Rocky Landing
-
Posts
6,731 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
I get your point, there certainly are differences (although, comparing the Native American genocide to your European roots is also rather inaccurate). But, the Native American genocide (and, I DO believe that genocide is an appropriate designation), is no less a part of our national identity than is slavery. There just happens to be quite a bit fewer true Native Americans left to offend, than descendants of slavery. And I do believe that just about nobody would approve of naming a team after ANY reference to slavery.Maryland State Legislature would be better off doing something government-related. You know, their jobs? Draft laws and all that. I don't know if they're supposed to pressure private companies to alter their brand and lose millions of dollars, because of something that has no economic, physical, or even mental detriment to the majority.
The situation's are further apart than you suggest. The Holocaust and the US-native incidents were not similar in motivations nor scale.
Also, most Native American atrocities were committed closer to 200 years ago, not 70. The Vikings used to rape and pillage my people back 1000 years ago, can I be outraged at Minnesota? Can I get the US senators to write them a letter?
One of the differences to the Nazi genocide that I might add to your list, is that the Native American genocide was much more successful. Also, as far as scale, there were an estimated six million Jews who died in the holocaust. Scholarly estimates for the Native American Holocaust range from two to 18 million. And, much more recent than 200 years. The famous Wounded Knee massacre occurred in 1890. The last on record, as such, was a massacre of eight Shoshones in 1911-- just a little over 100 years ago. After that, who was left?
One other difference between the Jewish Holocaust, and the Native American Holocaust, is that the former occurred in Germany. The latter occurred here. In Germany, it is a crime to display the Swastika (an abrogation of civil liberties we would never tolerate). We, on the other hand, have an NFL team representing our nation's capital named after the worst epithet you can call a Native American.
-
Hmm... would the Hamburg Kikes be much better? I guess not. But perhaps, were the team in Maryland, it would be an issue for the Maryland State Legislature?How about having that team in Maryland?
-
The argument has been made that, regardless of whether or not the name should be changed, the Senate has no business discussing it. Well, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. Really, having a team, in the nation's capital, with such an offensive name is a national embarrassment. It's along the same lines as if Berlin, the capital of Germany, had a soccer team called the Berlin Kikes. It really is.
-
Very rational.While I do not believe the Senate spent a great deal of time on this, I am not a big fan of legislators spending any time at all on the offensiveness of the name of a football team when there are much more critical issues they should be addressing. I think, as a society, we have become overly sensitive and much too willing to yield to "sensitivity" demands that border on the ludicrous at times. With that said; however, we should (as I used to tell my children) pick and choose our battles wisely. This is not the battle to pick. The term "Redskins" has always had negative connotations associated with it and any arguments to the contrary are just not rooted in fact or logic. I think they could easily change it to something like the Washington Warriors and even keep a semblance of their logo, if not the actual logo (as it was designed by a Native American) to honor the bravery of the Native American in battle.
-
I didn't expect everyone to understand my sarcasm. Your post suggested that words should be limited in their meaning, stripped of the ability to offend. Your statement that, "I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either." implies that there is no excuse for someone to place enough meaning in a title, that it could convey something offensive. Which, in turn, implies that words should not have the ability to offend. So, where do you draw the line? How much meaning should words have the ability to communicate?they're not random, i made sure to use the entire alphabet, even a digit.
Does that mean that I don't have the right to express my opinions about the Bills because I am from Rochester?But the senators aren't residents of the city. They just work there. Not to mention the fact that many of them don't even stay in the city when they are in session.
-
As ExiledinIllinois pointed out, they are the Washington Redskins, as in Washington DC. If the team weren't in their own city, I would agree with you. But, as residents of the city, I think they have every right to express their opinion.Regardless of your opinion of the offensiveness of the name, the government has no business getting involved.
-
So, is your post supposed to mean something? Or, is it just a random pile of letters scattered on a page?I don't care if 100% of Native Americans are offended by it, or 100% of the entire population. I don't care if the team is named the Richmond N-words. I don't give one whirlygig what a name says and no one else should, either. It's when you believe the name means something and holds something to it...yeah.
#hypocrisyisawesome.
-
I think the Bills should move to Rochester, and become the Rochester Bills.
-
I know. But, it's certainly not worthy of its own thread.and nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Of course, it could never happen, for a myriad of reasons.Jimmy Spagnola would have no part of this proposal. He'd shiv any mofo in favor of it.
-
Numerous Native American tribes, as well as the National Congress of American Indians have spoken out against the name, claiming that it is offensive, and tantamount to the "N-word." Would you characterize the Native American community as, "extremist, butt hurt liberals?"I'd tell Senate to stick it. This country is over offended and over Sensitive. Rub some dirt on it and get over it. More extremist, butt hurt liberals who are the very loud minority finding something else to be 'Offended' about.
-
Here's a great idea the would never happen: Merge the Giants and the Jets into one team, then create a new team in L.A. Would have to shift around the divisions somehow, but how are the Dallas Cowboys part of the NFC East anyway? Just a late-night, weird thought.
-
Going with Bortles. I can't see Henne going the entire season while their first rounder warms the bench. I just don't believe it.But we won't know if he is a bust until the end of 2015 at the earliest. The Jags have been very forthright that he is not going to play (I assume unless there is an injury to Henne) in 2014. Even then, it would probably be 2016 or later before he could be labeled as such.
-
On a lighter note, we are 80/1 to win the Super Bowl, a slight improvement over last year.
-
If I recall, that is exactly what it was last year.
-
The TO signing was an act of desperation That's when we unloaded peters land threw bell out at LT. Now we have a stud LT and are above average at the RT position.
I think both of these points are true. The Jauron years were dark days, indeed.TO was signed as a marketing ploy to sell tickets and excite the fan base.
-
I think that one of the significant differences is that in '09, under Jauron's dreadful "no huddle/no offensive line" scheme, Edwards (who was already gun-shy and ruined by this system, and had earned the moniker, "Captain Check-down") had all of 2.2 seconds to get rid of the ball before getting flattened. So, what good was a deep threat like TO? I think that equally as important as Watkins, is our upgraded (hopefully) O-line. If EJ steps it up (and, granted, that's a big "IF"), he should have time in the pocket, unlike Edwards.Can someone who hasn't had much grape kool-aid please explain how the Bills' situation is any better now than it was five years ago from avoiding more 6-10 or 7-9 seasons?:
2009: The Bills, with an unproven young QB with speculative potential (Trent Edwards), feel that they are one big player away on offense from making the playoffs and sign the top WR in the NFL: Terrell Owens.
2014: The Bills, with an unproven young QB with speculative potential (E.J. Manuel), feel that they are one big player away on offense from making the playoffs and sign the top WR in the NFL draft: Sammy Watkins.
Looking at this logically, the Bills' situation could potentially be much worse in 2014 than it was in 2009 since we traded away our most proven WR (Stevie Johnson) and we will not have a #1 draft pick next season. Please discuss.
Let's hope.
-
I've been living in L.A. for over 20 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and have been following the LA/NFL situation fairly closely. I think the Chargers are pretty much safe in San Diego. That's a solid market. Apparently, the Jags are off the table for moving anywhere. I would say that the Rams, and the Raiders are the top two candidates, in that order, with the Bills third. But, I think it is a mistake to think there is a race to LA. If someone bought the Bills with the intention of moving them after seven years, they wold have to have a deal already worked out with Los Angeles AND the NFL. That would exclude another team from moving in before them. A Bills move to LA seems unlikely at this moment-- and the sooner a sale takes place, the less likely it is. But, it's not outside the realm of possibility.Some very good points here (one I'd never heard before, that Goodell's WNY roots give us a behind the scenes advantage), but I'm gonna be honest -- plenty of in in-denial thinking too. My honest assessment is that we're safe for roughly 7 years given the financial hit to moving, which will probably scare off most potential buy-and-move buyers. After that? We're at the mercy of events outside our control. If someone beats the Bills to LA, good. If not, we become the best candidate to move there. I'm guessing the Chargers stake their claim and move out first; if not, I'd watch out for the Raiders (the NFL has seemingly lost the will to fight them) or Rams or Jags. At any rate, someone ought to beat us to LA. It's Toronto I worry about. Sorry but it just makes too much sense for the same reasons San Diego to LA makes too much sense -- a much larger economy just a couple hours up the road, and with Toronto you pick up the entire Canadian market.
-
Guiton should be awesome, as he can be a combination of Tuel and Kaufman, and morph into some crazy TE hybrid. BAM!!! Imaginary hole filled!
-
Ignorant, trolling statement.What?
The job of a sports writer is to entertain people and increase readers.
It has nothing to do with accuracy. Its funny you would say that the job of a sportswriter is to be accurate.
-
Very excited about the team, and our additions this year. But, we're going to have to get a second locker room for all the baggage.Bills WR Mike Williams is due back in a Tampa court May 29 after being rejected from a pre-trial diversion program: http://es.pn/1oBgGfc
-
Do we really know this? I'm not asking to pick a fight. I really don't watch much college ball-- I've only seen his highlights. What I saw was certainly impressive, no doubt. But, watching the highlights, I had two thoughts: 1) I didn't see any amazing grabs. He seemed to always be open. Does he have the ability to get to the ball in tough coverage? The ability to get open is great-- but certainly won't be as easy in the NFL. How will he perform vs an NFL DB? 2) His speed is amazing. His acceleration is amazing. And he knocked over defenders like they were bowling pins. BUT, I couldn't help thinking that there isn't a single person on any NFL defense that would get knocked down like the college players shown in his reel.With all due respect, based on what they've shown in their college careers and what the consensus is regarding their potential at the next level, Ebron can't carry Watkins' jock. Couldn't be happier we got the best offensive talent in the draft, bar none.
And once again, EJ's potential has nothing to do with anything regarding the Watkins trade. He's here through 2015 most likely, so I wouldn't sweat missing an unidentified QB prospect until then. Actually, I'm not gonna sweat it anyway. There's no guarantee we'll be in a position to draft a franchise QB and there's a better chance a much better football player will be available to us, anyway.
GO BILLS!!!
I know you're a huge Watkins fan, and I assume you watch college ball. Educate me.
-
I'm not sure why, but this list depresses me.
-
The OP has made some good points here. A few thoughts:
1) There is certainly a balance that has to be met between the profitability of the franchise vs. the profitability of the NFL. But, I'm not entirely sure that plays in Buffalo's favor. The league must look at the size of each fan base, as well as how the participation of the team affects the NFL brand. The OP makes the point that the participation of the Bills, an original AFL team, helps maintain the brand and lend weight to the leagues traditional roots. That certainly is true, and a good point, but the overall fan base is small. So, what would present a net benefit to the league? Keeping a small, original franchise, or turning that franchise into a much larger fan base, e.g. Los Angeles?
2) If the sale of the Bills drags on (which, hopefully won't happen), seven years may actually time out perfectly for the Bills to be moved.
3) I'm not convinced that hockey is an apt comparison. The NFL has a much larger market, and having two teams that close together in a far less dense market than NY, could present too much overlap.
4) If the NFL sees a move out of Buffalo as financially beneficial, I don't think it will be hard to get that 75% vote.
5) Nothing against Upstate NY (I was born and raised there!) but, It's cold up there! (...and, kinda boring...) It may not be too hard to convince the players to move!
Good points, though from the OP.
-
That's really just hyperbole. You're equating risk assessment, and valuation with fear. There's a big difference between fear and rationality, just like there is a big difference between courage and recklessness. Your continued assertion that we can't make any judgement on the value of future drafts because we don't know who will be in that draft is silly. To say that we can't, or shouldn't make any predictions of future needs, even based on our current roster, is short-sighted. To say that anyone debating such subjects is operating out of fear is insulting.Again, another description of how a front office should make decisions based on fear. YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
"Ooh, I'm afraid to take a chance on acquiring elite talent at other positions because my QB, going into his 2nd year, MAY not be good enough. Let's just wait and see until we know better." As laughable as that is, that's what everyone who somehow needs to link the Watkins trade with EJ Manuel and a future QB available in a future draft that WE CAN'T EVEN IDENTIFY YET, is saying.
Building a team is not a linear process. You don't acquire positions in order. It can't be done. In the meantime, acquire the best talent you can at EVERY position.
GO BILLS!!!
For the record, I am happy with the Watkins trade. But, I see no problem with evaluating its value based on how it fits with our current roster, and plausible future needs-- including EJ Manuel, and the quarterback position.
Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted