy into "the" plan and support Gruden. Scott is the person that is tasked with developing the plan and then executing it with whom he sees fit. Gruden may not be in the plan he has for all you know. This season is an audition for every person in the organization below Scott....

 

[Smoot Point]

I agree it should be based on more than just Ws&Ls... I wouldn't want Jay Gruden around to develop a QB of the future after seeing the mess he made in year 1 and this offseason. I'm pretty sure Daniel Snyder feels the same way. Even IF he is able to win 3 more games this year (I'm doubtful), the question that needs to be asked is if this team (with improvements) was a team that could've won more than 6 wins. Is the talent there?

Shanahan was sacked for under-performing... He had a 3 win team, but he'd also suffered two seasons with bogus salary cap penalties... Still? Was the team capable of winning more than 3 games... probably not, but there was more to it than Ws&Ls... Had Cousins not laid an egg the last 3 games when he was benched for RGIII, maybe that would've saved Shanahan's job. However, Shanahan benched the young franchise QB and the backup started 3 games and we lost all 3 miserably.

The next 5 games are going to tell the story... We have 3 tough games @Patriots, Saints, & @Panthers. Then we play two home division games against NYG (who defeated us earlier this year) & the Dallas Cowboys (who should be more healthy for that game) in Prime Time (which we've been weak in). It would be difficult to recover a season if we lose 5 straight. If we do that & get blown out in prime time to Dallas at home, it wouldn't surprise me if Gruden was fired after that game. Snyder will probably wait until Black Monday though, having learned his lesson when he fired Norv mid-season...

Anyway, I would say the Saints & NYG are must-win games for us to have any hope of reaching 6 wins. @Chicago, Bills, @Philly, @Dallas are the last 4 opponents, so you'd like to think we'd win at least 1 of those games. They need to look good against the toughest opponents, and they haven't done that under Gruden with Cousins at QB (at least).

 

[Smoot Point]

But, Dan loves his money...and Gruden has a guaranteed contract.

I agree, but I hear that Gruden's guarantees are stretched out over time and they contain offsets... He has 3 years left on the contract after this season and $12M is guaranteed. However, it looks like if he is no longer coach, the guarantees stretch out to $2M/year with the offsets. So, I don't think Snyder would keep him around IF that is the case.

 

[TomE]

Don't really know the relevance of comparing a HOF coach in Gibbs with a decade and a half experience to a 2nd year HC but the inherited rosters by comparison is hard to judge. Other than the age factor, it appears to me what Gibbs had make do with was a tad better than what Gruden inherited.

(per Pro-football reference)

Gruden's starters 2014, wonder why the QB position is not listed, don't forget Griff went down on the ankle game two. 4-12 with many questions at QB


Gibbs' starters 2004, which glaring weaknesses on this team compare to the similar ones for Gruden.
6-10 Gibbs brought in his own QB, AFAIK Gibbs was under no pressure to make Ramsey work.


2005 team Gibbs got to the playoffs with, 'noodle arm' 23TD 10 INT, Portis 1500 yds, Moss 1500 yds, Cooley 774 yds- 20 or so TDs amongst them.
Gregg doing his thing on D, Safety position was in pretty damn good shape. LB corps average, D line old but 13 sacks production. CB not great shakes.


Should know the current Gruden roster and what's up

2005 - Skins were 4-3 blowing out SF 52-17 (great day) only to go to NYG and get stomped 0-36, got to 5-6 before the run and losing to Seattle in playoff.
2015- Skins are 3-4 and heading into Pat's domain

 

[micks113]

Do you honestly, at this point think that Gruden ever had any intent to start Griffin ? That decision was made long before the preseason games. It was just a ploy to take away much of the media heat thrown at the team which can be a huge distraction to the rest of the team. If Gruden had any balls, he would have fired Haz the minute he was hired as head coach, instead of setting us back for another season.

I also have to disagree on this other point you make. Scott need not buy into "the" plan and support Gruden. Scott is the person that is tasked with developing the plan and then executing it with whom he sees fit. Gruden may not be in the plan he has for all you know. This season is an audition for every person in the organization below Scott....

Yes I do. don't re-write history. Gruden flat out said he was the starter. If you want to call him untruthful, that's on you.
McClou said flat out he supports the plan, Gruden et.al. He said it. If you want to call him untruthful, that's on you.

We are still in the honeymoon phase. The future may hold a different course than what has been taken thus far. But for now, we know what the facts are despite your opinions about who had what "intent". I believe in what the staff and front office is selling. I guess you don't, but you have to include McClou in it, if that's the way you feel.

 

[fansince62]

oi. all this convo about Grudung gives me a headache!

 

[fansince62]

Well, I'd say Gibbs had worse personnel. But, hey we're all entitled to our opinions.

But, we can all agree that Gruden isn't the reincarnation of Gibbs, right?

call me up when Gruden leaves an innovative mark. right now? he's tweaking the creative thinking of others. walsh....gibbs...they absorbed and created.

 

[TomE]

Well, I'd say Gibbs had worse personnel. But, hey we're all entitled to our opinions.

Not sure,
QB- Brunell vs ?, at least Brunell knew how to see the game, trusted but old.
RB- Portis vs Alf- I go Portis
WR- might give the edge to the 2014 guys but Tana coming in second year might even it out some.
O line- 2004 gets the nod over 2014, add Jansen 2005
TE- maybe some substance for discussion, Reed (when healthy) gets the nod over Cooley coming on in 2005.

D-line- 2004 older but productive, 2014 unrealized potential
Lb- Washington, Pierce, vs Kerrigan, Robinson pretty close, Marshall vs Murphy vs Riley.... pickem
CB- Smoot, Springs (when healthy) vs Bash and Amerson potential to 2014, performance wash.
Saftey- no contest.... goes to 2004

But, we can all agree that Gruden isn't the reincarnation of Gibbs, right?

Gibbs with Beathard/Cooke- right
Gibbs with Cerrato/Snyder/new age players- surprised he succeeded as much as he did.

 

[DieselPwr44]

They asked Kirk about being 14.5 point underdogs to the Patriots. His response?

 

[Henry]

The only clear advantage I'd give to Gibbs is at LG, C and S.

Gruden has had a big advantage at WR and I'd also give him the DL.

Both teams were a mess when they took over. Both teams had players that didn't fit the new coach's philosophy.

Gibbs struggled as a personnel man and as a play-caller the second go-round, but he was still unparalleled as a Leader of Men. Whatever shortcomings his players had, they would run through a brick wall for Gibbs. So while the '04-'07 Redskins may have been undermanned or not the most talented in the league, I rarely felt like they were playing below themselves (the big exception being '06. Don't ask me to explain that year.)

I don't get that vibe from Gruden or the '15 Redskins. He does not strike me as particularly inspiring. I'm very interested to see how this team does down the stretch. If the Redskins hold together and string together a few wins in November and/or December, I may have to re-evaluate my, uh, evaluation.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Mark my words.
The Redskins might win against the Patriots.

 

[Miles Monroe]

I don't understand why so many feel the need to connect the dots with Griffin and Gruden. I don't find it hard to believe the read option style qb transition is hitting some bumps in the road.It's putting a bunch of coaches in the hot seat. At best, it has shown some success with RG3 in his rookie year, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson a Kapernick all had at least one successful season. Nevermind the fact that Wilson has a ring and two NFC championships to hang his hat on. But at this moment in time Griffin has no trade value, Kap is on the Bench, and Wilson is having a horrible year...Was Gruden hired to save Griffin? I don't know, I wasn't there...but maybe no one could save Griffin but himself. The point is Griffin was given ample opportunity behind a crappy Oline...Would he play better behind this one? Didn't we already see that? I don't have issue with Gruden and MCLoo finding some sort of plan B if they signed Griffin to the extension and he gets hurt or concussed for the second time.

I'm not arguing any of the points you make about Griffin. I was addressing the comment that Gruden showed some balls by making the QB switch just before the season started.