Schefter: WAS should trade Cousins now

[borg]

Ben hasn't been real impressive since deflategate. Makes me wonder how long Pittsburgh has been doing this. Same for Eli with his fake helmets.

Big Ben has a plumber's bod and it is no surprise he's been thinking about throwing in the wrench.

 

[miloofcroton]

not really. overall his deep ball is average to above average.

also, dont forget that arm strength is something he worked on for a while to get good at. 01-06 his arm strength and long ball were legitimate criticisms of Brady. All the credit to him to working his ass off to improve weaknesses, and there's no saying Cousins cant do the same.

In fact, I'd argue he has with how different he looks today as a passer vs 2 years ago behind RG3

I can go with that, to an extent. It's easy to cherrypick Brady in '07. That being said, Tom Brady is a former baseball player that could have been an MLB catcher, often overlooked due to lack of muscle and athleticism, but he's always had an arm. I really do think it's always been good. However, what he has changed are his mechanics, bit by bit, and this could have lead to higher success rates on deep balls later in his career.

I don't know that a guy like Cousins should be expected to duplicate those results. I think arms are generally what they are, basing that off of the lack of arm strength improvements in MLB pitchers (granted, after a reasonable cutoff age such as 23-25). He might get more accurate or get a few extra yards out of his noodle, but I think it is what it is.

 

[XLIX]

This is very fair. Nonetheless, Cousins has put up some impressive numbers and one does wonder what he would do with better talent around him. So yeah, a complete evaluation cannot be made. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for any evaluation.

This s similar to how I feel. The man put up 9,000 yards with 54/23 TD/INT in his first 2 years as a starter playing for a complete cluster**** of an organization.

If you're that good in Washington, he'd be a helluva QB in the right system.

 

[BlacknGold77]

This s similar to how I feel. The man put up 9,000 yards with 54/23 TD/INT in his first 2 years as a starter playing for a complete cluster**** of an organization.

If you're that good in Washington, he'd be a helluva QB in the right system.

Plus another 9 TD on the ground. And dragged them to an NFC East crown

 

[Tony2046]

In all fairness, Goff had about as bad of a situation as you could get. Footwork looked pretty good, seemed to make pretty quick decisions. Kinda liked him more than Wentz. Rams probably will ruin him though.

Actually that's one of the side stories I'll be watching for this season after watching the Rams "all or nothing" episodes. New HC and coaching staff with a more analytical mentality might be a good thing for Goff. We'll see I guess.

 

[bbobbo]

This s similar to how I feel. The man put up 9,000 yards with 54/23 TD/INT in his first 2 years as a starter playing for a complete cluster**** of an organization.

Plus another 9 TD on the ground. And dragged them to an NFC East crown

 

[PatriotsReign]

Because many people are flippant about blatantly racist sports teams' names. And, for some reason, many feel the need to fight as much as they need to in order to keep those names.

FACT: The Washington Redskins are not a racist team

The Fighting Irish

 

[Simpelton]

Seems crazy to call a team "racist" when they draw their strength and identity from the warriors that fought such a long hard rearguard action against white encroachment all those centuries.

When people name a sports franchise they usually pick a name that has positive connotations to them, either something that's strong, tough, resilient, inspring, or cool. It's saying "this thing is what our sports team would like to capture the spirit of." Being inspired by Native American warriors who fought to the death to keep their land is not racist.

Frankly if there was ever any actual racism in the naming of the Washington Redskins it was born not out of hatred but out of grudging respect.

 

[XLIX]

Seems crazy to call a team "racist" when they draw their strength and identity from the warriors that fought such a long hard rearguard action against white encroachment all those centuries.

The people who call it racist are nothing but pompous, sanctimonious blowhards.

Notice how they engage in their self-righteous virtue-signaling by drawing attention to the fact that they don't use the term "Redskins." For example, the post which started this whole sidebar states:

(A) "The Washington football team shouldn't pay Cousins more than around $15 million..."

Compare the above statement to an alternative:

(B) "Washington shouldn't pay Cousins more than around $15 million..."

Statements (A) and (B) provide the exact same message, and neither one uses the (so-called) "racist" term.... but statement (A) sanctimoniously announces to the world "look at me! look at me everyone!! look at how moral and virtuous I am!!!"

 

[chasa]

Frankly if there was ever any actual racism in the naming of the Washington Redskins it was born not out of hatred but out of grudging respect.

I know personally whenever I respect someone, I use disparaging terms directed towards them, you know as a sign of respect.

Simply put, When the redskins were renamed in the mid 1930's it was during a time where the only race that mattered, was us white folks. Originally they were the Braves which imo is a more respectful name, but some asshat decided to change it to redskins, and I'm sure it was a respect thing, because redskin wasn't a derogatory slang for native america in the 1800's and early 1900's or anything(spoiler warning it was, and still is)

The world has evolved a lot since the mid 1930's and the redskin name should evolve with it, want to keep that tie to the native american heritage? Be my guest. but at least have some ****ing class about it.

Redskin has never been a term used as endearment or respect. it's always been a racial term that represents Native American's as savages. Don't think that's true? maybe do some research.

I'm looking forward to seeing the raiders be renamed the Las Vegas Gringos, or maybe the Vegas Squinty eyes, or the Las Vegas Blacks and have the logo be one of those really racist blackface dolls from the early 1900's.... you know, out of respect.

 

[BlacknGold77]

I know personally whenever I respect someone, I use disparaging terms directed towards them, you know as a sign of respect.

Simply put, When the redskins were renamed in the mid 1930's it was during a time where the only race that mattered, was us white folks. Originally they were the Braves which imo is a more respectful name, but some asshat decided to change it to redskins, and I'm sure it was a respect thing, because redskin wasn't a derogatory slang for native america in the 1800's and early 1900's or anything(spoiler warning it was, and still is)

The world has evolved a lot since the mid 1930's and the redskin name should evolve with it, want to keep that tie to the native american heritage? Be my guest. but at least have some ****ing class about it.

Redskin has never been a term used as endearment or respect. it's always been a racial term that represents Native American's as savages. Don't think that's true? maybe do some research.

I'm looking forward to seeing the raiders be renamed the Las Vegas Gringos, or maybe the Vegas Squinty eyes, or the Las Vegas Blacks and have the logo be one of those really racist blackface dolls from the early 1900's.... you know, out of respect.

you first.

Are You Ready For Some Controversy? The History Of 'Redskin'

Many dictionaries and history books say the term came about in reference to the Beothuk tribe of what is now Newfoundland, Canada. The Beothuk were said to paint their bodies with red ochre, leading white settlers to refer to them as "red men."

According to Smithsonian historian Ives Goddard, early historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans to differentiate between the two races. Goddard found that the first use of the word "redskin" came in 1769, in negotiations between the Piankashaws and Col. John Wilkins. Throughout the 1800s, the word was frequently used by Native Americans as they negotiated with the French and later the Americans.

And where's the same outrage over the Vancouver Canucks? You realize Canuck is a derogatory term for Canadians in the same category as spic, mic, frog, chink, etc.

Oh thats right, its because they're white....

Same reason no one bats an eye at Notre Dame using the caricature of a short angry Irishman looking for a fight as being racist either

 

[chasa]

you first.

Are You Ready For Some Controversy? The History Of 'Redskin'

So did you read any of that or did you just gloss over it like most people who "read" the wells report?

"The Pioneers and other books by Cooper were largely seen as sympathetic toward Native Americans and their struggles in the 1800s. Decades later, the word "redskin" began to take on a negative, increasingly violent connotation"

"At around the same time the word "redskin" was becoming a word with negative connotations, other Native American words and images were becoming increasingly popular symbols for sports teams."

"But where did the word "redskin" come from? Many dictionaries and history books say the term came about in reference to the Beothuk tribe of what is now Newfoundland, Canada."

+

"Marshall also sought to strongly tie the team to Native American imagery, occasionally requiring Dietz to wear a Sioux headdress on the sidelines"

in Short, Rich white people, changed the name from braves, to a negative term, originally created by a tribe in Canada to describe the color of the war paint they used, which was then turned into a derogatory racial slur to be a catchall for all native Americans because of the color of their skin.

It was a gimmick in its origins, and its just plain offensive now.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Sort of like that Brady guy blew the 2 point conversion against the Broncos?

Wow, I'm absolutely amazed at what a dumb comparison this is and your lack of self awareness of it being so. Congratulations

Just so many bizzarre implications with your post, the main being that you are implying Kirk Cousins has the same track record as Tom Brady, or that failing to win a home regular season game against a team playing for nothing is the same as losing an AFC Championship game on the road the year after winning your 4th SB.

Apply yourself. You have one week to edit your post and return to me for a new grade.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow, I'm absolutely amazed at what a dumb comparison this is and your lack of self awareness of it being so. Congratulations

Just so many bizzarre implications with your post, the main being that you are implying Kirk Cousins has the same track record as Tom Brady, or that failing to win a home regular season game against a team playing for nothing is the same as losing an AFC Championship game on the road the year after winning your 4th SB.

Apply yourself. You have one week to edit your post and return to me for a new grade.

Your first post was ridiculous. This follow through is worse.

The comparison I made was an apt one. You don't make a judgment of this nature based upon one play or opportunity. If you can't grasp that, the problem lies with you.

 

[mosslost]

Who?

You were talking about the Washington football team, if you meant the NFL one they are called the REDSKINS.

 

[Simpelton]

Redskin has never been a term used as endearment or respect. it's always been a racial term that represents Native American's as savages. Don't think that's true? maybe do some research.

Did you or did you not read my words? Grudging respect is respect. Or did you really think that there was some dark conspiracy to name a football team after dirty filthy heathen savages? Would you name a team something you HATED? And would you accept your team's name becoming a thing you have an irrational hatred or fear of?

No and no and both questions, on which you seem to be basing your entire premise, are fundamentally ridiculous. It would fly in the face of the whole concept of franchise branding to suggest that Redskins was not something the franchise owners thought fans would want to support. While they were clearly blind to any racial context of the term, so were the fans they were trying to attract at the time, so while the name might be conceivably racist to someone willing to go to all the rhetorical contortions required to construe it as such, that's just as obviously not why the team branded itself Redskins in the 30's. Clearly something else is going on.

So let's go back to the fundamentals and try not to be an abject ****** this time. Why do you name a team? You tell me. What are the reasons a team gets the name its owner gives it, what is the motivation, what are they trying to suggest by branding a team to have a certain name?

What then does that say about a decision to brand a team you're trying to sell to the public "Redskins" in an effort to convince them that you're the good guys and should earn your money for seating, media attention and corporate sponsorships? Does that or does that not imply that Redskins are SUPPOSED to have either a good-guy connotation, or at least the connotation of a worthy hard-fought opponent?

If you can actually figure out a way to answer me that and tell me that the name Redskins is anything but a term of grudging respect at the very least in the context of the name you are giving your private-sector sports team, I am going to have no choice but to smack your wrist with the ruler and send you back to your desk to try the assignment again until you get it right.

 

[mosslost]

All I can say to this is, how convenient! You don't think a corrupt organization can manipulate this poll in some way? I'm extremely skeptical of its findings.

My stance on it is, if it's racist or offensive to someone, just change it. That's why I don't use the name. That's what a good moral owner would do. But as with the other 31 corrupt owners, Snyder subscribes to money above all else. Morality and human decency is low on their list of priorities. So they don't get the benefit of the doubt whether that poll is accurate or not.

The name is The REDSKINS Wheelman... learn it.. live it.. know it.. Now say it with me.. R...E...D...S...K....I...N...S

 

[Wheelman]

You were talking about the Washington football team, if you meant the NFL one they are called the REDSKINS.

The name is The REDSKINS Wheelman... learn it.. live it.. know it.. Now say it with me.. R...E...D...S...K....I...N...S

 

[VrabelJr]

Why is the team that is famous for overpaying free agents so hesitant to pay for their own QB?

 

[Simpelton]

Well, if they actually let him slip through their fingers, it's their loss and some other franchise's gain. He'd be a great fit on half a dozen franchises. Bears, Broncos, Texans, 49ers, Chiefs all represent franchises he would massively upgrade. The Broncos and Texans (possibly Chiefs as well) would massively upgrade their status as contenders if they could land him too, even if he isn't a playoff beast. Those teams are carrying mediocre quarterbacks to relevance, an actually good quarterback couldn't possibly do anything to hurt their chances.