Playoff Spot: FUCKING CLINCHED

Major Tuddy

Major Tuddy

Ediot
Leftard

The Washington Commanders are going to the playoffs.

Jayden Daniels punched the franchise's ticket to the postseason for the first time since 2020 thanks to a touchdown to Zach Ertz in overtime, sealing a 30-24 win against the Atlanta Falcons.

Daniels was exceptional for the second straight game and delivered clutch moments when the Commanders needed him most. He finished the night with 354 total yards of offense to go with three passing touchdowns. He had 127 on the ground, which helped him surpass Robert Griffin III for the most rushing yards by a rookie in NFL history.

Down 17-7 at halftime, the Commanders went on back-to-back scoring drives, both of which took seven minutes of the clock. The Falcons still had a chance to win in regulation, thanks to a touchdown pass from Michael Penix Jr. to Kyle Pitts. A few minutes later, Riley Patterson was in range for a 56-yard field goal, but his kick landed short.

The Falcons never got the ball again. The Commanders won the coin toss in overtime and took the ball 70 yards on 12 plays. Daniels accounted for 69 of those yards.

The Commanders are now in control of the No. 6 seed thanks to getting their 11th win for the first time since 1991 and the Green Bay Packers losing to the Minnesota Vikings. They'll need to win against the Dallas Cowboys on the road to hold that spot heading into the postseason.
 
Ignore these uncultured swines, Tuddy (erp, no offense)

Football is a sophisticated sport

My Lions just need to beat the Vikings next week for the 1 Seed. And seeing how close shitty teams like the Seahawks and the Cardinals have been able to keep their games against the Vikings, then there is just no way for the Lions to lose.
 
fleacollerindustry said:
Ignore these uncultured swines, Tuddy (erp, no offense)

Football is a sophisticated sport

My Lions just need to beat the Vikings next week for the 1 Seed. And seeing how close shitty teams like the Seahawks and the Cardinals have been able to keep their games against the Vikings, then there is just no way for the Lions to lose.
Click to expand...
Tough talk for a team that's never been to the Super Bowl, never mind won it.

But I gotta admit...the Lions are crushing it this year. I guess that 2024-25 will go down in NFL history as the Year Of The Shitty Teams Getting Insanely Lucky.
 
Major Tuddy said:
Tough talk for a team that's never been to the Super Bowl, never mind won it.
Click to expand...
Hey that's very rude! ... That tough talk comes from the last two years of the Lions finally kicking ass and doing more than other teams have been able to. Like, they went from Zero to Hero in less time than it took for other legitimately good teams to be slightly better. If you're younger than your team's most recent Super Bowl appearance/win, then you were born into success, you didn't have to earn it like Lions (and I guess Browns and Jets) fans had to.

Also, the best part about not being in the Super Bowl is that we also technically have no Super Bowl losses. I can't say being in the Super Bowl four times only to lose ALL of them is that much better.

Major Tuddy said:
But I gotta admit...the Lions are crushing it this year. I guess that 2024-25 will go down in NFL history as the Year Of The Shitty Teams Getting Insanely Lucky.
Click to expand...
Lions being good for once isn't "insanely lucky" but actual legitimate skill. I mean, are you going to say the Commies are also a "shitty team" for getting lucky wins against the Bears and the Eagles? Of course not: the fact that they're in the postseason for the first time since 2020 was mostly skill.... riiiiight??

Anyways, one game at a time: let's beat the Niners today, then we'll see about the Vikings and then the postseason schedule.
 
Call Me Tim said:
it's Redskins. and always will be
Click to expand...
it's the COMMIES you racist fuck

Schnookums said:
next they'll go after cowboys because it promotes toxic masculinity and for good measure there will be something about white supremacy. or make the cowboy black
Click to expand...
You just explained why it would remain the Cowboys: a "cowboy" can be of any race. There is only one race that is a "redskin" just like there is only one race that is a "nigger", or one race that is a "faggot".

The only thing toxic about the Cowboys is Jerry Jones
 
fleacollerindustry said:
it's the COMMIES you racist fuck

You just explained why it would remain the Cowboys: a "cowboy" can be of any race. There is only one race that is a "redskin" just like there is only one race that is a "nigger", or one race that is a "faggot".

The only thing toxic about the Cowboys is Jerry Jones
Click to expand...

warning: spoiler is AIDS

the point is the left doesn't see people, they see check boxes. redskins were a low-hanging fruit, but activists could easily see cowboys as non-inclusive and problematic. sure, any race could be a cowboy, but that isn't how activists think. it was a predominantly white occupation in an era of white supremacy and the result of manifest destiny. cowboy also has 'boy' in it and these days words like spokesman/spokeswomen are 'offensive' to non-binaries and blah blah blah.., I feel activists at the very least renamed to Cowpersons. would this happen? already i have seen a lot so i feel nothing is safe.

i just want to see some race swapping so we got black slave owners whipping a diverse group of slaves.
 
Schnookums said:
next they'll go after cowboys because it promotes toxic masculinity and for good measure there will be something about white supremacy. or make the cowboy black
Click to expand...
lol no Jerry Jones is so fucking woke, he'd put on a miniskirt shove a football up his ass. He can't stop recruiting very awful sexually oriented DEI players. Though another team beat him to it by putting a woman on the active roster don't underestimate him putting a full blown trannie on line. He's that much of a fuck head.
 
Schnookums said:
the point is the left doesn't see people, they see check boxes. redskins were a low-hanging fruit, but activists could easily see cowboys as non-inclusive and problematic. sure, any race could be a cowboy, but that isn't how activists think. it was a predominantly white occupation in an era of white supremacy and the result of manifest destiny. cowboy also has 'boy' in it and these days words like spokesman/spokeswomen are 'offensive' to non-binaries and blah blah blah.., I feel activists at the very least renamed to Cowpersons. would this happen? already i have seen a lot so i feel nothing is safe.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with your statement, it also implies the Left gives a shit about football and/or has any capacity or financial power to wrestle any amount of control over it. Even the San Francisco 49ers are run by anyone but lefties, and they only let their social(ist) media managers do whatever they want if it encourages San Franciscians to buy a ticket to a game. And almost no one cares about Cal Berkeley or Stanford college games.

The only reason why the word "Redskins" got changed is that it started to affect ticket sales (and potentially the ability to move their stadium? I'm not sure), and at the end of the day, dolla dolla bills y'all is all that matters. If they had chose a more generic Indian term similar to "Chiefs" back in the day then they might have gotten away with keeping it in the 21st Century, seeing as terms like "(the) Chiefs" is just a title, not a known derogatory term.

1735835954648.png


For comparison, I don't see the name "Cowboys" affecting ticket sales to Jerryworld. It's a pretty generic term, even especially seeing as it's a historical one, and because the team is played by men. Arguably is already IS inclusive because it doesn't imply that the "cowboys" are only of once race or ethnicity. Now some brista in the Silicon Valley might consider it toxic masculinity, but they don't buy tickets to Cowboys games to then STOP buying, so their opinions mean jack shit.
 
fleacollerindustry said:
While I don't disagree with your statement, it also implies the Left gives a shit about football and/or has any capacity or financial power to wrestle any amount of control over it. Even the San Francisco 49ers are run by anyone but lefties, and they only let their social(ist) media managers do whatever they want if it encourages San Franciscians to buy a ticket to a game. And almost no one cares about Cal Berkeley or Stanford college games.

The only reason why the word "Redskins" got changed is that it started to affect ticket sales (and potentially the ability to move their stadium? I'm not sure), and at the end of the day, dolla dolla bills y'all is all that matters. If they had chose a more generic Indian term similar to "Chiefs" back in the day then they might have gotten away with keeping it in the 21st Century, seeing as terms like "(the) Chiefs" is just a title, not a known derogatory term.

View attachment 27249

For comparison, I don't see the name "Cowboys" affecting ticket sales to Jerryworld. It's a pretty generic term, even especially seeing as it's a historical one, and because the team is played by men. Arguably is already IS inclusive because it doesn't imply that the "cowboys" are only of once race or ethnicity. Now some brista in the Silicon Valley might consider it toxic masculinity, but they don't buy tickets to Cowboys games to then STOP buying, so their opinions mean jack shit.
Click to expand...
my only point is when dealing with activists nothing is safe.
 
fleacollerindustry said:
The only reason why the word "Redskins" got changed is that it started to affect ticket sales (and potentially the ability to move their stadium? I'm not sure),
Click to expand...
The Redskins stadiums RFK, and Jack Cooke have been sold out well before Joe Gibbs took over. Money was never the issue. Man-bunned, Simpson comic bookstore clerks don't watch football - it's a celebration of toxic masculinity. The issue was it was derogatory towards Injuns. Which is strange, the first c coach of the "Redskins" was Merican Indian (impersonator, but is still recognized as an Merican Injun) and helped picked the name.
fleacollerindustry said:
For comparison, I don't see the name "Cowboys" affecting ticket sales to Jerryworld. It's a pretty generic term, even especially seeing as it's a historical one, and because the team is played by men. Arguably is already IS inclusive because it doesn't imply that the "cowboys" are only of once race or ethnicity. Now some brista in the Silicon Valley might consider it toxic masculinity, but they don't buy tickets to Cowboys games to then STOP buying, so their opinions mean jack shit.
Click to expand...
It's not about them not buying tickets. They are trying to stop the real revenue stream to these teams they find so offensive --advertising and merchandise. Ticket sales are not what makes the NFL tens of billions of dollars a year. It's advertising and the fat loser NY Jet fan that has his entire basement adorned with team merch honoring a team that hasn't won a championship since their quarterback wore pantyhose.

Since advertising firms and the networks are all staffed by persons lacking testosterone they easily cave to some random twit that has never watched US arm-egg, never had an interest in it, and won't start watching it even if every one of his or her demands were met.

It's more about realigning the social structure than "offensive" names. Directly from Mao's playbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom