Random NFC East draft notes: Redskins rookie film breakdowns, the Cowboys’ new “enforcer,” Giants poll result, and the Eagles’ monster WR

• Mark Bullock of Hogs Haven has been breaking down a number of the Redskins’ draft picks. Good stuff all around. Here are the 4 he has done so far:

• Good piece here by Carlos Mendez of the Star-Telegram on Terrance Williams’ leadership qualities. He was called “the enforcer” in college.

• One of the unknowns on the Giants over the last couple years has been James Brewer. People wondered how much worse Brewer could be than David Diehl, and would have been willing to give him a shot. It appears the Giants may not think very highly of Brewer after drafting Justin Pugh and clinging onto Diehl for at least one last season.

• Tommy looked at new Eagles WR Ifeanyi Momah. Momah is 6’7, 240 and runs a 4.45. Being super tall and fast doesn’t guarantee success in the NFL (ask Ramses Barden), but it will be interesting to see how Chip Kelly tries to use Momah.

• A few of my favorite draft hauls around the league (in no particular order):

  • Packers: Datone Jones was a nice value in the 1st, and then they double dipped on RBs Eddie Lacy at 61 and Jonathan Franklin at 125. The NFL has gone way overboard in devaluing RBs, and the Packers capitalized. There’s no way those players should have been available where they were.
  • 49ers: I have no clue how Quinton Patton lasted until the 4th round, but that might be the steal of the draft. On the one hand, the Niners drafted for immediate need (trading up for Eric Reid), but they also drafted like they know they’re going to be a great team for a while. Tank Carradine and Marcus Lattimore may not pay off immediately, but they could be home runs in a couple years. They filled their biggest need, but also have the long view in mind. Also really liked the Vance McDonald and Corey Lemonier picks.
  • Lions: I loved their 1st four picks, Ziggy Ansah, Darius Slay, Larry Warford, and Devin Taylor.
  • Bengals: I liked Eddie Lacy more than Giovani Bernard, but I’ll trust their scouts’ opinions over mine. He’ll be a legitimate threat in the running game, which is something they didn’t have last season. Tyler Eifert was also a great pick. Combine Eifert (6’5) with Jermaine Gresham (6’6) and AJ Green (6’4), and the Bengals are going to be a very difficult matchup for opposing defenses. I also thought Sean Porter was a really nice value in the 4th.

• With hindsight being 20/20, and having the benefit of knowing how the 2nd round played out, I wondered if you would have rather drafted Sharrif Floyd and either Kentucky OG Larry Warford or Arkansas Pine Bluff OT Terron Armstead instead of Justin Pugh and Jonathan Hankins. Warford and Armstead were both available at the Giants pick at 49. Both scenarios have an OL/DT combo. I was surprised that the results were so lopsided:

Floyd poll

• I haven’t really cared all that much about the whole “Redskins” name debate, and haven’t talked much about it here on the site, but I love when politicians chime in with terrible ideas. Back in the day, I went to Catholic grade school, and our nickname was the Hawks. Our principal, Sister Pat, wanted to change the name to the Purple Peacemakers. Coming out of the huddle after every timeout, we’d go “1-2-3 HAWKS!” I’m imagining going “1-2-3 PURPLE PEACEMAKERS!”  That would have made us the laughingstock of the Camden County basketball league… well, until we whooped them by 30. For the record, we’d still smoke you, Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Anyway, it never happened. But please God, if you truly love me, you’ll make the Redskins change their name to the extraordinarily lame “Redtails.”

Be sure to follow Blogging the bEast on Twitter and like Blogging the bEast on Facebook.

51 Comments

  1. gurthukert says:

    Cool sites…

    [...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……

  2. nOeVklpa says:

    nOeVklpa…

    Random NFC East draft notes: Redskins rookie film breakdowns, the Cowboys’ new “enforcer,” Giants poll result, and the Eagles’ monster WR – Blogging the bEast…

  3. dvd player with usb…

    I truly appreciate this post. Iˇve been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day! Thanks again…

  4. player blu ray…

    I delight in, result in I found exactly what I used to be having a look for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye…

  5. Joe D says:

    Should we change the name of Oklahoma too? Do you know the translation? It’s Red people to the Choctaw Indians. Fuck being PC, and I agree with Snyder the name stays. White people have to start putting a foot down on who or what gets offended by something

    1. Joe D says:

      that was for invic

    2. “White people have to start putting a foot down on who or what gets offended by something”

      Really? Did you think about this before you typed it? Putting a foot down, like they have been doing for centuries. Since when is it PC to not use racial slurs? I don’t want to start anything and I know this will probably get me banned or something, but you are a racist ass.

      1. Joe D says:

        I don’t care what you think, and that’s pretty much my philosophy. tired of white males having to take shit and being pressured into being politically correct.. If I were Dan Snyder, i wouldn’t change it either. At some point enough is enough.

        1. Tracer Bullet says:

          Because if there is one group familiar with the stinging lash of oppression, it’s white men.

        2. Invictus XI says:

          Wait a sec, you’re TIRED of white males having to take shit about the fact that they are giving shit to other people. Got it.

        3. Nah_Roots says:

          You’re really trying to suggest that white males got the raw deal? Really?

    3. Invictus XI says:

      So because white people took over this country and have all the power, and nobody has anything offensive to say about them since they made the rules…they’ve got to put their foot down and anybody else who disagrees be damned, eh?

      ‘Murica.

  6. If you’re going to call your football team the Purple Peacemakers, you really got to do something to offset that, like maybe have a gun as your logo.

  7. Invictus XI says:

    Also, I definitely think the name should be changed. I think if its racially offensive to a group of people living in the US, its probably not appropriate.

    But my God, Redtails is horrible. Just horrible. And I really hope they change it to that. Their annoying chant could actually rhyme! HTTT!!!!!!! HAIL TO THE TAILS!

    1. Dez Bryant's Probation Officer says:

      “Giants” is offensive to those of us over 6’6″.
      That name should be changed to the “Blueberries”.

      1. Invictus XI says:

        Strong argument except for the fact that your analogy doesn’t hold up. At all.

        I can easily retort with the “Can we call the team the Washington N—-s?”

        No. We can’t. Why not? It’s offensive to African American people, but not to the rest of the US, which happens to be a majority of non-Black people, so it’s okay, right?

        Except not.

        Because that word is used in a pejorative manner and it harkens back to a time where America did some not so nice things to a group of people.

        Enter the word “Redskins.”

        From Wiki -

        “The term was once in common use, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly . As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term’s appropriateness.[4] However, common wisdom appears to have settled on the notion that the term is a particularly egregious racial epithet that represents a bloody era in American history in which Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced removed from their lands by European settlers.”

        Hmm, that sounds frighteningly like the history behind the n-word. But since there are so few Indigenous American activists out there, there has been little resistance to the name, and considering it would cost a fortune to Snyder for re-branding the entire team, it’s been swept under the rug.

        The fact that it indeed held a derogatory notion makes it not right. The basis on the word “Giant” was not used as a generalized discriminatory term for tall people as they were “hunted, killed, and forcibly displaced.”

        But again, because people hold on so dearly to their beloved team ideal since childhood and changing the name effectively changes EVERYTHING, they use the “we really mean no offense” card. And since it’ll cost the league a pretty penny to change it as well, I doubt we’ll see anything.

        Adding to the fact that the name is offensive, there are plenty of highschool teams and what not that were once named “Redskins” that changed for that very reason.

        1. DerfDiggy says:

          Yep….what ^^ he said!

        2. Native Americans originally used the term Redskins to refer to themselves. I’m pretty sure they didn’t do this as a slight to themselves. In fact, they took pride in this moniker. Over time, the term was used by some people with bad intentions to separate or alienate Native Americans. Its all about context. The organization is named in honor of Native Americans. The context in which they use the name is to instill pride and honor in the name itself by attempting to emulate the strong, prideful, and loyal qualities of Native Americans. Yes, Native Americans were also respected for their skill in battle, which is also something the name is meant to emulate.

          Nowadays if a name can be used out of context in a negative way, the PC police are all over it. The reality is that the truth of the positive qualities of the name and the honor and pride behind it are now lost or swept under the rug. If people were educated to the meaning of the name and its good qualities, then it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Unfortunately, this is not the society we live in. We dig up any “controversy” we can seemingly find and twist and stretch it into a National story.

          Again, context is key. They organization is attempting to honor Native Americans by naming themselves after them. This fact can not be argued.

          1. Are you aware of the ugly history of the Washington football franchise? The refusal to integrate, the “fight for old dixie” in the original “Hail to the Washington football franchise”, and yes, the racist name and mascot.

    2. ggeagle21 says:

      I don’t understand how we have become so soft that we get offended and cry over everything? I have literally heard every racial slur imaginable at one time or another, and not once did it ever even Boyer me or have an effect…how the hell can people get offended over a certain arrangement of letters lol…as a society we should be locked in a Russian prison for two years lol..that will toughen us up as a people and cure this sissy being offended crap. HAve some damn self fortitude to know who you are and not give a crap what anyone else says

  8. Invictus XI says:

    I can see fans wanting Shariff Floyd, but considering what the Giants like to do, I think Larry Warford would’ve been a massive waste of a pick.

    The guy just wouldn’t have played. The Giants pick offensive linemen (at least the ones that stick around) that are:

    A) Smart. O’Hara, Petitgout, Seubert, Beatty, Diehl, Boothe, Snee are all smart players that aren’t physically dominating, but understand leverage and can recognize protections.

    B) Versatile. Almost every player on that offensive front can play at least 2 positions. Snee, Boothe, Baas can play G or C. Beatty can play LT or RT (and yes, I consider those two different positions). Diehl can play LT, RT, G (or at least he used to, can’t play it well anymore). Adam Koets was a guy who played C, G, and T.

    Warford, as reports came out, are neither of these things. He can’t play C. He can’t play T. So he’s not versatile. And as various outlets such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel say, he’s more of just really a mauler and not as smart a player as one would like.

    I could understand Terron Armstead, but I’m way lower on him than most are, I saw him as a 3rd rounder. I don’t know how smart he is, but I think he could play OG or OT, so he’s definitely versatile.

    A Shariff Floyd – Terron Armstead combination…yeah, I could probably see that (though for me, Hankins fits more of a need than Floyd does. We have Cullen Jenkins, Marvin Austin, Markus Kuhn, and Linval Joseph that can play 3 tech. Hankins is really the only true nose on the team besides Shaun Rogers). Also, Hankins and Floyd were not terribly far off for me.

    I had Pugh as a mid-2nd rounder and Hankins as a late 1st. I had Floyd as an early 1st and Warford as a mid 2nd (though not really a fit for the Giants) and Armstead as a 3rd. So it was really tough for me personally.

    I voted Pugh/Hankins because I thought they fit the scheme as well as need much better and the value was close enough to where that made them “okay”.

    1. Stan says:

      I wasn’t a huge fan of Sharif Floyd and I didn’t understand why he received so much hype. He might be a good player in the future, but when I looked at his tape he didn’t come across as the type of dominating DT that deserved to be drafted in the top 10. I thought pick #23 was an appropriate place for him to be taken.

      Talent supersedes versatility. I’d rather have a player who is great 1 position than one who is mediocre at two positions. You wouldn’t ask Jahri Evans to play LT or Joe Thomas to play RG.

      If it had been up to me, I would have taken Alec Ogeltree and Larry Warford.

      1. ggeagle21 says:

        Never understood how Cossel thought he was the best prospect in the draft

      2. Player Versatility gives teams a upper hand in the age of the salary cap.

  9. Joe D says:

    Barden may have fast timed speed, but his game speed is rather slow

  10. Scott says:

    Read an article on ESPN about the name issue. When they gave the person who was leading the group trying to change it her response was “This is a really good example of why you never put racism up to a popular vote, because racism will win every time,” she said. “It’s not up to the offending class to say what offends the offended.” So apparently 4 out of 5 Americans are racist

    1. Scott says:

      *when they gave her poll results from the public

  11. Of course the unintended consequence of a name switch to Redtails would be that every time the Hail to the Redtails (okay, I’ll admit that was fun to type) is sung, the entire stadium would not only still sing “Redskins” they would give it a powerful emphasis. Nothing like an entire stadium purposely screaming racial slurs.

    1. Greg says:

      Does redtails have anything to do with native americans? Getting rid of the whole cowboys and indians thing would be a shame, especially since these 2 teams have been around forever. Do native americans prefer any other nicknames? Consulting the thesaurus… amerinds, there we go

  12. Tracer Bullet says:

    Redtails is better than names already out there like Texans and Browns. But I hope the name never changes because I get so much joy from watching Washington fans trying to convince themselves it’s not a racial slur.

    1. Browns is the worst by far. No different than if I owned a team and called them the Kempskis.

      1. And like the Browns, the Kempskis would never win anything.

        1. DerfDiggy says:

          Eagles picked the wrong bird to be named after….Ravens….SB winners….Eagles…..never won a SB and probably never will. Might as well name em after the owner too.

          :)

          1. The Eagles won something bigger than the “Super Bowl”. For 1960, the league was looking for a better name for the championship game. The top suggestion was The “Incredibly Fantastic Bowl”. The name was given, but never caught on due to its length. The following year, they shortened it to “The Incredibowl” but that was rejected also. So the name Superbowl was tried, and was deemed acceptable as a nickname for the Championship game. So the Eagles in fact won something bigger than the “Superbowl”. The 1960 “Incredibly Fantastic Bowl”, is an NFL Championship game the Ravens and every other team in the NFL never has and never will win! E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!

            1. 0superbowls says:

              Thats Bull,but whatever makes you happy I guess.

              1. It’s true,
                Concrete Charlie led the way!

              2. MannaFromKevin says:

                So, um. I googled this. Nothing on the Internet referring to the “Incredibly Fantastic Bowl” and as for the “Incredibowl”… well, that’s just weed paraphernalia.

    2. MdM says:

      “But I hope the name never changes because I get so much joy from watching Washington fans trying to convince themselves it’s not a racial slur.”

      Classic, TB!

    3. Greg says:

      Not a redskins fan, nor a racial slur expert, but personally i’ve never heard this word used as a racial slur. Would it be racist to call a team the afros or the golden skins or the green eyes? To me it sounds more like a tribute. Especially for the team in DC to have this name seems to say something positive. If the native americans find it offensive though, then I could see making a switch, since it wouldn’t make sense to honor them with a term they hate.

      1. DerfDiggy says:

        “Not a redskins fan, nor a racial slur expert, but personally i’ve never heard this word used as a racial slur. Would it be racist to call a team the afros or the golden skins or the green eyes? To me it sounds more like a tribute.”

        This is incredibly short sighted and ignorant to history. “Redskin” IS a racist term. Read about it on this here vast web of information. Just because you’ve never heard it use doesn’t lessen that in anyway, shape, or form.

        1. ggeagle21 says:

          LOL at people who get offended by an arrangement of letters…SOFT society!!!!

          1. Invictus XI says:

            Maybe its not that the people who get offended are soft. Maybe, just maybe, it could be the fact that the people doing the offending are just assholes.

          2. Nah_Roots says:

            Yeah, man. That’s exactly what it is. Just an arrangement of letters. You totally nailed it right there. Everything’s better now.

      2. MannaFromKevin says:

        No one ever hears it used as a racial slur because white settlers killed all the Native Americans. If they were still here I’m sure you’d hear it used. Sadly, you’ll never have that chance.

    4. A fine messi says:

      It’s not a question of Washington fans trying to convince themselves that it’s not a racial slur, it’s a question of Washington fans being asked to give up something they have loved all their life and been a part of since they became sports fans. Imagine how you would react if you were told that the Eagles had to change their name to the Turkeys or the Cowboys to the Gauchos or the Giants to the Ogres.

      For me, I just don’t really understand the argument. Are black people offended by the term Blackskins? Or Caucasians being called whiteskins? And the use of a stoic American indian profile, the feathered headdresses and traditional garments, are those considered offensive also?

      On the same note, If we are arguing semantics, why isn’t the term “Indian” considered offensive? It is a term based out ignorance stemming from Columbus’s egregious mistake in thinking he had landed in the West Indies, not a new world. Even after they realized that they weren’t Indians, we STILL called them that… Almost 600 years later. What’s that statute of limitations on that? The Redskins have been the Redskins for close to 100 years.

      See? I wasn’t trying to convince myself that the name isn’t racist! Not at all! :D

      1. Brit Bill says:

        The word Indian alone could be offensive, the term considered most politically correct is Native Americans I believe. Also all words are harmless until they’re given a context which changes that. The word “Redskins” was used in the same way as other racial slurs, to demean an oppressed minority, that’s why it is different to your offerings of Blackskins and Whiteskins and those team names would also cause offence…

        The logo is not the problem (I don’t think), that has legitimate historical value and is also a pretty cool logo, if the name was Americans (the word Natives has been given connotations of it’s own which is a whole other racial can of worms) with that logo maybe the problem wouldn’t be the same, having that logo followed by an offensive name is offensive though, the same way as if someone made a nice picture of you and put an offensive word after it.

        1. brisulph says:

          Up here the PC name is now “First Nations”… even Natives is considered a colonial name.

          1. Brit Bill says:

            Ooh, that’s a cryptic name, it’s not a very common problem here in England so I’m obviously behind the times (although I realised that none of the common names used were ideal) but if that’s the case then they might as well just become the Nationals and join the Baseball Franchise!

        2. Greg says:

          What you said about the word natives goes to further demonstrate the real problem in my opinion. The problem to me seems to be that people are too concerned about every word that is chosen. As messi explained, there is a good reason not to support the word Indian because they aren’t from the Indies. At some point I think the problem is thay people are being too fussy and we don’t need a political conference to create a new nickname. Calling them the Washington Native Americans would sound stupid and nobody would want that name. Redskins is a catchy term that people are using positively when they cheer on their team.

          Maybe at one point some people somewhere used this word in a racist context, but I don’t think we need to permanently bury the word as a result. If people want to use it in a positive context nowadays then that seems fine to me and much easier than inventing new slang terms that noone actually uses.

      2. The term “Indians” comes from Columbus thinking he was in India, hence the term “West Indies”.

        1. Greg says:

          Yes, the word Indian is still used today for people from India. I didn’t actually realize Indies was something different. Thanks for pointing that out.

%d bloggers like this: