Most Amazing Stat of the Day
Posted: October 12th, 2009 | Filed under: Other Sports | 106 Comments »
Thanks to a couple of Brilliant Readers for this one …
The Washington Snyders this week will be playing a winless team for the SIXTH CONSECUTIVE WEEK.
That is one of the most amazing things I have ever heard in sports. And it’s absolutely legit too.
Week 1: You always play a winless team in the opening week, of course. That’s why seasons start with hope. Washington loses to Giants 23-17. Giants have twice as much total yardage, but Washington mostly keeps the Giants out the end zone (New York settles for three Lawrence Tynes field goals) and scores last to make the score look respectable. The Giants are the only team on the Redskins schedule (so far) with a non-Washington victory.
Week 2: Washington beats astonishingly bad (and still winless) St. Louis Rams 9-7. Believe it or not — and here’s ANOTHER amazing statistic for you — the seven points the Rams scored in that game is more than their season average. They have scored 34 points in five games, an average of 6.8. If they keep it up (and I’m assured by people who watch the Rams regularly that they COULD keep it up) the Rams would become the lowest scoring NFL team since the merger.
It’s amazing to think that it has been less than a decade since the Rams were the “Greatest Show On Turf.” What are they now? “The Most Godforsaken Players on Turf?”
Week 3: Washington loses to the winless Lions 19-14. The Lions, of course, were not just winless this year, but they did not win a game last year either. The Lions had to beat SOMEBODY, and Washington seemed like the right team.
Week 4: Washington beats winless Tampa Bay 16-14. It’s a strange thing … Tampa Bay has been mostly good for about a dozen years. They have had eight winning records in those 12 seasons, made the playoffs seven times, won one Super Bowl and lost in one of the more compelling NFC Championship games. In other words, it has been a long time since the Bucs have been a joke. And yet … they move so naturally and easily back into jokedom that it hardly seems like Leeman Bennett has ever been gone.
Week 5: Washington blows a 15-point lead in the second half and loses to the winless Carolina Panthers. Carolina QB Jake Delhomme throws an interception for the fourth consecutive game — he now has eight picks in four games this season. He did not throw one in the bye week … though I’m certain he threw several near-picks. I’m not entirely how you lose a 15-point lead to a Jake Delhomme team — a muffed punt certainly helps.
Week 6: Washington plays the winless Kansas City Chiefs this week, a Chiefs team that has lost 28 of their last 30 games. I wish there was a streak report on Football Reference like there is on Baseball Reference … I cannot imagine many teams in NFL history have lost 28 of 30 games.*
In fact, think about this: We know no NFL team has lost 30 games in a row. So the worst a team has been over 30 games is 1-29. That’s just not much worse than 2-28, is it?
*It occurred to me watching the Chiefs lose to the Cowboys in overtime on Sunday one reason why it’s SO HARD to go winless for a whole season or lose 28 of 30. The reason: Other teams stink too. That’s something we always used to talk about in the press boxes before NFL games. It is tempting to believe when you are covering a bad team — and I’ve had the grand fortune of covering these Chiefs and the mid-90s Bengals — that no other team could possibly be as bad. It is pretty much a weekly event before most NFL games: NFL beat writers arguing about which of their teams is worse.
Beat writer 1: BELIEVE ME, I’m telling you, the team I cover stinks.
Beat writer 2: You don’t know what stink means.
Beat writer 1: Really? Your team is going to win today by about 40 points.
Beat writer 2: The team I cover couldn’t score 40 points if the defense stayed at home.
And the truth is: There is a whole lot of mediocrity in the NFL. Yes, this is the famous “parity” that the NFL has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. This is the famous “there’s a thin line between success and failure” line that NFL coaches parrot all through the year. This sort of equality inspires the famous, “On any given Sunday,” and “That’s why they play the game,” and “Throw out the record books” quotes. And all the cliches ring of some truth.
But if you want to put it more bluntly, you could also call it the league of mostly sucky teams. The Cowboys, of course, are better than the Chiefs. But they are not good at all. And teams that are not good at all can fumble punts, can commit stupid penalties on third-down-and-204, can drop sure touchdown passes and game-ending interceptions, can overthrow wide open receivers and so on. And when they do this, the truly sucky teams can stay close and even win the game, if they can get out of their own way.
This happens ALL THE TIME in the NFL. These Chiefs are a terrible team, but they stayed close in Baltimore thanks to a blocked punt and a long interception return. They took the Cowboys to overtime thanks to Dallas’ sheer incompetence and a good two-minute drive at the end (a drive made possible when Cowboys defensive back Terrence Newman** dropped a sure interception). In the NFL, you just CANNOT HELP but get chances to win.
**Terrence Newman stands out for me because I once wrote a column about him at Kansas State … and he sent me a kind note thanking me. That’s unusual in itself, but what struck me about the note was that he signed it “Your biggest fan, Terrence Newman.” I’m guessing he signed all his thank you cards that way, which is charming in itself.
So, there you have it. The Washington Snyders* have faced five winless teams. And they have a losing record. Now, they face their sixth straight winless team this Sunday at home. It really is astounding … especially because Washington would probably have a losing record itself if the schedule was a little bit different.
*I most definitely do NOT want to go off on another nickname rant — it has been two years since I wrote why I think the Cleveland Indians should get rid of Chief Wahoo and I STILL get angry email about it. But doesn’t it seem a bit, I don’t know, odd to have what is clearly the most controversial nickname in professional sports in our nation’s capital? I mean, seriously, aren’t there about a million AWESOME potential nicknames for a team in Washington, D.C.? I mean, the New England Patriots is such a good name — you don’t think the people of Washington can come up with something that cool?
Look: I know people do not want to “cave in” into the political correctness … I understand that. I really do. I know that it does at times feel like everyone out there is way too sensitive, like people will take even the most innocuous things way too personally. It’s easy to feel like all the things that we grew up with — the things we feel comfortable with — are under constant assault. I get that. The nation’s capital has had a football team called the Redskins for more than 70 years, and our children still hold their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance.
But, I don’t know: Washington football has been adrift in a sea of lousiness for 17 years now. This seems as good a time as any to give the team a new nickname — one that actually reflects the city and the people — a new uniform and a new start. And if the new nickname happens to not insult millions of people, hey, win-win.
Loading ...
Circle me, Joe.
The Washington Meddling Owners?
The Washington Pork Barrels?
The Washington Monuments?
The Washington Algonquins? (Historically honoring a tribe that actually resided there?)
Washington had a team that reflected the city and its people. And then they renamed them the Wizards.
Circle me Haynesworth
Washington Insiders?
Beltway Bandits?
ACDC?
Washington Lobbyists?
The Undisclosed Locations?
By the way, I’m generally annoyed by the absurdity and scope of political correctness’ intrusion into otherwise mundane things… But Chief Wahoo? Come on Cleveland.
A good article would be, what possible could keep Marty out of coaching -
I’m generally annoyed by the absurdity and scope of political correctness’ intrusion into otherwise mundane things
C’mon dude. It’s the “Redskins”. I mean, it’s flagrant. It’s mockingly flagrant.
I still think the best option for Washington draws on the lone non-”Indian” aspect of the team’s traditions and history… even though it has nothing to do with DC. Call them the Warthogs. People used to dress up as pigs in drag when going to RFK, for chrissakes. Build on it. (But not in the Herm Edwards “we can build on this!” sense.)
How about the “Foggy Bottum Mountian Boys”.
Wort Runs of Futility
The following teams have managed 3 or less wins over a 30 game stretch (Post Merger):
1982-84 Oilers (2-31)
1972-74 Oilers (2-30)
2007-09 Chiefs (2-28)
1977-78 Bucaneers (2-28)
1988-90 Cowboys (3-29)
1980-83 Colts (3-27-1)
2007-09 Lions (3-27)
1970-72 Bills (3-26-1)
After decades as Redskins, it’s high time they called themselves the (N-word)s. Just imagine the merch sales. And it would be no worse of an idea than Snyder hiring Zorn.
The Gridiron Gridlocks?
[i]Washington had a team that reflected the city and its people. And then they renamed them the Wizards.[/i]
Now that is hilarious.
#2 Jay gets my vote with the Washington Monuments, that’s a great name
“Washington Zombies” would be trendy and accurate.
Wow, the Rams could have challenged the Vikings yesterday, but they somehow turned the ball over three times in the Red Zone, after missing TDs on previous plays. They moved up and down the field at will at times, then it looked like the Vikes remembered they were playing (on two of the turnovers), and made plays. I have no idea how they won that game by 28 the way the Rams played. Imgaine Steven Jackson with a real football team around him.
As for the nickname, it is patently offensive. There is no way to redeem that name as respectful of a tribe or a way of life (like some have tried with other similar nicknames). I don’t get how anyone can argue it is not offensive.
And, your rant on bad teams read like ESPN baseball writers trying to convince us the NFL isn’t so special, and MLB is better (they have a real inferiority complex about that over there in MLB land). There are plenty of terrible teams in MLB (as you’ve had to witness) or NBA also….this is not an NFL only phenomena (unfortunately).
Karma must have bit me on the behind, because after reveling in an hour of schaudenfreuderific joy hearing all the Skins fans lament their latest disaster on the local sports talk station (fittingly also owned by Danny boy) , I tore my calf muscle. Eh, it was worth it.
Good point about parity. I honestly don’t think the NFL is better off with all the mediocrity that is abounding. I actually think it’s a mistake for MLB to try to emulate the NFL model. Though I can’t remember a season where there was this huge division between really elite teams (Giants, Saints, Vikings, Colts) and really, really bad teams (Raiders, Browns, Rams, Bucs). I mean the Lions have lost all but one of their last 24 games, and they probably aren’t even one of the five worst teams in the league. That is just sad.
Alex Wolff has a terrific piece in the new SI on integrating the NFL in 1946. There’s a priceless photo of Nazi-clad DC football fans carrying signs reading “Keep Redskins White!”
“By the way, I’m generally annoyed by the absurdity and scope of political correctness’ intrusion into otherwise mundane things… But Chief Wahoo? Come on Cleveland.”
As an Irish American, I demand the removal of the whole “Fighting Irish” bull. I would say they could go back to using dogs, but that might be cruelty to animals just the same. Then that offensive “Lucky the Leprechaun” cartoon that tries to get me to eat marshmallows for breakfast has got to go. After you do those things, feel free to attack any other mascots or images you dont like.
Oh, and as far as what we should rename the team?
How about the Washingtion Bendovers?
That one works on multiple levels.
I think the Patriots played a string of 5 straight undefeated teams to open the season. Bills in Week 1, then the 1-0 Jets, the 2-0 Falcons, the 3-0 Ravens and then the 4-0 Broncos. The anti-Washington schedule.
I don’t think the photo in Wolff’s piece is meant to depict “skins fans” as much as it was the American Nazi Party sensing an opportunity for some publicity/controversy.
I think they mostly came to the stadium to deliver some freshly laundered sheets to George Preston Marshall, owner at the time.
They should take the name of the team from Go, go Charlie Moe (the sixties book). I think they were the Lindens. Which is a tree.
Did the Boston teams perform in any sporting events yesterday? Last thing I remember was watching the Bruins win on Saturday night by storming back with 3 tying goals in the third period to force overtime. Then I woke up this morning to go to work….
especially because Washington would probably have a losing record itself if the schedule was a little bit different.
They do have a losing record. I think you meant to say they would probably be winless.
I’m having a hard time getting my head around this notion that there’s a shortage of quality teams in the NFL. Team records are as zero-sum as they ever were. Maybe there’s one more undefeated team and one more winless team than you’d expect at this point in the schedule, but that’s not really significant.
Has the general quality of play declined? Hard to see how that could be — the NFL is the uppermost rung in a massive and presumably fairly efficient meritocracy.
Has coaching advanced to the point where any weakness in a team can be more relentlessly exploited? There might be something there, I suppose, if your point is to say that there are a greater number of unwatchable games. I don’t happen to think that’s true — but then I’m a longtime Falcon fan, so competence is a very new normal for me.
Circle me, racist team mascot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Illinois#Pekin_Community_High_School
“It’s amazing to think that it has been less than a decade since the Rams were the “Greatest Show On Turf.” What are they now?”
The slowest grate on turf.
Poor Stephen Jackson. He must feel like Eddie Murphy on SNL: I got here five years too late and how did I end with these no-talent clowns?
How about the “Fightin’ Whities”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites
I can picture some old-school DC fan pleading, “You can take my ‘Bullets’, but you can’t take my ‘Redskins’!”
How ’bout the Washington Football Nationals.
Of course the Washington franchise should change it’s name.
re: The Bullets.
#3: Based on 2007 data, the following cities have higher murder rates than does Washington, DC: Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, Oakland, Baltimore, Atlanta, Nashville, Minneapolis, Miami, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Stockton (CA), and Milwaukee.
This blog is about correcting statistical nonsense, not perpetuating it.
Seems weird to complain about too much “parity” in the NFL this year — aren’t we actually seeing the exact opposite? There seems to be a bigger gap than ever between the good teams and the bad.
There are still five undefeated teams. There are still four winless teams. In between, there are several pretty good teams (Bears, Bengals, Eagles, Pats, etc.) and several mostly lousy teams (Browns, Raiders, Bills, Panthers, etc.)
That’s not parity, that’s… a bell curve.
being 13th in murder makes you safe?
I always thought owning a team would be cool because you get to do what you want. of course, this isn’t true. you have to please the media, the fans, whatever. still, it seems that the owner of the wizards just asked like aq 4 year old niece to name that thing. its awful. especially with the all the nameable things in town. and, yeah, the nationals of the national league isn’t much better.
Argument against changing possibly offensive nicknames:
1. C’mon, who cares? It’s no big deal. Lighten up.
2. THE NAME MUST REMAIN THE SAME!!!!
the redskin name should probably change. that doesn’t mean it’s not natural for a person to connect sentimentally with a name that they have identified themselves with since childhood. so , sure, change it, but i can do without the harsh judgements.
go eagles
I found this fairly amazing: The Falcons scored more points in the first half yesterday than the Rams have all season.
re: the Bullets
What was Washington’s rank in the murder standings *at the time they changed the name*? (I’ll accept numbers for 1995, when Abe Pollin decided the name needed to be changed, or ‘97, when the change finally happened, or even ‘96.)
I know these murder championship rankings can change quickly, and I don’t seem to be able to find the historical numbers. Anybody?
I’d go with the Washington Pigskins…they could still call them The ‘Skins, all that warthog stuff would make sense and I dunno, something about pork and Washington that seems to go together.
Look: I know people do not want to “cave in” into the political correctness … I understand that. I really do. I know that it does at times feel like everyone out there is way too sensitive, like people will take even the most innocuous things way too personally. It’s easy to feel like all the things that we grew up with — the things we feel comfortable with — are under constant assault. I get that.
This sounds a lot like part of Allen Iverson’s practice rant, which, thanks to Joe, pops into my head every time I ask a kid to practice at home. That happens every day, since I’m band director. Totally off-topic, but I just wanted to point that out.
The Camp David Cowards?
As always Joe, an enjoyable read.
It seems reasonable to me that if a not-insignificant number of people are legitimately offended by a business, then the business should seriously consider changing what that is. I’m not sure what a significant number would be, but I certainly think 20-25% of the population is more than enough. While some like to try to point out the absurdity of these opinions by trying to apply the argument to less offensive things (like the “Fighting Irish”), they usually miss the point that the depiction of their symbol is not done in as-offensive of a manner. If the Irish were constantly portrayed as lazy drunks whenever anyone referred to Notre Dame, then I suspect some of Irish descent would take offense. In my opinion, the Chiefs and Braves do not portray their mascots in any kind of offensive manner (at least since the Braves got rid of “Chief Nok-a-homa”), and so they get much less grief than the Indians and Redskins.
Reading this also reminds why I quit frequenting politics boards.
The “Washington Deficits” would be appropriate on a number of levels.
I wasn’t living here then (I think), but I think Abe Pollin, regardless of where DC ranked on the murder lists, didn’t feel like celebrating bullets. For that, he deserves respect.
I have resided in New Mexico for most of the past 28 years. We have maybe a higher percentage of Native American Indians in this state as maybe any other state in the union (other than Alaska?). And, yes, I realize that the name ‘REDSKINS’ is offensive to millions. I get that, political correctness or not…. However, I always find it somewhat ironic that I quite often see Washington Redskins souvenir shirts, caps and jerseys being worn by that same population group (especially back when they were an annual Super Bowl contender). I would say that after the Cowboys, Broncos and Steelers, the Redskins logo and colors are or once were the fourth best selling NFL team in this area.
I’m certain that the leaders of our Indian groups, pueblos etc. speak ill of the NFL’s Washington, DC franchise on a regular basis (I have seen numerous local newspaper columns, editorials on the subject) but many of the regular everyday Native Americans probably love the fact that they have an NFL team of their own – albeit 2,000 miles away.
Cleveland’s Chief Wahoo is an offensive looking cuss but I think that city would feel almost naked without the use of that logo. As a one-time NE Ohio resident, I can remember the lead-ins to the Indians games on television in the early ’60s where the Chief (in cartoon form) is waving three or four huge bats as he walks to the plate and then smacks each and every pitch 500 feet as the voiceover is promoting Carling Black Label Beer (“Hey Mabel, how about another Black Label?!”) or maybe Lucky Strike cigarettes. We’ll never see those days again!
The Washington Warshingtons.
That way, I could, in good conscience, argue that my mom is properly pronouncing our nation’s capital .
Well, since there’s already a team that always loses – and have the nickname Washington Generals – I guess that option’s out.
I suppose you could go with the always-popular alliterative nickname and call them the “Washington Watergates,” thereby capturing some historical points, too. However, Watergate involved neither water nor a gate, so the whole thing seems rather non-sequitur to me.
Just fold the franchise. That’ll work.
I agree the Washington Redskins have to change their name. It’s galling that they still use this after all these years. I propose Capital City Redskins.
The simple solution is to change the logo to a potato. A red skinned potato. You don’t have to change the nickname, and all racial connotations are removed. Don’t even have to change the team colors. Win-win.
There is only one logical name for the team formerly known as the Washington Redskins…
From here on out they shall be called:
THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The perfect name for a football team from D.C. no?
What would happen if your child used “Redskins” in a high school term paper to describe Indians (or Native Americans)? He or she would probably be suspended or sent to counseling. If a 15 year old can’t use the word in school, it shouldn’t be a team nickname.
Is it just me or is practically every 1pm game on Sunday an unwatchable game?
Mark Daniel #47: Great Idea…’Capitol City Redskins’ – That’s solves that problem!
There’s no death penalty in DC.
“While some like to try to point out the absurdity of these opinions by trying to apply the argument to less offensive things (like the “Fighting Irish”), they usually miss the point that the depiction of their symbol is not done in as-offensive of a manner.”
Not “as-offensive”? Says who?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the idea behind something being offensive is that it plays on a negative stereotype. From the simple use of a leprechaun to begin with (since the team is called the Irish, not mischievous fairies) to the caricature construction, to the activity depicted – the ND name and mascot can be taken just as, if not even more, offensive as Chief Wahoo. Maybe more people do not realize this, or express it, but that makes it no less true.
Or think of it this way. What if I named a franchise the “Liverpool Lazy Americans” and used this guy as my mascot
http://clearlychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thesecolorsdontrun.jpg
How about the Ecuador Eccentric Africans and used this
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh304/fewf34/BOB2.jpg
Or how about the Finland Fanatical Arabs and used this
http://www.playarta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/dan_cartoon.jpg
Think anyone would mind? Yes, of course, because people would recognize those things as offensive; right? But what if someone (or a group of someones) didnt recognize one of those things as being offensive? Does that mean it then isnt offensive? Does it somehow mean it isnt as offensive? Or, does it just mean they are not in tune with those sensitivities?
If you are to stand up for the removal of negative stereotypical images, you cant pick and choose – you have to take up the fight completely. You claim it to be one of those “less offensive things” – but offensive is offensive just the same. And who are you or anyone else to say what some people should be offended by and which ones other people should just learn to live with? Do you actually know how many people would find each specific depiction offensive? What if a higher head count of Irish people found the Leprechaun offensive then Native Americans and the Washington Football teams name? How would that play into what you find proper and improper, or truly offensive versus “less offensive” as you put it?
Jon Gruden anyone?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/Sources_-Gruden-atop-Snyder_s-wish-list-8371348-64019622.html
JoeyO, you had me laughing out loud at the first one. If the Liverpool football team changed their name to the Liverpool Lazy Americans and used that logo, I’d be their biggest fan.
[...] the great Joe Posnanski pointed out this morning on his blog, when the Redskins host the 0-5 Kansas City Chiefs this Sunday, it will mark the team’s sixth [...]
[...] the great Joe Posnanski pointed out this morning on his blog, when the Redskins host the 0-5 Kansas City Chiefs this Sunday, it will mark the team’s sixth [...]
“Washington Earmarks” for the win.
@38: the Pigskins…kind of like it but has PETA arrived at your house yet?
Washington has a good football team name: DC United.
The DanCeratos and VinSnyders have killed the throwball team!
All Hail Jaime Moreno!
How dare these American pro sports franchises (and Universities) poke fun at stereo-typical images of beautiful, hard-working people from all around the globe and get away with it while making millions of dollars selling those images on shirts, caps, mugs, jerseys, etc. I am outraged…
We need to picket the offices of the Pittsburgh Pirates!
The Somali Volunteer Navy
Joe, you are too awesome a writer to get sucked into the PC “Redskins” stuff… Chiefs, Seminoles, etc… I don’t think anyone REALLY cares, and my kids are 1/8 Native American…
Agreed, I guess. But they also lost to the Rams last year, and some other big time cupcakes, but beat Arizona, New Orleans, and swept Philly. So what’s your point? That they lose some they shouldn’t? Apparently it works the other way too, you just aren’t giving them a chance to do it.
[...] the great Joe Posnanski pointed out this morning on his blog, when the Redskins host the 0-5 Kansas City Chiefs this Sunday, it will mark the team’s sixth [...]
Josh @52
I think you’re missing the level of subtlety in Lucas @49’s excellent suggestion.
[...] the great Joe Posnanski pointed out this morning on his blog, when the Redskins host the 0-5 Kansas City Chiefs this Sunday, it will mark the team’s sixth [...]
“The Giants are the only team on the Redskins schedule (so far) with a non-Washington victory.”
Congratulations, Kroger. You’re at the top of the Delta pledge class.
I was going to suggest the DC Traffic, but @49 has made other suggestions unnecessary.
I had some half-baked idea of the team using rotating names of dead presidents depending on if they’re good (e.g., Washington Lincolns) or crap (e.g., Washington Johnsons)…
but @49 wins. In a landslide. That’s a Roosevelt-level idea, and mine was a Harding.
[...] 8% – Philadelphia, PA 7% – New York, NY 6% – Los Angeles, CA Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Most Amazing Stat of the Day 12 hours ago Then I woke up this morning to go to work…. 25: John N. said at 10:46 am on [...]
The Redskins name is a holdover from their Boston days when I think they played at Braves Field.
I kind of like the Snyders. Or maybe the Baughs.
The Washington Pigskins.
Still let’s them be the “Skins”…
…is well-suited for football…
…and even evocative of the Hogs.
the patriots have faced only undefeated teams.
The Washington Corruption.
Singular, it’s a concept.
“Here comes the Corruption!”
“The Corruption have a great scheme working here.”
I can not fully describe to you all how terrible the Rams are if you don’t watch them regularly. I really think they are going to go 0-16. The Martz/Shaw/Zygmunt/Frontiere years were a hideous time in which every area of the team other than the offensive skill positions was seemingly ignored, and then Linehan was brought in clearly w/o any clue of what he was doing. What you are seeing now is simply the logical outgrowth of thoroughly clueless management. Spagnuolo was, in my opinion, a great hire, but aside from Steven Jackson, Jason Smith, and the two young defensive guys (Long and Carriker) I’m really not sure who the legitimately talented players are on the team. It’s an abomination… I mean, they really haven’t been close to winning ANY of their games (vs. the Redskins aside). What an awful, awful, awful team.
Just a few:
- Capital City Carpetbaggers
- Washington Logrollers
- Washington Gerrymanderers (imagine that fitting on a jersey)
And last but not least…
- Washington Whistleblowers
Washington O’Bama’s ( he will bail us out)
Washington Recovery
Washington Checkbooks
Washington Handouts
Washington Scabs
Washington Pessimists
Washington Failures
Hopefully the team led by the Snyd will be inept enough to let the Chiefs get off the shneid!
Don’t if anyone mentioned it yet, but on the flipside of the redskins all winless schedule, this week will be the first week that the Patriots play a team than isn’t undefeated. Meaning up till now they have played only undefeated teams.
That was a cool Terence Newman anecdote. He always seemed like a really good guy from his time at K-State, so it’s nice to get some confirmation of that. It’s a shame he has to play for Jerry Jones. Small correction, though: His name only has one r.
The Washington Filibusters. Go ‘Busters, Go!
It’s genius, I tell ya.
It’s funny, you have some NFL players and the head of the NFLPA coming out against Rush Limbaugh’s bid for ownership of an NFL team because he’s apparently a racist, yet not a single player has a problem playing for the team called the Redskins.
Hypocrisy, idiocy or a nice mix of both?
I like the idea of the Washington Lobbyists as they are a bunch of rich guys who keep the public from getting what they want: health care reform/a winning football team!
I think it was on the 4th of July and on the anniversary of 9/11, MLB teams all wore their stars and stripes hats. For example, the Royals hats had the normal KC logo, but instead of it being solid white, it was filled in with the stars and stripes of the American flag.
The Royals must have been playing Cleveland, and I thought it was funny that the Indians used a hat with the letter “C” with the stars and stripes filled in. I guess even they realized that a Chief Wahoo covered in the American flag just wasn’t appropriate.
While the name “redskins” may be offensive, why would you name your team that way? Typically you name a team after something that is a source of pride or that conveys strength. This is why there aren’t a lot of teams named the “butterflies” or “meadowlarks”.
That said, I think they should re-name the Redskins to the Bureaucrats, or just “the ‘crats”.
According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center in a survey they conducted in 2004, only 9% of Native Americans polled considered the “Redskins” team name to be offensive. The ones who considered it offensive tended to skew to younger, college educated and even then it was only slightly higher than the rest. Sport Illustrated had a poll in 2002 which stated that 75% of Native Americans thought it was acceptable. So contrary to Joe’s assertion, I wonder if “millions” really are offended.
That being said, I like the “Lollygaggers.”
Wow, I can’t believe the Chinks lasted until ‘83. That kinda outdoes the Savannah Savages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_High_School_%28Missouri%29). Though, the Savages endure today.
The Washington Allies. It would honor all branches of the military, a group of men and women (not just in the USA but around the world) who sacrificed so much to defeat the ultimate evil.
During a similar controversy a few years ago, I noticed two illuminating joke banners in the office of an anthropology professor which put it all in the right perspective: NEW YORK NEGROES and KANSAS CITY JEWS. Stand back about ten paces and think about it….
As far as I’m concerned, we exterminated the Indians; we can do what we like. To the victors go the spoils, yes?
“Washington had a team that reflected the city and its people. And then they renamed them the Wizards.”
All black people are gun-toting killers.
Why don’t you take a hike Mark and take your infantile racist dribble with you?
hey, just echoing Drew and Patton91.
Doyle,
The Pekin thing is hilarious (in the way where I mock the people who do the racist thing, not where I laugh at the racism) because I know about Pekin. It’s a small suburb outside of Peoria, filled with the redneckiest of rednecks you’ll ever see. My girlfriend student-taught there and has some amazing stories about the things those kids would say. I’ve been right in that area filming professional wrestling shows. Yes, pro wrestling + Pekin area = winners.
I’m not surprised by the nickname at all.
How about just a little tweak to the nickname to reflect how the politicians have been doing for the last few years. How about the Washington Red Faces.
Despite all the jokes, Washington presents a real challenge when it comes to serious nicknames. It’s a small geographical area that is intensely urbanized. Few people equate the capitol with wildlife, so there aren’t many good fierce animals. There’s not much culture outside of politics. Mostly people simply think of it being the capitol. There’s so little inspiration generated from the city that they’ve already named two teams the Capitals. Take a look at the names of the sports teams in the D.C. area:
Senators
Nationals
Capitals
Redskins
Wizards
Freedom
Kastles
Mystics
Bayhawks
College:
Eagles
Colonials
Hoyas
Bison
Patriots
Terrapins
Mountaineers
Your main themes are boring jingoistic names (Caps, Nats, ect.), a couple animals, and some amazingly dorky names (Mystics, Kastles, ect.). And one very racist nickname.
Wahoo is in Nebraska. Sam Crawford came from there. It is, I believe, the county seat and it sports a very nice local museum, much of which is devoted to Sam Crawford and the other local major league ballplayer, Bob Cerv, who was actually born in Weston, a nearby community which is part of greater metropolitan Wahoo. When I was last there I purchased a spiffy t-shirt proclaiming Wahoo–the only one. There was no talk at that time about renaming the town. The Cleveland ball club is reputedly called the Indians as a tribute to Louis Sockalexis who was born in Old Town, Maine. He played for the Cleveland Spiders from 1897-1899. Is it any wonder they changed the team name? The team’s record in 1899 was 20-134. The team did not play at all in 1900, but re-emerged in 1901 in the new American League, but without Sockalexis.
#53 JoeyO, the reason some nicknames and stereotypes are more offensive than others is because some groups have been oppressed by others. Irish Americans were oppressed in this country about 100 years ago, but that’s pretty much been over for a long time.
The Fightin’ Irish is a derogatory slang term for an ethnic group. And if most Irish Americans still felt oppressed in this society, there WOULD be a huge controversy over Notre Dame’s nickname, with Irish people angrily decrying it. And if that were the case, Notre Dame would probably change it.
But there isn’t a controversy, because most Irish in the US are comfortable enough to not really mind the stereotype anymore, to the point where many proudly celebrate it on St. Patty’s Day.
The Liverpool Lazy Americans would be funny. Speaking as a lazy American, I know well that I am not oppressed by Liverpudlians or other Brits in any way, so I can laugh at that.
But if England still held power over us and were using their power to abuse us, while calling us all Lazy Americans, then they named a sports team the Lazy Americans, then it wouldn’t be funny, it’d be insulting, because it’d be an example of them rubbing our noses in their abuses.
Sport team nicknames are usually intended to be a tribute, not an insult. So Redskins is really the only one that bothers me, because it’s a slang that’s intended to denigrate a group that has suffered oppression. But if they were called the Washington Warriors, most people wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, because at least it wouldn’t be using a derogatory term.
I vote for changing to the Washington Pigskins, that’s a great nickname. It’s about football and evokes the Hogs, and the fans who dressed up as hogs.
Or if they want to keep their helmet logo so badly, go with the Washington Warriors or Algonquins– those aren’t derogatory, they’re tributes.
“#53 JoeyO, the reason some nicknames and stereotypes are more offensive than others is because some groups have been oppressed by others.”
So as long as it is only derogatory against people who you have not oppressed, or have not oppressed in years, it is ok? Under this theory, it would be ok for a world-famous Canadian team to be called the “Richmond Rice Eaters” or “Calgary Camel Jockeys”? Similarly, think it would be ok for China to have a team called the “Chongqing Coons”?
Probably not, huh?
“But there isn’t a controversy, because most Irish in the US are comfortable enough to not really mind the stereotype anymore, to the point where many proudly celebrate it on St. Patty’s Day.”
Couple things on this. First, most Irish in the States are not really Irish anymore. This is especially true of those celebrating stereotypes on St. Patty’s Day. And actually, most people celebrating that holiday are not Irish at all. Or they are people making claim to an Irish heritage they know absolutely nothing about or that they are so far removed from that it hardly means anything.
Second, if you are only worried about offending certain people within the US, you have proven the insensitivity you are attempting hide in your attempt to remove icons which can be taken as offensive. Are you only attempting to show sensitivity to a select few out of guilt over past actions? Does this not show a bigger issue then the one at hand?
Third, you are assuming the Irish population (well, we will call it that for arguments sake) of the US doesnt “really mind the stereotype anymore”, but that the Native-American population is still offended by the name of the Washington Football team. This however ignores the poll Smokey Joe referenced which stated only 9% of Native Americans found it to be offensive, and there is no evidence to show how the Irish feel really about ND – for all you know it could be 30%.
In actuality, isnt it more appropriate to say that Americans of other heritages are concerned with the Redskins name under the guise of it offending a group of people, but more importantly, the internal guilt associated with it because of past actions – guilt they do not harbor over the relationship with the Irish? Only care if it causes guilt?
And more importantly… If it does stem from guilt related to the Native American people, why would these same people somehow be completely ok with the name New England Patriots? This too is a name which is likely to stir sensitivity to the Native American people. Afterall, it was the “Patriots” who won the right to destroy and steal from the Native American people; and instantly started doing so with the Battle for Ohio. Native Americans actually fought on the side of the British in the Revolutionary war. Well, for the most part – unless of course they were fed lies by those same American “Patriots”.
But let’s be honest, we arent THAT sensitive to the feelings of others, are we? I mean, if we were really concerned about racial slurs, improper mascots or otherwise politically correct images, there would have been much more change to the UNLV and Ole Miss mascots and team names; right? Instead, UNLV changed their logo a bit in the late 70s but hardly made the change they should have. And Mississippi has had difficulty in distancing themselves from their racial mascot despite claiming to have been doing so since the early 80s.
Overall, it sure seems as though the American peoples politically correct awareness extents only to what is convenient, and causes the instant internal guilt to be removed without a real effort to change being expressed. Like I said before – cant pick and choose those you fight against. Yet that is exactly what the American people have decided to do with the random and rather have-assed way they choose to go about removing offensive icons. “Offend as many as you like as long as it doesn’t make us feel too bad about ourselves” I guess is the real motto. It sure seems to be the only one being upheld.
[...] Joe Posnanski pointed out that the Redskins will be playing a team without a win for the sixth strai… and also made the following observation: Washington plays the winless Kansas City Chiefs this week, a Chiefs team that has lost 28 of their last 30 games. I wish there was a streak report on Football Reference like there is on Baseball Reference … I cannot imagine many teams in NFL history have lost 28 of 30 games. [...]
“Under this theory, it would be ok for a world-famous Canadian team to be called the “Richmond Rice Eaters” or “Calgary Camel Jockeys”? Similarly, think it would be ok for China to have a team called the “Chongqing Coons”?”
Of course not. Where in the world did you get that idea? Are you under the impression that Asians and Middle Easterners have never been discriminated against in Canada? And why would a Chinese team be named after an American racial slur? The whole suggestion makes no sense.
You really can’t see the difference between the nickname the Fighting Irish and the ethnic slurs you just brought up?
The main point is that it’s never a good idea to name a sports team after a racial epithet. Notre Dame’s nickname isn’t a slur. It’s a stereotype, but not a hurtful one, because “fighting” implies positive qualities in terms of sports.
If the team was named the Lazy Irish or the Drunken Potato Eaters, you’d better believe a lot of people would be bothered by it. And if actual Irish discrimination was more recent, then the protests would be even stronger.
Yes, some people who aren’t even Irish themselves would be bothered, not just because of “guilt,” but because they don’t want to have ethnic or racial slurs in their entertainment. It’s not necessary and it’s classless.
Guilt really has nothing to do with it. It’s about politeness and treating other people with respect, instead of going out of your way to antagonize them.
That’s why the poll isn’t even the point. Let’s say the poll is accurate, and the name really only offends 20,000 or so Native Americans. But it also offends other people, who aren’t Native American themselves but who don’t want ethnic slurs in their entertainment.
Changing a team’s nickname to something that isn’t obnoxious shouldn’t be a big deal. Lots of team who’ve been around longer than the Washington Redskins have done it, like St. John’s and Stanford. Teams that have had nicknames for over a hundred years have often changed them over time.
You want another amazing stat, Joe?
Joe Gibbs began coaching the Redskins in ‘81, and they started the season 0-5.
The next year in ‘82, they won the Superbowl.
Maybe this gives the Chiefs hope for the future (?)
“Are you under the impression that Asians and Middle Easterners have never been discriminated against in Canada?”
You stated it was about “oppression”, and the time in-between which leads to these offensive terms or images eventually being “less offensive”, as you put it. Remember, you said London hasnt recently oppressed us, so it would be ok if they want to name a team the “Lazy Americans”.
“And why would a Chinese team be named after an American racial slur?”
Why not? Maybe American investors? Maybe they think it just sounds cool? The reason behind it is not important, the fact it would be fought against IS – lack of oppression, or not.
“You really can’t see the difference between the nickname the Fighting Irish and the ethnic slurs you just brought up?”
Of course I can – but the difference is, there is no REAL difference. An ethnic slur or offensive image is always an ethnic slur or offensive image. There is no scale in which one should be deemed appropriate where the other acceptable. That is the entire point. Oh, and so you know, the nickname “Fighting” isnt the only issue on that one.
And you mention the difference between ethnic slur and stereotype image or whatever, but they all lead back to the same offensive icon towards a group of people. Which leads back to what is appropriate and what isnt. Which, anything derogatory towards a group of people should be inappropriate, regardless of the masses realizing it or not. I mean, I can shoot 25 people in front of the white house and have the entire world realize I killed them, or one person in the back woods and have only the local sheriff know my guilt. Either way, I am a murder just the same. Just because a large number of Americans do not realize other images or names are offensive, doesn’t make them any less offensive. And under the guise of “politically correct”, all such names/images would need to be fought against equally. Otherwise you are showing the very aspects that got us to this point in the first place.
So, back where we started. Want to fight against the Redskins name or Indians logo or whatever – well, you have to take up a much bigger fight then you realize. And obviously people don’t care about being politically correct enough to realize it, so it’s rather hypocritical to fight any of them at all.
You know, all my life, in all my naivete, I always thought “Fighting Irish” was the nickname of a college *football* team, and that the “Fighting” part indicated the necessary high spirits, etc., of a winning football team. (I mean, wouldn’t one *want* one’s football team to be a “fighting” football team, rather than a “pacifist” team?)
(The “Irish” part was, I naively assumed, from the fact that Notre Dame is a Roman Catholic university that was founded, I assumed, by Roman Catholic Irishmen.)
I never ever thought of “Fighting Irish” as a racial slur against real Irishmen who, according to said slur, do nothing but fight all the time. (After, I assume, according to other slurs, do nothing but drink until it’s time to fight.)
Call me naive.
they are the Redskins, yes. to me, they are the Deadskins. as for the name being offensive, give it a rest. there are so many more critical things to concern ourselves with than the overkill of PC-universe.
the Washington Stench. end of search.
You should be amazed. The probability of this happening to a team is 0.00003, so less than 1/500th of one percent. To appreciate how rare this is: with a 32 team league, you could watch football for another 500 years, and only half about a 50% chance of this happening again.