mocha4313

2020 Bold Predictions

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BMcP said:

I don’t want to speak on anyone else’s behalf - and I’m not Native American (though I have Native friends) - but in all my years, I’ve never heard or seen anyone use the term “Redskin” in a derogatory way to refer to a Native American.  The fact that most Natives polled either consider it an honorific or aren’t bothered by it (multiple school teams on reservations have been named the “Redskins” of their own volition) leads me to believe it isn’t widely considered derogatory by the segment of the population potentially offended.

Weren’t the natives in those polls allowed to self identify?

Remembered this segment

 

Edited by hoppychokes
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that the boards are very busy these days, but this is the Bold Predictions thread. I think an in depth discussion about offensive names, race, etc. should be moved to another thread...

(Not so) Bold prediction: one of the countless double digit round “high upside” tight ends currently being touted will actually hit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hoppychokes said:

Weren’t the natives in those polls allowed to self identify?

Remembered this segment

 

I’m not sure it would even be constitutional to conduct a survey in which people were forced to provide proof of their ethnicity.  I don’t think it’s a question of “allowing” people to do anything.

 

That said, see my post above: I’m fully in favor of pro leagues’ placing restrictions on the range of team name ideas permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that you can’t use that survey to justify an ethnic group being okay with a slur, when it is so flawed in actually polling that ethnic group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hoppychokes said:

My point is that you can’t use that survey to justify an ethnic group being okay with a slur, when it is so flawed in actually polling that ethnic group.

I’m not offering any opinions about the potential flaws in survey-taking; I’m not familiar with proper surveying practice.  But I assume Annenburg has some expertise when it comes to polling people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BMcP said:

I’m not offering any opinions about the potential flaws in survey-taking; I’m not familiar with proper surveying practice.  But I assume Annenburg has some expertise when it comes to polling people.

Annenburg has stated that the survey was not representative of the Native population and wasn’t meant to be. 
 

https://ipclinicorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/naes-srbi-memo-responding-to-nunberg3_31.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hoppychokes said:

Annenburg has stated that the survey was not representative of the Native population and wasn’t meant to be. 
 

https://ipclinicorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/naes-srbi-memo-responding-to-nunberg3_31.pdf

Thanks for edifying me.  I can’t for the life of me understand why a survey would be solicited that was unrepresentative of the people intended to be surveyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, BMcP said:

Thanks for edifying me.  I can’t for the life of me understand why a survey would be solicited that was unrepresentative of the people intended to be surveyed.

Because that wasn't what they surveyed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Annenberg_Election_Survey

The NAES 2004 study was a study into campaign dynamics, and surveyed the entire population. We can only guess as to how this question popped up in that particular survey.

Q24: how do you feel about the ad just brought out by the candidate?

Q25: How about them Redskins, eh?

 

Edited by Boudewijn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

Because that wasn't what they surveyed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Annenberg_Election_Survey

The NAES 2004 study was a study into campaign dynamics, and surveyed the entire population. We can only guess as to how this question popped up in that particular survey.

Q24: how do you feel about the ad just brought out by the candidate?

Q25: How about them Redskins, eh?

 

Thanks, Boudewijn.  I’m always willing to be educated - and I’ve discovererd you are good at doing so when it comes to my own country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bold prediction:

The Bears offense will be really, really bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Bold prediction:

The Bears offense will be really, really bad.

Is that really bold? I still think Montgomery is really good. ARob is a superstar, and they have enough other pieces, but.... the offensive line is bottom five in the league, and Foles is not the savior. With a mediocre, immobile QB, and an awful O-line, I'd be surprised if the Bears offense wasn't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajs723 said:

Is that really bold? I still think Montgomery is really good. ARob is a superstar, and they have enough other pieces, but.... the offensive line is bottom five in the league, and Foles is not the savior. With a mediocre, immobile QB, and an awful O-line, I'd be surprised if the Bears offense wasn't bad.

I think he's meaning "Bold" as in, really, not-so-bold.  But the sarcasm doesn't come across on a message board.

Yes, a bold prediction would in fact be that the Bears will have a top 5 offense in the league and Nagy will finally get it together and not try to be cute.  But that would be really bold.

ARob with a real quarterback would be first round material.  The guy has had miserable QB play for his entire career.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ajs723 said:

Is that really bold? I still think Montgomery is really good. ARob is a superstar, and they have enough other pieces, but.... the offensive line is bottom five in the league, and Foles is not the savior. With a mediocre, immobile QB, and an awful O-line, I'd be surprised if the Bears offense wasn't bad.

Yeah it was sarcasm.  Apologies.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SharkSwimmer said:

Yeah it was sarcasm.  Apologies.

Doesn't ever come through to me online.  My fault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Am I the only one who sees the Bears defense regressing a bit and the offense when Foles takes over having to throw a bit more?

 

Especially when Montgomery is going for like 3 YPC on the ground

 

Not saying that throwing means they will be good--just maybe more relevant for fantasy purposes.

I really think Arob is a solid WR1 this year. Even with Trubs he has some positive TD regression

 

And I wouldn't sleep on Anthony Miller as a PPR WR3 either if the passing volume does increase

Edited by mocha4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mocha4313 said:

Am I the only one who sees the Bears defense regressing a bit and the offense when Foles takes over having to throw a bit more?

 

Especially when Montgomery is going for like 3 YPC on the ground

 

Not saying that throwing means they will be good--just maybe more relevant for fantasy purposes.

I really think Arob is a solid WR1 this year. Even with Trubs he has some positive TD regression

 

And I wouldn't sleep on Anthony Miller as a PPR WR3 either if the passing volume does increase

Maaybe. Still not buying into this offense.

On a side note, a chuckle every time someone is called a PPR WR3. There are like a hundred PPR WR3s in the league. Just can't get excited about that. What's the difference between Anthony Miller and Golden Tate. Or Danny Amendola. Or Hunter Renfrow. Or Russell Gage. Or Josh Reynolds. Or Chris Conley. Or....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Maaybe. Still not buying into this offense.

On a side note, a chuckle every time someone is called a PPR WR3. There are like a hundred PPR WR3s in the league. Just can't get excited about that. What's the difference between Anthony Miller and Golden Tate. Or Danny Amendola. Or Hunter Renfrow. Or Russell Gage. Or Josh Reynolds. Or Chris Conley. Or....

I mean like WR25-29 overall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mocha4313 said:

Am I the only one who sees the Bears defense regressing a bit and the offense when Foles takes over having to throw a bit more?

If you mean that offenses throw more when the defense is bad: last year I researched data from several seasons and didn't find any proof for this. It's certainly not something I take into account for projections, even less so before the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

If you mean that offenses throw more when the defense is bad: last year I researched data from several seasons and didn't find any proof for this. It's certainly not something I take into account for projections, even less so before the season.

I am saying the Bears as a team will be quite bad and playing from behind by midway through the 2nd quarter of a lot of their games

Maybe bad defense doesn't necessarily mean more passing but game scripts do and defenses are part of that

Edited by mocha4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mocha4313 said:

I mean like WR25-29 overall

That's certainly possible, but I think in that range, you have to think about what a player offers week to week.

I mean, if Miller plays 16 games and has one or two blow up games, he'll likely finish as a top 30 WR. 

However, in any given week, Anthony Miller is no more exciting than the guys I listed. You can expect around 4/50 with maybe a 30% chance for a TD. 

In that offense, I just can't see any scenario where he exceeds that role. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 12:20 PM, JE7HorseGod said:

Agreed.

I have no idea how Native Americans feel about their culture being co-opted for sportsball teams, but using what is clearly a derogatory slur is just wrong.

 

Washington Post clearly leans to the left, yet..........

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/05/19/poll-9-in-10-native-americans-not-offended-by-redskins-name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, this guy right here said:

Linky no worky.

I'm gonna assume it's the 2016 survey already referred to.

Here's another survey.  https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/

At the end of the day, the origin is clearly, obviously, a derogatory slur.  It's just unnecessary and will be changed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1280976482752507904

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, this guy right here said:

There's also this. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29419164/native-american-groups-ask-nfl-force-washington-redskins-change-name%3fplatform=amp

Look, even if 90% of Native Americans aren't offended, 10% are. That's over 50,000 Americans who are deeply hurt by a team using an actual racist slur as its nickname. I think that's good enough reason to drop the name. It doesn't hurt anybody to change it. Is it a monumental step forward for society? Not really. Is it a simple, obvious step to take? Yup. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...