Rocky Landing

The person most commonly regarded as the foremost authority on the subject is a linguist named Ives Goddard, who studied the word extensively. He writes that the word was originally intended as a term of respect, but became derogatory in the early 1800s. It was, for a time, used to describe scalps. More to the point, however, is its current, accepted context in which it is generally regarded as a racial epithet. The racial epithet is given further derogatory prowess when considering both the historical context of genocide, and that of the team's location- our nation's capital.

The weirdest thing about this post is that you seem to be the most offended person in this thread. Be that as it may, who are you to tell the National Congress of American Indians, and the many other Native American organizations that have come out against this name, with what they should, or shouldn't be offended?

I think any time a seasoned vet gets a camera stuck in their face, they play the "good teammate." But, at the same time, it's OTAs. I don't think he's thinking about his next contract just yet. And, I don't see any reason not to take his enthusiasm as genuine.

This is less of a "poll," and more of a "troll."

The metaphor that has been used over, and over again, "all in," is really quite apt for this situation. What happens when you go all in, and don't win the hand? There is no plan-B at that point. Thad Lewis, while a decent back-up, is not a plan-B. If we can't win with EJ, we aren't going to win with Lewis or Tuel. Or, am I wrong? Could Lewis break into the next level? Stranger things have happened.

Possibly the most depressing quote in this thread.

I would guess that it cost into seven figures to get that ad aired during the NBA finals. Easily $250,000 just to produce it-- and that's assuming that a large chunk of that footage was stock.

I miss Wegmans...

Please tell me you know I was joking! I keep forgetting to use those emoticon things, which I hate. I never know which one to use, so, here: "their"

As a whiney liberal know it all, I find your post highly offensive.

Then, when the name is actually changed because the Native American community, including the numerous Native American groups that have come out against the name (and spent a considerable amount of money in the process), have applied enough economic, and social pressure, will you then change your mind? Or do they have to get up in your face personally?

Well, that article concerns me, as well. Yes, I know it's just OTAs. No, I'm not looking for HoF play. It's the accuracy thing that concerns me. Last week the excuse was that the WRs weren't running their proper routes. This week he's overthrowing wide open receivers? Yes, it gives me pause, even during OTAs. btw- if we can't be concerned by a player's poor performance because it's "just OTAs," then what's the point of getting psyched by other player's stand-out performances during the same OTAs? Why pay attention at all?

Seriously? You would go to a Native American reservation and intentionally insult them with the worst word used to describe them? And then "dare them" to stop you??? Why? Are you a sociopath?

I live in California, and there's a lot of indian casinos here.

Hard to argue with that. I'm really not sure why anyone would.

Maybe he wasn't used to EJ being so close to the mark?

Not a lot of talk on here about how EJ is doing. From the few tweets I have read, it sounds like he has been a bit underwhelming, so far. Am I overreacting? Or is this the 700lb gorilla in the room?

And their last name to Williams.

This is exactly the kind of sentiment that illustrates how divisive the man is.

Trumps public persona has been grist for media ridicule for over two decades now. He has long been a parody of himself. In my opinion, a Trump ownership would be a PR nightmare. The scant national attention our team does get will be overshadowed by whatever bloviating nonsense Trump feels should be focused on. In a Trump-owned team, the most important person, and the most visible person, will always be Trump. I see him as a magnet for parody, as well as an utterly divisive character. In his most recent bid for the republican presidential nomination, he showed himself to be both divisive, and a political weather vane. I absolutely don't trust him. And, I fear our team would become a laughing stock.

Honestly, I couldn't take this thread seriously after I read reason #1. How many times has Trump filed for bankruptcy?

1,200 yards would be great, but not likely. There have only been a handful of rookie WRs to hit 1,200 in the history of the NFL. I'm probably in the minority here (I usually am), but I don't expect a huge year from Watkins, for a number of reasons. 1) There is EJ. (I'm not bashing here) Having missed as much of the last season as he has, he is practically still a rookie. Assuming he steps it up, as we all hope he will, he still isn't going to be a polished vet. A rookie QB to a rookie WR doesn't equal 1,200 yards. 2) As talented as Watkins is, there will still be growing pains. I will admit, the only thing I have seen of Watkins is highlight reel material. That being said, we all know that defenses are a lot tougher in the NFL. Quite a few of Watkins' highlights included blown coverage that just would not have happened in the NFL. 3) If we see a lot of the three, or even four wide sets that some people are predicting (I hope we do), then let's hope that EJ spreads the ball around. A lot. 4) We have a talented stable of receivers. Assuming that EJ does step it up, I personally think that Woods is poised for a 1,000 yard season. I also think that if Mike Williams can keep his head on straight (Marrone obvious thinks he can), he can be a serious impact player. I understand why Lovie Smith dropped him, but he had some amazing plays with the Bucs. Add to that, CJ (who has great hands), and Chandler, who netted the most receiving yards last year. Still-- no buyer's remorse.

Gotcha...

DC Tom was referring to the Native American nations, not our own. It just seems like an inconsistency to me that he would listen to "the opinions of the Native American nations" (his words), but not their leaders. And, had I not posted that article directly after he had made the comment, I don't believe he would have drawn the distinction. Indeed, I suspect that if the leaders of the Native American nations supported his position, he would be quoting them.

And what is your excuse for ignoring the "leaders" of said "nations?"