Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Here come the Redskins (*nothing piece MSN article)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, frankw said:

The original owner of the team and the man who was behind the branding at the time was a notorious racist who was forced to integrate black players to the point the lease on his stadium was almost revoked. Attempting to go back to that would be ridiculous.

Yep they were threatened with having the lease pulled for what is now known as RFK Stadium because it was on federal land.  George Preston Marshall was a very vocal, proud racist and his team was the last to integrate.  They would have minstrel shows at halftime and everything.

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

I liked the Washington Football Team gimmick.  It was unique.

Yep.  Once they went to Football Team they should have stayed with it.   basically  taking a soccer ish name actually worked being the lone duck in the NFL with it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently no one read the article past the clickbait title… their team president literally said there are a million things that are more of a priority than team name. So no change is imminent lol.

 

they never should’ve changed it from Redskins but once they went to Washington Football Team they should’ve stuck with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

Seems like there is going to be a change in DC.  They might be reverting back to the Redskins.

I was never a fan of the move and sadly it was the few ruling the many.   I hope they go back.  Even though I can't stand the Redskins I hate the new name.  I see Red and Gold they are the Redskins and always will be for me.

Good Luck Washington I hope you do the right thing. 

NFL News: Commanders' president unveils team's plans for name change (msn.com)

 Any issue that addresses racism  is going to be the few ruling many.  The majority is not in position to decide how the minority group should feel about it simply because they can outvote them.   Referring to skin color is about as racist as it gets, even if it is a mascot--in my view. 

Edited by MHS831
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

The natives didn't weren't offended when they were the redskins. More natives have come out in support of the original name, the Redskins. 

Seems like a no brained to me. 

So you have data to support this?  I would agree that your position is a "no brainer."

38% of self-identified Native Americans said they were not bothered by the Washington Redskins name. But 49% overall said it was offensive, along with 67% of respondents who were heavily engaged in their native or tribal cultures, 60% of young people, and 52% of those with tribal affiliations.

But it is not about numbers, so I was wrong for presenting the data to argue in support of a decision that is about individuals, not groups.  If it was always about the majority makes the decision, we could tear down access ramps for the disabled.  We could hoist our Confederate flags to celebrate 4 years of white heritage that most whites know nothing about, and we could force all religions not classified as evangelicals to comply with the majority or tough sh!t.   Right?

If some are offended, even if those offended were not in the majority, that is all that should matter. 

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think Tepper made huge strides in this area last year as well. It’s obvious he has trust in the Canales/Morgan pairing - and rightfully so.  
    • Did you really just source your own Twitter account? LOL 
    • There are times during the prolonged, pre-draft process that you abandon your gut feelings and allow yourself to be persuaded by popular opinion.  My gut was more consistent with what Morgan et al did than my conclusions.  Here is why (my theory): 1. With social media, one opinion is often repeated until it seems like the majority. The more you see it, the more you feel that your gut was wrong.  You second guess and conform at times.  In January, if you told me TMac would be there at 8, I would have been very interested because there weren't other WRs like him and he was dominant on a bad team.  I let the comments about film, questions about separation, etc. sway my opinion.  I started comparing him to Kelvin Benajamin in my head (work ethic). So I took him off my board. 2.  Morgan said something rather profound (parphrasing): "We did not want to be restricted by need."  IMO, the biggest needs were Edge, S, WR.  We assume that the biggest need is aligned with the first overall pick in most situations.  Everyone was talking about Jalon Walker because Micah Parsons is a similar beast and Abdul Carter would be off the board.   However, as a former coach at Salisbury High School and someone who vaguely knew Walker's father before he was born, I still could not see the fit here.  I think Walker is a great person and will be a good pro, but he did not fill our needs.  TMac was the best player who filled a primary need and we could not find another TMac-type player in the draft.  However, there would be second round Edges that were, in my view, potentially as good NFL players.  The first through early third rounds were loaded with edges.  3. Since edge was our biggest need, Morgan added 2--one in the second and one in the third.  They mentioned referring to statistics to see the likelihood of a player being available at 55 as opposed to 59, guiding their trade practices, for example.  I noticed the talent grades did not drop as much for edge players into early round three and the WR market dropped rapidly.  Morgan mentioned that they only had 3 second round WRs on their board, which is why TMac in round 1 was smart.  I also posted the following stats from the internet and it is never wrong: First-round picks in the NFL Draft have a higher success rate than those in the second or third rounds. Whilethe first round boasts a success rate of around 58%, the second round is nearly as good at 49%. However, the third round sees a significant drop, with only a 25% success rate.    So let's do math.  If you draft 1 edge at #8 he has (since it is early in the round) about a 60% chance of being successful.  Morgan would earn 6 success tokens for his Edge need. If you draft an edge in the second, Morgan would earn 5 success tokens for his edge need. If you draft an edge in the third, Morgan earns 2.5 success tokens for his edge need. So Morgan gets the draft's WR unicorn in the first round and by using the second and third round selections, addresses the biggest need by collecting 7.5 success tokens instead of 6.   Morgan has a high probability of being successful with 2 of 3 of the teams' biggest needs.  He was not needs driven, however, he was market driven.  Supply and demand.  He was smart. Had we drafted Walker, a player who is a stud and can be most effective as an ILB with versatility, I am not sure we successfully addressed the need.  Other players with first round talent either lacked college productivity or had red flags.  We would HAVE to target one of the 3 WRs the Panthers had listed as second round possibilities (I am guessing Higgins and Burden III and Beck--all far inferior to TMac).  Higgins and Burden III were drafted before they were within trade range and it is not surprising that happened--leaving the Panthers with a only Beck at pick 57.  Putting that in perspective, Edge Scourton was taken at pick 51 and Mike Green was taken at pick 59. However, there were 5 edge players taken in the second round.  There were 6 edge players taken in round 3.  Value TMac was rated #4 by PFF and J. Walker was rated #25.  Meanwhile Beck (WR), the only second round WR available in round 2 (I should point out that Tre Harris was rated by PFF at #66, and he was taken in the mid second) was rated 40.  Had we taken an edge in round 1, it is likely we would have ended up with J Walker (#25) and in round 2 Beck (#40).  Instead, we drafted TMac (#4) and Scourton (PFF #29) and Princely (PFF #50). https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2025-nfl-draft-board-big-board In terms of trade value points, the PFF scores value Morgan's first and second round vs. the probably first and second round (had we taken Walker and then the best WR available in round 2 Beck): So you see, Morgan ended up, using the PFF ranking system, doubling the value he got from the first two picks than if he had taken Walker instead of TMac and then drafted the best WR left at pick 51 or 57. In terms of what actually happened, TMac was drafted at #8 and Scourton was taken at #51--this suggests that the Panthers got great value vs. the PFF rankings.  Walker was taken at #15, (10 places higher than his rankings) and Beck was taken at 58, (18 places lower than his rankings.)  So how did Morgan do if you compare drafting Walker/WR vs TMac/Edge?   So Morgan's value was still 24% higher than it would have been had he drafted Walker.  Of course, this does not factor in trades, etc.  but you get the idea.
×
×
  • Create New...