2014 Redskins Wallpaper

Here is a quick wallpaper that I created for the Redskins, as they are getting ready to start the 2014 season.  I'm hoping they take these words and apply them to their training and workouts!

Please feel free to use and share this desktop wallpaper!

Click the image to enlarge and save

Name change argument continues

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the Washington Redskins' trademark registration.  Now this is not a major, game changing event, since it has happened before, and the Redskins were able to appeal the decision and get the trademark back, which is most likely what they are going to do this time.  What it did do, however, was to add more fuel to the fire regarding the changing of the name.  I had previously made a post about this, but it appears that I have to make another one.

Ever since the news of the trademark hit, I have been talking with my friends about this, and we have gone through and argued a lot of the points both for and against a name change.  I have been, and continue to be, firmly against a name change.  I say that not only because I am a fan of the Washington Redskins, but also because of what may result if the team was forced to change the name because of how some feel about the name.  In order to present my argument, I will go through several points and try to explain my position :

First, and the major point that has to be realized.  The NFL is a private business.  The Washington Redskins are a privately owned part of that private business.  What does that mean?  It means they can name their team whatever the hell they want.  They can call it the Washington N-words.  There is nothing anyone can do to stop them, legally.  If their name is offensive, or what they do is offensive, much like Sterling in the NBA, then the consumers and the players much speak out and boycott the team in order to make a change.  If people stop buying gear and stop going to games, and if players stop wanting to come to DC to play, because of the name, then Dan Snyder will change the team name in a split second.  As a business, the only thing that really matters to Snyder and the NFL is the profit.  The Redskins are one of the most profitable sports franchisees in the world.  As long as they continue to make money off of the name, they will continue to use it, unless Snyder has a change of heart, which does not appear to be the case.

Second.  Last time I checked, we lived in a Democracy.  That basically means that majority rules.  The majority of people don't have a problem with the name, which is why the Redskins are so profitable.  This majority is both Native Americans and other people.  Much like in politics, people vote to voice their opinions, but in this case, they vote with their money.  If they buy a product, then they are supporting the makers/producers and their views.  If people are offended by the team name, then they need to voice their opinions by not purchasing gear or watching games, and to persuade their family and friends to do the same.  Change will only happen if people voice their opinions and back them up, one person at a time.  Get enough people to share your views and agree with your opinion, and the change you want will happen.  That is how this country works.

Third.  Although the origins are still in dispute, according to many historians, the term redskin was NOT originally an offensive word.  There are a number of articles and posts claiming that the term redskin refers to the scalping of Native Americans.  However, many historians have disproved that statement, claiming that when the proclamation for the scalping of Native Americans was made by the English, the word redskin was not used.  The word came into play many years later, when a post referred to Native Americans as "red skins".  In fact, the term redskin was first used by Native Americans to distinguish themselves from the white man.  It was later thought of as derogatory, but the basis of it was not such.  In fact, the word "Indian" was used the same way as the word "redskin" to try and put down the Native Americans at the time, suggesting that Redskin was not a derogatory term, but that most portrayals of Native Americans were negative in general.  Which is why there are so many Native American schools and groups that call themselves Redskins, and do so with pride.  If the term is offensive, then the people being offended should be the first to stop using it.

Fourth, and probably the most sensitive topic.  Being offended by the word, or any word.  Words only have power when we give it to them. If enough people keep saying that a word is offensive, racial, hurtful, then over time it will become just that.  This includes the people using the words, and those that the words are directed to.  That is why certain words in the English language are thought of as taboo, or not intended for society, because of how people have given them power.  If people strip away the hate associated when encountering a word, over time it looses its strength and becomes just another word. If you don't let a word upset you, or get to you, or insult you, then you have not only stripped away any strength there is in the word, but also in the person using it in a hurtful manner.  Letting a word or phrase have an impact on you is giving up control over your own feelings and emotions, and handing over that control to the person(s) uttering those words.

Each person has to make their own choices in life, which include how or why they are offended.  I can not force anyone to not be offended by a word, I can only make sure that I myself am not offended and try to instill the same in my child.  If you find that you are so offended by the name of the Washington Redskins, fine, do something about it, stop buying their product and try and inform those around you, with education information.  What you should not do is try and force the government to step in and make Dan Snyder and the NFL change the name.  If that happens, if the government steps in, then it opens the door for them to do the same in any situation they feel like.

2014 Regular Season Schedule

Here is the 2014 Regular Season Schedule for the Washington Redskins, created by me.  Click to see larger size, and feel free to save and share it.

Redskins hire Jay Gruden as Head Coach

So the Washington Redskins have hired Jay Gruden as the head coach for the team for the 2014 season.  Before coming here, Jay was the OC for the Bengals.  While there, the Bengals have had a potent offense, being in the top 10 in scoring per game.  Jay's offense could and did move the ball down the field, and had plenty of deep plays, and they scored a lot.  Under Jay, the Bengals scored an average of 21.5 points per game in 2011, 24.4 ppg in 2012, and 26.9 ppg in 2013.  And each season, they moved up one spot in their division, winning it last year.  Granted, some of those number are attributed to the changes to rules for defensive players, as well as the decline in defensive strength of the other teams in their division, but the Bengals were still able to put up points and stay in games.

Those numbers look pretty good, when looking at them as a Redskins fan.  The first problem is the QB situation.  Would RG3 fit the style of offense that Jay runs?  From what has been reported, Jay wanted to get Andy Dalton instead of Collin Kaepernick, which ended up happening.  It would seem that Jay prefers to have a more traditional QB, who stands in the pocket and reads the defense and delivers the ball, and not so much a mobile, running QB.  Would he prefer to have RG3 or Kirk Cousins?  Now I'm sure the Redskins would not have hired Jay if he had said he wants to start Kirk over Robert, since they have invested their future in Robert and hopefully would not be giving up on him that quickly.  But the question will remain if Robert can learn and adapt to the style of Jay's offense.  I for one don't think there will be any problems with Robert learning the system, since he himself has said he wants to be a pocket passer and not a running QB.

Another question is how would Alfred Morris fit the system.  Morris is more of a zone-blocking type of RB, which was the system Shanahan was utilizing.  Jay's offense is more power running, and not so much zone-blocking.  Having said that, Morris is a power runner, who can break tackles and move the pile, so even though his style now might better fit a zone-blocking offense, there should be no problems with him leading a power running system.  But that brings to question the offensive line.  The current O-line, except for Trent Williams, are undersized quick linemen.  They have proven they are not able to overpower a defensive line, given how neither Robert nor Kirk had much time in the pocket against a good pass rush.  So I would think the first change would be to bring in new linemen and strengthen the O-line.  This will be the only way the Redskins can run a power running system, as well as give the QB enough time in the pocket to pass the ball.

Next down the line is the defense.  As it stands, it appears as though Jim Haslett will continue to be the Defensive Coordinator of the team.  During the season last year, most of the fans wanted him fired because of the failures of the defense.  But once Shanahan was fired, it seems as though a lot of people have either forgotten about Haslett, or are appeased enough to be ok with Haslett staying on-board.  Whatever the case, if Haslett does stay the DC, I would not be surprised if the Redskins go back to a 4-3 defense.  They do not have the proper players for a 3-4 defense, which is one of the reasons they have been aweful this past number of years.  They are not able to create enough of a pass-rush to cause the QB to make bad throws, which would turn into INT's.  The only way they have put pressure on the QB has been to blitz, which leaves the DB's shorthanded and vulnerable, unless they are damn good at covering WR's, which they are not.  So by going to a 4-3, the Redskins would be able to, in theory, bring more pressure and give the DB's a chance to make a play on bad passes.  Assuming that they have the same players, and do not make any changes, the defense would look like the following for 2014 :

Left DE - Kerrigan
Left DT - Cofield
Right DT - Bowen
Right DE - Orakpo

 

Left LB - Tapp
Middle LB - Riley JR
Right LB - Jackson

 

Left CB - Hall
FS - Meriweather
SS - Doughty
Right CB - Amerson

To me, that would be a pretty good defense.  It would put Kerrigan and Orakpo back into their natural spots they played in College, with their hands in the dirt, which would allow them to put more pressure on the QB.  The interior line would be very good at blocking the run, with Carriker and Jenkins as backups.  The three LB's are good enough at covering any receiver to be able to stay with them, and possibly make a play on the ball, and they are sure tacklers.  The CB's are both ball-hawks who are good at covering a WR and spotting the ball while in the air.  Both Safties are good tacklers, and although they aren't the best at coverage, they are able to recognize plays and not be beat on a pump fake or play-action.  That is all considering that they not only keep the players they have, but they also do not get any help from the draft or free agency.

The next problem would be the special teams.  There are no mentions of who would be heading the special teams as of now, so no telling how they will be.  However, they will have Richard Crawford back from injury, who was very good at returning punts in 2012.  I just hope that Niles Paul is not returning kicks, even if he is on the team.

The remaining question is, who is calling the shots now?  Is it Dan Snyder?  Or Bruce Allen?  I highly doubt Jay Gruden will be anything like Mike Shanahan, and want to be in total control.  So it would fall on either Bruce Allen, who is the GM, or back to Dan Snyder, the way it was before Shanahan came into town.  From the way things are looking, it appears to be Bruce Allen making the calls, since the coaching staff is now full of guys who have worked with and are friends with Allen from previous jobs.  That can be a good thing or a bad thing, only time will tell.

One thing is for sure:  No matter what happens, no matter how good or bad the Redskins are, no matter if they make great decisions or horrible decisions, if the Redskins have any Monday Night Football games, there will be plenty of talk, true or not, about how good the team is doing during the game, as well as how great the QB is performing, by the new head coach's older brother, Jon Gruden.

2014 QB Situation

So the 2013 NFL regular season has come to an end for the Washington Redskins, with them finishing in last place in the NFC East with a record of 3-13.  That is a huge disappointment, specially considering that this same team won the division in 2012.  What happened to the team is more than just a simple QB issue with the injury to Robert Griffin III from last year, but the Washington area fans being who they are, people were blaming him for how the season turned out and clamoring for the backup QB.  This is a trend that has been going on in this area for years, and I do know it happens in other fan bases as well, but it seems to be more prevalent here, simply because the Redskins had been bad for many years.  The fans always fall in love with the backup QB, no matter who is starting and who is the backup, and they believe he will be the savior of the team and the season.  The list is pretty interesting when you look at it, going all the way back to 1994 :

Starting QB	Backup QB
Robert Griffin III	Kirk Cousins
Rex Grossman	John Beck
Donovan McNabb	Rex Grossman
Jason Campbell	Todd Collins
Patrick Ramsey	Mark Brunell
Brad Johnson	Jeff George
Gus Frerotte	Jeff Hostetler
Heath Shuler	John Friesz

In most, if not all, of those cases, the backup QB did not turn out to be the savior the fans thought they were.  There is usually a reason a QB is backup and not the starting player, and that is because they aren't as good as the starter.  Are the exceptions to this?  Of course there are, there are exceptions to every rule, but in most cases, the backup QB is not as good as the starting QB, or else they would have started from the beginning.  The only difference this year was that the backup QB can actually play and can be a starter on some of the teams out there.

Robert spent all of the off-season rehabbing from the knee injury, and not spending time with his receivers, and it showed.  He was not good.  A lot of his passes were off target, and he made some bad choices.  He was slow in delivering the ball at times, and other times he telegraphed where he was going to throw the ball.  But was all of that on him, or was part of it on the coaching staff and the play calling?  If it was on him, then starting Kirk would have alleviated those problems.  However, if it wasn't all on him and the play calling and coaching was also at fault, then you would end up with the same results with Kirk behind the center.  So let us take a quick look at the two QB's and how they performed this year. Robert played in 13 games, and Kirk played in 5.  Following are the stats for their performances :

QB	Comp	Att	Percent	Yards	TD	INT	Fum	Sacked
Griffin	247	456	60.1%	3203	16	12	4	38
Cousins	81	155	52.3%	854	4	7	3	5

So just by looking at the numbers, it does appear that it wasn't all on Robert.  Kirk was less accurate than Robert, his TD/INT ratio was worse, and he had more fumbles lost per game.  Granted, some of that does fall on the receivers not catching the passes, but Robert had the same receivers and the same issues.  So simply putting in a QB that had experience in a pro-style offense, and was not a "gimmick" QB did not solve the problems.  On top of those stats, the scoring was a sign as well.  In the 13 games Robert started, the Redskins scored an average of 21.5 points, but in the 3 that Kirk started they only managed 18.3, and those 3 games were against the worst defenses in the league.  So the problem is most obviously elsewhere, and I believe that was the play calling.

I am well aware that Mike and Kyle Shanahan claimed that they were calling the same plays for Kirk that they did for Robert.  Now I am not an expert, nor do I have the luxury of looking at game tape and figuring out if they were in fact the same or not, but looking at the games, it sure did look to me like they were different plays being called.  For starters, Kirk seemed to do a lot more bootleg and rolling out than Robert did, which does not make sense to me, since Robert is the more athletic QB out of the two.  Also, with Robert in the game, the majority of the plays had one or two RB's as well as a WR or TE in the backfield with him.  This meant that if the play was a passing play, Robert would only have at most 2 receivers running routes, which made it a whole lot easier for defenses to cover.  Yes he would have the option to run the ball more in that formation, but with his knee and the brace on it, everyone knew he wasn't as big a threat running the ball as he was last year.  I also don't recall too many, if any, 5 WR formations when Robert was the QB.  Kirk had more targets to throw to, which forced the defenses to keep more players back to cover those receivers, which in turn meant that Kirk had more time to stand in the pocket and throw the ball.  Which was another major difference that I noticed.  The Offensive line was not able to stop a pass-rush whatsoever.  This was true for both Kirk and Robert, but Robert barely had time to step back and look downfield before a defensive player was in his face.  This was most likely due to the fact that the defensive players only had to worry about a couple of receivers running routes, and could blitz more to get to Robert.

So the lack of time in the pocket was mainly because of the poor Offensive line.  But here is where the blame falls on the coaching staff.  If you know your O-Line can't protect your QB, and believe me, EVERYONE knew that, then you get creative.  You run more bootleg plays.  You move the pocket.  You spread the defense.  Those things did not happen when Robert was in the game.  They only showed up mainly when Kirk became the starting QB.  Which again doesn't make sense to me, because if you do any of those things with Robert, not only will you give him more time to stand and look off safeties (Which was a knock on Robert, that he wouldn't do that.  But how can you when you only have one or two receivers?), but you would also give him more opportunities to run and make plays with his legs, which he was able to do, even with the brace hindering him.

Now they can say that Robert wasn't able to grasp the offense at the level that Kirk did, which is why they called different plays.  I don't believe it personally, but fine, I have no problem with that reasoning, since I'm not in the meetings and I don't know exactly what Robert can grasp and what he can't.  But then again the blame would fall on the coaching staff for not changing their style and play calling to fit their QB.  This had been an issue with this team for many years, the coaching staff would try and fit the players they have into their system, instead of working their system around the players they had.  This was true for the Shanahan regime as well, until last year.  Last year they showed that they can change their system to suit the weapons they have, and what was the result?  The Redskins went on a 7 game winning streak and won the division.  But they stopped doing that this year, and the result is another basement occupation by the Washington Redskins.

We as fans are looking forward to the 2014 season, and are hoping for a better result, since we will have a new coaching staff in town.  Hopefully with their departure, the lack of change in play calling is gone as well.  Regardless of who is coaching this team next year, and what system they will run, the chances that the team will start Kirk Cousins over Robert Griffin III are slim to none.  You do not use 3 first round picks for a QB only to not play him when he is healthy and has an offseason of workouts under his belt.  That does not mean that the Redskins should trade Coursins this offseason, because he is a good QB, and is very good at coming in as a backup for Robert.  What is so wrong with having two good QB's on your team?  So even if the team does not trade Kirk Cousins this offseason, there is not going to be a QB controversy next year, at least as far as the team itself is concerned.  The fans, on the other hand, will always be looking at the backup QB and salivating, even the the backup QB happens to be an undranfted rookie coming out of college with having played only 1 game during his college career.  It is a good thing the fans don't make the calls on who starts, well, at least those of us who don't happen to own the team.

The name game once again

I guess this is what happens when you are not winning games and are on a bye week, thus not creating much news about your team.  The Redskins' name is back in the media, and at the front page it seems.  So let us look at the name and the issues with it.

The reason some people want the name changed is because it is a racial slur.  They say that it is a demeaning term used to put down Native Americans.  Was the word "redskin" used as a derogatory term in US history?  From many accounts, yes it was.  The actual creation of the term is in question, but there is evidence that it was used as a racial slur at some point in late 1800's and early 1900's.

Should that word be used as a team's name?   This is the big question.  If the right answer is no, then the Native American high school teams that are using it should be the first to change their names and mascots. There are 62 high schools in the United States that continue to use the redskins name, three of which have a majority of Native American students.  If the Native Americans want the name changed, I believe it should start with those 3 High Schools that are using the term.  If you want to make a change in the world, you have to start within your own group/neighborhood.  But if you ask the students of those schools, their parents, or the staff, they see it as a term for pride and honor.  Not my words, their own: "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. ...'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit (Wash.) High School, where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American.

That brings us to the question of why is that word different than the N word? Many people are saying the two are the same, that if you can't call a team the N-words, then you shouldn't be able to call a team the Redskins.  This is a very sensitive area, and I will try not to offend anyone.  The two are not the same because people gave the N word the power that it has, both black and white people.  They continue to do so today, by treating it as a hateful word, by reacting to it and thinking about it in the same way it was used in the days of slavery.  Words only have power when we give it to them. If enough people keep saying that a word is offensive, racial, hurtful, then over time it will become just that.  This includes the people using the words, and those that the words are directed to.  That is why certain words in the English language are thought of as taboo, or not intended for society, because of how people have given them power.  If people strip away the hate associated when encountering a word, over time it looses its strength and becomes just another word. If you don't let a word upset you, or get to you, or insult you, then you have not only stripped away any strength there is in the word, but also in the person using it in a hurtful manner.  It is not an easy thing to do, because of the number of people involved and thier different views on things, but it isn't impossible.  The Native American students in those 3 High Schools have done just that.  They have changed how they view the term, and they have changed how it impacts their lives.  Instead of it being a degrading term, it has a powerful and positive association.

Perhaps we too can learn from those kids.  Perhaps we can look at certain words in a different light, and change how they have an impact on our lives.  Perhaps we can get to a point that the old children's rhyme that we all know becomes reality....

 "Sticks and stones may break my bones / But names will never hurt me"

Do the Washington Redskins need to make a major change?

 

So it seems that my predictions have not come true to this point.  I had the Redskins being 1-1 going into the 3rd week, and easily handing the Eagles a loss and loosing in a close game to the Packers.  In both games, as is well known, the Redskins looked bad.  The Offense could not get anything going until the second half in each game, and the Defense couldn't stop anyone and were missing tackles left and right.  Although RGIII did start the season, he does not look like the RGIII of last year, nor does Alfred Morris look as dominant as he did last year.  All those things combined have put major doubts in the minds of the fans.  The two main topics of discussion has been benching RGIII until he is back to form and starting Kirk Cousins, and the firing of Jim Haslett, the Defensive coordinator.  I don't agree with either of those two options, and I will try and explain why below.

First let us take a look at the idea of starting Cousins in place of RGIII.
To me, even thinking about this is ridiculous.  We all know that RGIII is the future of this team, not Kirk Cousins.  If the team really thought that highly of Cousins, they would not have traded a bunch of draft picks to move up and get Griffin, and would have just waited until the 4th round and picked up Cousins.  Same with all the other teams in the NFL, they would have taken Cousins much sooner.  Now could it be that Cousins is better than he was projected, yes, and in fact that is true.  But that does not mean he is better than Griffin.  As I said, Griffin is the future of the team, and if you bench him now, after starting him in week 1, not only will that interrupt his comeback, it will also mess with his head.  Many young QB's have been benched, and were not able to recover from that, having doubt in their own abilities.  You might say that RGIII would be fine, and can come back without any problems, once he is 100% both physically and mentally.  Sure, but that does not mean that Cousins will give you a better chance of winning.  Let us look at why RGIII is not successful.
Last year he was running all over the place based on the zone-read-option.  Doing this froze most, if not all, of the players who had contain on his side.  They didn't know if Griffing was going to hand the ball off or run it himself.  If they stayed in place, even for a second, then Griffin would hand the ball off to Alfred and he would hit the line hard.  If they went in for Alfred, Griffin would keep the ball and make a huge run, or simply pass it.  This year, the Eagles and the Packers gambled that Griffin won't run, so the players that had contain didn't worry about the possibility of RGIII keeping the ball himself, and crashed in on Alfred.  This makes it much harder for Alfred to find holes, since he has a guy bearing down on him from the side, so he can't cut back.  So the Redskins started passing, and didn't try the zone-read.  Again, since the Defense did not have to worry about Griffin making a run for it, they came after him hard, and the O-Line had no chance of stopping the attack.  The O-Line is designed for a zone rushing attack, which is perfect for the zone-read-option.  But they are not built for a traditional passing offense, they get beat and pushed around easily when they have to stand their ground.  Even though Griffin has not made any big runs, there is still a slight threat of him doing so.  But if the Redskins put Cousins in, that small threat is gone.  With Cousins starting, the Defense wouldn't even have to gamble, and could easily bring everything to stop the pass and stuff Alfred.  Sure Cousins can scramble, but he isn't a threat to break it and make a big run.  With Cousins in the line-up, the number of sacks and QB hits would increase greatly, as would the turnovers.  So the best option is to keep Griffin in, and let him gain confidence in his knee and in his ability to run.

Now onto the possibility of firing Jim Haslett.
Changing coaching staff during the season is never a good idea, in my opinion.  Because even if you promote within, some of the ideas and philosophy will change, and that can hurt the team more than it helps.  Granted, if the coach in question has lost total control over everything, then yes, replacing him/them would be the better option.  In this situation, I really don't think the problem is with Haslett or the Defensive schemes and play calling.  From what I have seen, the main issue is missed tackles.  It doesn't matter who the coach is, it is up to the players to make tackles on the first attempt, and not let the opponent continue to move down the field.  In the Packers game, there were over 30 missed tackles.  That is an insane number for a professional team.  If the Redskins were able to make tackles, they would have been able to get off the field, and give their Offense a better field position.  This was true in both games.  In the Eagles game, they even did a graphic on the number of yards McCoy had after the first hit.  They did it with only 3 of his runs, yet the number was about 50 yards.  Again, another staggeringly high number for a professional team.  Can Haslett do things differently to make the Defense better, sure he can.  But when you have two rookies in the secondary adding to an already suspect squad, you can't bring pressure as much as you would like, since the LB's would have to help out the secondary.  As it is, the front of the Redskins Defense is getting to the QB's, but that is not enough.  It would help if the Defense was able to intercept the ball, but before even getting to that, they need to work on the most fundamental aspect of football: tackling.

The problem with the Redskins isn't just a player or two, or a coach.  It is the whole team.  They are making mistakes that they weren't making last year.  They do not have full confidence in their own abilities and strengths.  They have doubts, on both sides of the ball.  That is something that they need to work out over time, and I know they will work it out.  Does that mean that the Redskins will go on a winning streak starting these coming weeks?  No it does not.  But it does help that they are playing against the Lions at home, and then against the Raiders, one of the worst teams in the NFL.  They should be able to use these two games to get back on track and get back to where they were last year, at least I hope they can.