NFL: 2018 Off-Season News and Discussion Thread
#162
I am no college athlete pundit but I am surprised with the Browns' pick at #1 overall.
I LOVE Chicago getting Smith at #8...I think that's a steal. Best LB in the draft and arguably top 3 pick overall.
#164
Originally Posted by Yumcha
I am no college athlete pundit but I am surprised with the Browns' pick at #1 overall.
I LOVE Chicago getting Smith at #8...I think that's a steal. Best LB in the draft and arguably top 3 pick overall.
#166
#168
I was at the 49ers draft party in SF, there was an echoing "noooo" when Mayfield was selected.
Also, surprise when the Bills traded up and picked Allen.
Confusion, when the Niners drafted McGlinchey. Last I saw him in a mock was in the 20s so I was scratching my head too. Our tackles are on their way out the door, but...
Yeah I was just thinking out loud. It was weird to have it just pop up out of nowhere
Also, surprise when the Bills traded up and picked Allen.
Confusion, when the Niners drafted McGlinchey. Last I saw him in a mock was in the 20s so I was scratching my head too. Our tackles are on their way out the door, but...
Yeah I was just thinking out loud. It was weird to have it just pop up out of nowhere
#169
Why does Allen who wasn't even top in his crappy conference picked ahead of Rosen? I was hoping Rosen would fall one more spot but Dolphins curse. And surprised Lamar Jackson fell to Baltimore.
#172
That trade still hurts. It was the first time I legitimately questioned Bill. We'll never know if Clev really offered a 1st rounder for him but all those rumors from Schefter still give me nightmares
#173
Because when the historical weakest link on your team is O-Line it makes perfect sense to not only trade down but go RB.
I read some analysis and I kind-of get it. They want another Marshawn type runner who runs hard between the tackles and he's got good hands which helps. But I'm of the very strong opinion that a great O-line makes mediocre RBs also great.
This is going to be a rough draft. We have so many needs and very few picks. We're going to need to find some 5th round miracles.
I read some analysis and I kind-of get it. They want another Marshawn type runner who runs hard between the tackles and he's got good hands which helps. But I'm of the very strong opinion that a great O-line makes mediocre RBs also great.
This is going to be a rough draft. We have so many needs and very few picks. We're going to need to find some 5th round miracles.
#174
I mean we're just a bunch of aholes with days jobs sitting behind a computer talking sports, but youd think a team with no o-line and an againg/depleting defense would draft in those areas lol
The following users liked this post:
97BlackAckCL (04-27-2018)
#175
Yeah, if I was that smart I'd work for a team. I trust they know what they are doing, but I think the painful truth is we have more needs than any one draft can solve. I read some local opinion pieces on the Hawks that I tend to agree with. This isn't a rebuilding year. This is the year before the rebuilding year.
#179
I still don't get Cleveland's selections...esp. when there were better-ranked players on the board yesterday.
Eh, I'm not paid the big bucks.
Besides, I'm a Bears fan. We don't know what real football looks like. Not since the Sweetness days.
Eh, I'm not paid the big bucks.
Besides, I'm a Bears fan. We don't know what real football looks like. Not since the Sweetness days.
The following users liked this post:
Whiskers (04-28-2018)
#186
Brees was a second rounder. Drafted same year as LT, probably my favorite RB for how well rounded he was and how he shit on the Raiders literally every time they played.
Patriots get a great pass protector in Brown.
Niners picked up some players I'd heard about but didn't really see on draft boards. I trust the FO though, more than half of last year's picks have contributed in a big way or exceeded expectations.
Bears had a great draft. I was hoping for Roquan but Chicago got revenge for last year's draft trade.
Packers and Ravens looked like they killed it too.
Patriots get a great pass protector in Brown.
Niners picked up some players I'd heard about but didn't really see on draft boards. I trust the FO though, more than half of last year's picks have contributed in a big way or exceeded expectations.
Bears had a great draft. I was hoping for Roquan but Chicago got revenge for last year's draft trade.
Packers and Ravens looked like they killed it too.
#187
Bears had some nice pickups on Day 2. I still would've preferred a pass rusher but getting a WR who is arguably one of the steals at that spot and an O-line player to protect Mitch are not bad picks.
The following users liked this post:
1Louder (04-28-2018)
#190
Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Topless Photo Shoots and an Uneasy Night Out
Do you think Dan Snyder is the worst owner in the NFL? If you don't yet, you should now.
Article is long, but I'll copy and paste the first part of it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/sports/redskins-cheerleaders-nfl.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur
Article is long, but I'll copy and paste the first part of it:
When the Washington Redskins took their cheerleading squad to Costa Rica in 2013 for a calendar photo shoot, the first cause for concern among the cheerleaders came when Redskins officials collected their passports upon arrival at the resort, depriving them of their official identification.
For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.
A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.
One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.
“So get back to your room and get ready,” the director told them. Several of them began to cry.
“They weren’t putting a gun to our heads, but it was mandatory for us to go,” one of the cheerleaders said. “We weren’t asked, we were told. Other girls were devastated because we knew exactly what she was doing.”
Their participation did not involve sex, the cheerleaders said, but they felt as if the arrangement amounted to “pimping us out.” What bothered them was their team director’s demand that they go as sex symbols to please male sponsors, which they did not believe should be a part of their job.
The Redskins’ weeklong trip to Costa Rica in 2013 — for which the cheerleaders were paid nothing beyond transportation costs, meals and lodging, the team said — provides a vivid illustration of how N.F.L. teams have used cheerleaders for far more than sideline dancers during games. Their treatment has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks since two former N.F.L. cheerleaders filed discrimination complaints and described a hostile work environment in which they were often dangled as sex objects for the titillation of male fans away from the games.
Interviews with dozens of current and former N.F.L. cheerleaders revealed a common perspective: They enjoyed performing at games, developing friendships with other cheerleaders and participating in charity work, which included visiting hospitals and going overseas to entertain military troops. But they were disturbed by some of the extracurricular requirements that put them in what they considered unsafe situations.
This account of the Redskins’ calendar shoot at the Occidental Grand Papagayo is based on interviews with five cheerleaders who were involved, and many details were corroborated with others who heard descriptions of the trip at the time. The cheerleaders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were required to sign confidentiality agreements when they joined the team.
“It’s just not right to send cheerleaders out with strange men when some of the girls clearly don’t want to go,” one cheerleader who was there said. “But unfortunately, I feel like it won’t change until something terrible happens, like a girl is assaulted in some way, or raped. I think teams will start paying attention to this only when it’s too late.”
Stephanie Jojokian, the longtime director and choreographer for the Redskins’ cheerleaders, disputed much of the women’s description of the Costa Rica trip. She vehemently denied that the night at the club was mandatory and said that the cheerleaders who went were not chosen by sponsors.
“I was not forcing anyone to go at all,” Ms. Jojokian said. “I’m the mama bear, and I really look out for everybody, not just the cheerleaders. It’s a big family. We respect each other and our craft. It’s such a supportive environment for these ladies.”
In a statement, the Redskins said: “The Redskins’ cheerleader program is one of the NFL’s premier teams in participation, professionalism, and community service. Each Redskin cheerleader is contractually protected to ensure a safe and constructive environment. The work our cheerleaders do in our community, visiting our troops abroad, and supporting our team on the field is something the Redskins organization and our fans take great pride in.”
A spokesman for the N.F.L. said the league office “has no role in how the clubs which have cheerleaders utilize them.” He reiterated a statement the league has issued in response to previous news reports regarding the treatment of cheerleaders: “Our office will work with our clubs in sharing best practices and employment-related processes that will support club cheerleading squads within an appropriate and supportive workplace.”
For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.
A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.
One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.
“So get back to your room and get ready,” the director told them. Several of them began to cry.
“They weren’t putting a gun to our heads, but it was mandatory for us to go,” one of the cheerleaders said. “We weren’t asked, we were told. Other girls were devastated because we knew exactly what she was doing.”
Their participation did not involve sex, the cheerleaders said, but they felt as if the arrangement amounted to “pimping us out.” What bothered them was their team director’s demand that they go as sex symbols to please male sponsors, which they did not believe should be a part of their job.
The Redskins’ weeklong trip to Costa Rica in 2013 — for which the cheerleaders were paid nothing beyond transportation costs, meals and lodging, the team said — provides a vivid illustration of how N.F.L. teams have used cheerleaders for far more than sideline dancers during games. Their treatment has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks since two former N.F.L. cheerleaders filed discrimination complaints and described a hostile work environment in which they were often dangled as sex objects for the titillation of male fans away from the games.
Interviews with dozens of current and former N.F.L. cheerleaders revealed a common perspective: They enjoyed performing at games, developing friendships with other cheerleaders and participating in charity work, which included visiting hospitals and going overseas to entertain military troops. But they were disturbed by some of the extracurricular requirements that put them in what they considered unsafe situations.
This account of the Redskins’ calendar shoot at the Occidental Grand Papagayo is based on interviews with five cheerleaders who were involved, and many details were corroborated with others who heard descriptions of the trip at the time. The cheerleaders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were required to sign confidentiality agreements when they joined the team.
“It’s just not right to send cheerleaders out with strange men when some of the girls clearly don’t want to go,” one cheerleader who was there said. “But unfortunately, I feel like it won’t change until something terrible happens, like a girl is assaulted in some way, or raped. I think teams will start paying attention to this only when it’s too late.”
Stephanie Jojokian, the longtime director and choreographer for the Redskins’ cheerleaders, disputed much of the women’s description of the Costa Rica trip. She vehemently denied that the night at the club was mandatory and said that the cheerleaders who went were not chosen by sponsors.
“I was not forcing anyone to go at all,” Ms. Jojokian said. “I’m the mama bear, and I really look out for everybody, not just the cheerleaders. It’s a big family. We respect each other and our craft. It’s such a supportive environment for these ladies.”
In a statement, the Redskins said: “The Redskins’ cheerleader program is one of the NFL’s premier teams in participation, professionalism, and community service. Each Redskin cheerleader is contractually protected to ensure a safe and constructive environment. The work our cheerleaders do in our community, visiting our troops abroad, and supporting our team on the field is something the Redskins organization and our fans take great pride in.”
A spokesman for the N.F.L. said the league office “has no role in how the clubs which have cheerleaders utilize them.” He reiterated a statement the league has issued in response to previous news reports regarding the treatment of cheerleaders: “Our office will work with our clubs in sharing best practices and employment-related processes that will support club cheerleading squads within an appropriate and supportive workplace.”
#192
So the Redskins don’t dispute it and the NFL says it’s not their problem. Great...
And a manager asking someone under them to do something unethical is just as bad as forcing them to do it. “I didn’t force them,” is just about the dumbest answer you could give.
And a manager asking someone under them to do something unethical is just as bad as forcing them to do it. “I didn’t force them,” is just about the dumbest answer you could give.
#194
What a shady and horrible thing to ask those cheerleaders to do. It's despicable the Redskins organization is trying to rationalize it, and even worse the NFL washing it's hands to it.
#199
#200
Some ESPN announcers refuse to even say the team name or call them the Washington Racial Slurs. Crazy how in the NBA, Donald Sterling is forced to sell for racist comments while Snyder has a racist team name and now this scandal.