That would probably require Nick Foles to not be an elite quarterback and/or lose though, which I'm pretty sure isn't possible.
Also how did the lions win a game where their offense scored 10 points?
The running game. Stafford was absolutely abysmal, but luckily for them the Packers are not good at all this year, and they could get away with Stafford playing like hot garbage.
That would probably require Nick Foles to not be an elite quarterback and/or lose though, which I'm pretty sure isn't possible.
Also how did the lions win a game where their offense scored 10 points?
It would also require Jacksonville having an all-pro running back, an offensive line that wasn't awful, and a defense that could tackle better than a junior high 2nd team. Bortles is very raw but he looked rather good at times and they have put together a talented receiving corps. But all that is negated by their inability to block or tackle.
Thankfully nobody is out for the season just yet. And Peters is still doing Peters things. Getting Johnson back after next game should be really helpful for the right side as well.
if we can have everyone back and healthy by thanksgiving i have hope.
Mike Tolbert out for the Panthers next game. Thomas Davis and Jonathan Stewart are unlikely as well. So that's 4 of 5 running backs. Cool. Maybe DeAngelo and Fozzy will recover in time? Ughhhh
That would probably require Nick Foles to not be an elite quarterback and/or lose though, which I'm pretty sure isn't possible.
Also how did the lions win a game where their offense scored 10 points?
The running game. Stafford was absolutely abysmal, but luckily for them the Packers are not good at all this year, and they could get away with Stafford playing like hot garbage.
I know but we don't get away with him playing that bad against like, Jacksonville. I'm just shocked that our already terrible and injury plagued secondary didn't get torched by Rodgers like it does, ya know, every single time we've ever played him.
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
Just got a Sportscenter alert on my phone with their summary of Bisciotti's press conference "ESPN Outside the Lines manufactured the story around Ray Rice's agent, attorney."
I think I would have felt better about that conference if he had just come out and said "I own an NFL team and you don't. Fuck you!" It would have been more honest.
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
The really just don't get it huh?
+1
Options
AngryThe glory I had witnessedwas just a sleight of handRegistered Userregular
So my team is Denver. Has been for 20 years. I don't live anywhere near Denver, but as a small Canadian child I had my pick of the litter and I liked their logo the best.
It's hard enough to cheer for a team who's entire upper management apparently just can't stop getting fucking loaded and going joy riding. I can honestly not imagine continuing cheering for a team that has behaved in the manner of the Ravens.
I'm not trying to lay down any sort of moral judgment on Ravens fans. Just that press conference would have been my personal last straw.
+1
Options
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
Watched both Bears games this season on NFL game rewind over the weekend and I feel really good about my Jets tonight.
Cutler has been pretty bad so far outside of 8 minutes this season where he pulls it together to make that Bills game competitive and win that 49ers game (he only needs to be good for 2 minutes though to take advantage of those Jets corners.)
Fully expect the Jets front 7 to shut down Forte and attack cutler all night
The 2 Dreaded Monster (Chris Ivory and Johnson) are going to run all over that bad Chicago run D
Geno will probably make a mistake or 2 tonight (But he will look good) so I'm not calling this is primetime coming out party.
Don't want to come off like I am tooting my own horn or anything but I've said from the beginning that Ravens ownership was the driving factor behind the way this was handled. No other party had any reason to protect him that much.
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
Then why engage her at all? What's the point?
To broadcast it on national TV and illustrate the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
To incite and inspire discussions in the world at large, discussions like this, here, about the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
And because cultural battles are slow and painful, and minds are changed one or two at a time. If a million people watch the piece, and maybe two people have their view broadened, that's two more than if the matter hadn't been engaged with at all. Saying "It's hard, don't bother" will change nothing, ever. Changing a tiny, tiny amount is still a change. It's always worth engaging.
+1
Options
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
edited September 2014
Just saw that Nick Foles hit
I don't think that there would be this big a deal about it if it wasn't a QB.
cheap? yes. but Foles was headed towards the action making him just like any other player out there.
If he can make the tackle than he can get hit while heading over to where the ball carrier is.
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
Then why engage her at all? What's the point?
To broadcast it on national TV and illustrate the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
To incite and inspire discussions in the world at large, discussions like this, here, about the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
And because cultural battles are slow and painful, and minds are changed one or two at a time. If a million people watch the piece, and maybe two people have their view broadened, that's two more than if the matter hadn't been engaged with at all. Saying "It's hard, don't bother" will change nothing, ever. Changing a tiny, tiny amount is still a change. It's always worth engaging.
I'm not saying it's hard don't do it, I guess I don't understand the tactic of saying hey come talk to us and now actually you're here to be yelled at and you aren't here to talk at all.
That isn't saying her opinion matters, I just think there's better ways to do that.
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
Then why engage her at all? What's the point?
To broadcast it on national TV and illustrate the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
To incite and inspire discussions in the world at large, discussions like this, here, about the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
And because cultural battles are slow and painful, and minds are changed one or two at a time. If a million people watch the piece, and maybe two people have their view broadened, that's two more than if the matter hadn't been engaged with at all. Saying "It's hard, don't bother" will change nothing, ever. Changing a tiny, tiny amount is still a change. It's always worth engaging.
I'm not saying it's hard don't do it, I guess I don't understand the tactic of saying hey come talk to us and now actually you're here to be yelled at and you aren't here to talk at all.
That isn't saying her opinion matters, I just think there's better ways to do that.
Such as?
And, as discussed in the piece I linked, they did get to speak. For three hours. In addition to my previously stated opinion that the majority viewpoint has already spoken so much that it is the majority opinion.
So, I mean. There's those.
+1
Options
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
Well no Dee Millner tonight... Hope Marshall and Jeffereys skipped lunch... They are going to get fed like crazy.
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
O’Dell said she felt trapped. “I was told that I was ‘psychologically damaging Native American children,’ and every time we tried to say something, we got cut off,” she said.
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
Then why engage her at all? What's the point?
To broadcast it on national TV and illustrate the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
To incite and inspire discussions in the world at large, discussions like this, here, about the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
And because cultural battles are slow and painful, and minds are changed one or two at a time. If a million people watch the piece, and maybe two people have their view broadened, that's two more than if the matter hadn't been engaged with at all. Saying "It's hard, don't bother" will change nothing, ever. Changing a tiny, tiny amount is still a change. It's always worth engaging.
I'm not saying it's hard don't do it, I guess I don't understand the tactic of saying hey come talk to us and now actually you're here to be yelled at and you aren't here to talk at all.
That isn't saying her opinion matters, I just think there's better ways to do that.
Nah, because then you get on the point revelations like the guy who said if he knew what he was walking into wouldn't have worn the Redskins jacket. BUT WHY?
Posts
That would probably require Nick Foles to not be an elite quarterback and/or lose though, which I'm pretty sure isn't possible.
Also how did the lions win a game where their offense scored 10 points?
The running game. Stafford was absolutely abysmal, but luckily for them the Packers are not good at all this year, and they could get away with Stafford playing like hot garbage.
It would also require Jacksonville having an all-pro running back, an offensive line that wasn't awful, and a defense that could tackle better than a junior high 2nd team. Bortles is very raw but he looked rather good at times and they have put together a talented receiving corps. But all that is negated by their inability to block or tackle.
Thankfully nobody is out for the season just yet. And Peters is still doing Peters things. Getting Johnson back after next game should be really helpful for the right side as well.
if we can have everyone back and healthy by thanksgiving i have hope.
The lies just pour forth.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
I know but we don't get away with him playing that bad against like, Jacksonville. I'm just shocked that our already terrible and injury plagued secondary didn't get torched by Rodgers like it does, ya know, every single time we've ever played him.
"I lacked the interest in seeing the tape"
Oh and now the league "wouldn't take too kindly too us badgering them" about Rices punishment.
YOU ARE HIS GODDAMN BOSS. HE LITERALLY WORKS FOR YOU.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
My paraphrasing of this press conference.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
well that's at least true
speaking of insincere apologies
It's hard enough to cheer for a team who's entire upper management apparently just can't stop getting fucking loaded and going joy riding. I can honestly not imagine continuing cheering for a team that has behaved in the manner of the Ravens.
I'm not trying to lay down any sort of moral judgment on Ravens fans. Just that press conference would have been my personal last straw.
Cutler has been pretty bad so far outside of 8 minutes this season where he pulls it together to make that Bills game competitive and win that 49ers game (he only needs to be good for 2 minutes though to take advantage of those Jets corners.)
Fully expect the Jets front 7 to shut down Forte and attack cutler all night
The 2 Dreaded Monster (Chris Ivory and Johnson) are going to run all over that bad Chicago run D
Geno will probably make a mistake or 2 tonight (But he will look good) so I'm not calling this is primetime coming out party.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
I don't really know much about the situation but that seemed fine?
Don't want to come off like I am tooting my own horn or anything but I've said from the beginning that Ravens ownership was the driving factor behind the way this was handled. No other party had any reason to protect him that much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-daily-show-springs-showdown-with-native-americans-on-redskins-fans/2014/09/19/c6c5f936-3f73-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
(I thought about digging up the Cultural Appropriation thread to discuss it there, but I think it might be interesting to do so here. Guess we'll see!)
I'm still working through my feelings on this. Because the producers did indeed mislead the Washington fans (they didn't outright lie, as some of the fans indicate - the man specifically asked if there would be a "cross-panel disucssion," and there was not), which is "mean," but I also don't think I care? Because a big, big part of the problem with the Washington football team (and people who think its name is fine) is that they try so very hard to never actually engage with any Indians on any terms but those that they establish and condone. Like, Indians are confronted with a slur over and over again, when the news turns to sports or they flip over to ESPN. They don't get to choose whether or not they are confronted by something that makes them feel uncomfortable, vulnerable, wounded. There is no way to get a white person to feel anything approaching that level of unwelcome confrontation - without springing some pissed off Indian activists on their attempts to defend a racist mascot.
Like, there's this one very telling quote -
Of course you got cut off. The white view of the problem, the view that the name's okay, is the majority opinion. If it weren't, the name wouldn't be what it is. The "pro" side has shaped reality. It has spoken. The Indians never get anywhere near the same voice or considerations. And what could a 56-year-old white woman possibly know about the lives and minds of Indian kids? What on earth could she contribute? Yet she feels "trapped" when she doesn't get to comment on a life experience that is entirely disconnected from her own. Having to listen to the people whose dehumanization she indirectly supports is seen, by her, as an "attack."
sigh
Steam
Then why engage her at all? What's the point?
JordynNolz.com <- All my blogs (Shepard, Wasted, J'onn, DCAU) are here now!
To broadcast it on national TV and illustrate the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
To incite and inspire discussions in the world at large, discussions like this, here, about the disparity in the opinions and experiences of those engaged in what is often (incorrectly) framed as a "Conversation"
And because cultural battles are slow and painful, and minds are changed one or two at a time. If a million people watch the piece, and maybe two people have their view broadened, that's two more than if the matter hadn't been engaged with at all. Saying "It's hard, don't bother" will change nothing, ever. Changing a tiny, tiny amount is still a change. It's always worth engaging.
I don't think that there would be this big a deal about it if it wasn't a QB.
cheap? yes. but Foles was headed towards the action making him just like any other player out there.
If he can make the tackle than he can get hit while heading over to where the ball carrier is.
not really but honestly I think that'd be reason enough
I'm not saying it's hard don't do it, I guess I don't understand the tactic of saying hey come talk to us and now actually you're here to be yelled at and you aren't here to talk at all.
That isn't saying her opinion matters, I just think there's better ways to do that.
Such as?
And, as discussed in the piece I linked, they did get to speak. For three hours. In addition to my previously stated opinion that the majority viewpoint has already spoken so much that it is the majority opinion.
So, I mean. There's those.
Nah, because then you get on the point revelations like the guy who said if he knew what he was walking into wouldn't have worn the Redskins jacket. BUT WHY?