StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Turns out it is all fun and games to call somebody a redskin until you are asked to do so while actual natives are present.

We didn't deserve to win the game, but the browns clowned.

Oh, and LOL at Denver. First snap, first turnover. Great, stick it to the entitled denver fans.

Only the niners could have the great luck of picking up Hyde while still having Gore.

If I ever meet Peyton Manning I'm gonna ask him how Richard Sherman's dick tastes.

Pitta's out: dislocated right hip.

Flagg wrote:If I ever meet Peyton Manning I'm gonna ask him how Richard Sherman's dick tastes.

Which is funny since Sherman couldn't get the taste of Keenan Allen's pecker out of his mouth last week. Are the western divisions turning into football's Human Centipede?

Question about E.J. Manuel: What the fuck was that?

Elfdart wrote:Pitta's out: dislocated right hip.

Yeah, muscle injury. There goes our only good young receiving option...(we got plenty of good old guys but almost no good young guys).

WTF is going on with the niners. They are the last team I'd have picked to have a losing record at this time.

EDIT: MANNING CHOKES, throws into triple coverage, intercepted.

Thanas wrote:Turns out it is all fun and games to call somebody a redskin until you are asked to do so while actual natives are present.

CBS had a weird thing going today. The announcers for the Giants game never said "Redskins" at any point during the broadcast. Similarly, some (but not all) of the various graphics for the upcoming Thursday game conspicuously referred to the team as Washington (as in "Giants vs. Washington"). At the same time, there were some graphics that referenced the Redskins by name, and the obligatory halftime analysis crew was hit or miss on calling them Redskins or Washington.

Did anyone see the Fox broadcast for Washington? Were they calling them Redskins or just Washington? Regardless, I'll be interested to see what happens on Thursday's nationwide broadcast.

A lot of announcers have come out and said that they wouldn't use it, for example Phil Simms (who had an awesome explanation why he wouldn't do so anymore).
EDIT: Can't find the clip but:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footb ... -1.1907819
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwlxihCwQvY

I'm no football expert so are the Seahawks worse this season or do other teams just have a better book on them this time around?

Thanas wrote:WTF is going on with the niners. They are the last team I'd have picked to have a losing record at this time.

EDIT: MANNING CHOKES, throws into triple coverage, intercepted.

Injuries to the Niners seconday haven't helped, but these past two weeks I'm going to law it on the refs for tilting the balance against us. These fucking "personal foul penalties" that upon review are so often found to have been within the rules are really getting grating. And the thing of it is, they aren't really open to interpretation so there should be no reason why such penalties shouldn't be able to be reviewed. When a form tackle on a QB is flagged as "unnecessary roughness" something is wrong with the system. The Cardinals got 7 fucking first downs from penalties, which would be fine if they were legit, but anyone who watched the game knows that many of them were not.

That all being said, I'm not exactly worried at this point because there is plenty of time to turn it around but quite frankly we should be 3-0 if we'd had comparable penalties called against us as were called against other teams.

That is a pretty bad excuse, we have been hit very hard with those penalties as well.

It wouldn't be the first time San Francisco started off the season with bland performances only to turn it all around and become a formidable threat midseason.

Anyway, the Seahawks-Broncos game was exciting. It was about as close as a game I was expecting.

"What a battle today against one of the best of all time. True honor to play against you Peyton." - Russell Wilson

Class act, Russell. Keep it up!

Thanas wrote:That is a pretty bad excuse, we have been hit very hard with those penalties as well.

The stats beg to differ...

In the Niners last two games, they have been hit with 16/115 and 9/107 on Penalties. The Ravens were hit with 4/35 and 5/32 respectively.

The penalty disparity is the most troubling The Bears and Cards netted 60 and 70 yards on penalties... It would be one thing if its called both ways, but its not. And when replays show them to be repeated bad calls it becomes fucking galling. These are big play penalties we've had TDs called back, giving up 7 to 1 on first downs. It's not bullshit.

Listen, there is no way you can convince me that the penalties are the reason. I saw the cards game, Boldin committing that foul was not on the refs. Nor did the refs cause the defence to let Drew Stanton of all people pass on them. Nor did they force the offence to be that bad.

Thanas wrote:Listen, there is no way you can convince me that the penalties are the reason. I saw the cards game, Boldin committing that foul was not on the refs. Nor did the refs cause the defence to let Drew Stanton of all people pass on them. Nor did they force the offence to be that bad.

Sure some of the penalties were legit, but all the free yards and first downs the Cardinals got on illegitimate penalties gave them a serious advantage. Its really neither here nor there at this point, All I'm saying is that these penalties ARE affecting the outcomes of games especially when its close. And given how clear the "illegal hit" rules are, they should be reviewable, if not automatically reviewed as turnovers are. Hell, if they occur on third/fourth down they are in effect turnovers because the defense is most likely getting the ball back if they don't occur.

Thanas, the old adage is that if you give a team enough tries they are going to score. Essentially, and the league has admitted they are bad calls, the Refs are giving the opposing teams more chances against the Niners. I've certainly noticed it. And I didn't even see the game vs Arizona.

Alferd Packer wrote:CBS had a weird thing going today. The announcers for the Giants game never said "Redskins" at any point during the broadcast.

That could most likely be explained by the fact that the Giants played the Texans on Sunday.

Similarly, some (but not all) of the various graphics for the upcoming Thursday game conspicuously referred to the team as Washington (as in "Giants vs. Washington"). At the same time, there were some graphics that referenced the Redskins by name, and the obligatory halftime analysis crew was hit or miss on calling them Redskins or Washington.

I don't know about graphics, but I know that one of the CBS studio guys during the halftime show (I think it was James Brown) referred to the team as "Washington", and it definitely caused me to take notice.

I watched the game last night, and Simms/Nantz were conspicuously calling them "Washington" or "the Washington team".

Good.

No they weren't. They both said Redskins at least a half a dozen times in the first quarter. The graphics for the game also referred to them by name. I remember because both my wife and I went "What the fuck?" the first time they dropped the R-bomb, and could only watch with dismay as they continued to use it, even if they weren't saying it every time.

Using "Redskins" less often still gets you an F.

You're right about the graphics, but I thought I was paying enough attention to notice any verbal mentions, and I didn't. Perhaps I missed some.

Alferd Packer wrote:No they weren't. They both said Redskins at least a half a dozen times in the first quarter. The graphics for the game also referred to them by name. I remember because both my wife and I went "What the fuck?" the first time they dropped the R-bomb, and could only watch with dismay as they continued to use it, even if they weren't saying it every time.

Using "Redskins" less often still gets you an F.

When did you decide that using the name "Redskins" was wrong?

Probably when it was noticed to be a racial slur and offended victims of genocide?