Rams to promote Cignetti to Offensive Coordinator

[Boffo97]

I don't care about your viewpoint. You are playing childish games with semantics. I am far more concerned with the very idea of slavery itself, which at its core involves the subjugation of a human against his|her will for whatever reason, including being punished for the misdeeds of others. If you want to paint pretty word pictures to try and claim technical immunity for these terms against whatever you suppose slavery or scapegoats entails, that is your prerogative. I don't like playing games with reality. Too many people have suffered throughout history over nonsense that was considered socially acceptable in some form or another. You may be surprised at what I consider to be modern day slavery and modern day whipping boys.

I'm not playing any games with semantics. I'm looking at what the word means. You're looking at one way the word can be taken and stating that it can't be taken any other way, which you pretty much outright say in post #163 of this thread. This kind of thing is important, because when you don't look at what it means, you have people (even African Americans) getting in trouble for using the word "niggardly" because it SOUNDS like something else, but has no connection to THAT word at all other than sounding kind of like it. And that's not okay. And the fault lies with those opinions.

And since now you're trying to edge towards saying that I'm saying slavery is okay, it's probably best to end this discussion. Although I will say that while I have nothing personal against you at all, I would think someone calling himself a word that can also be considered a racial slur would the absolute last person here arguing that if a word CAN be taken a certain way that it MUST be taken that way. I'm sure you have a perfectly valid non-slur explanation of why you have that nickname, and you'd be just as annoyed by someone making assumptions as to what you MUST mean by it.

Respectfully, I suggest that maybe it would be best for you to place me on ignore.

I think it's pretty damn clear that Boffo's intent was not to make light of slavery, so why go there?

I'm all for going out of your way not to offend somebody but I don't agree with going out of your way to be offended.

Thank you for the bit of common sense. Of course I regard slavery as one of, if not the, largest evils in human history. I just don't agree that etymologically unconnected terms that sound similar to things that happened during slavery must be placed on some PC "do not use" list so people don't become offended.

 

[jap]

I do not care how anyone on this planet views this. I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint. But nothing said here has a chance of changing mine. So we may as well agree to disagree and drop the discussion.

 

[dieterbrock]

I dont know where all the slavery hubbub comes from, but looking though the thread its seems it was a misconception of a conversation between Boffo and me.
I dont like the term "whipping boy" because I catagorize it with "hater" or "homer" of Bradford lover" etc...
And introducing those labels is just bad form and certainly way beneath the quality of posting that we have here at ROD.
Just my .02

 

[Boffo97]

I dont know where all the slavery hubbub comes from, but looking though the thread its seems it was a misconception of a conversation between Boffo and me.
I dont like the term "whipping boy" because I catagorize it with "hater" or "homer" of Bradford lover" etc...
And introducing those labels is just bad form and certainly way beneath the quality of posting that we have here at ROD.
Just my .02

And thus I probably had the initial misconception taking it there in the first place. My bad.

Anyway, I don't think the point of that term being introduced was to disparagingly label Cignetti but to state an opinion that Schotty took at least some unfair blame when execution was the issue, and that Cignetti probably will as well.

 

[Rmfnlt]

...but to state an opinion that Schotty took at least some unfair blame when execution was the issue, and that Cignetti probably will as well.

This is probably reality.

 

[jap]

I'm not playing any games with semantics. I'm looking at what the word means. You're looking at one way the word can be taken and stating that it can't be taken any other way, which you pretty much outright say in post #163 of this thread. This kind of thing is important, because when you don't look at what it means, you have people (even African Americans) getting in trouble for using the word "niggardly" because it SOUNDS like something else, but has no connection to THAT word at all other than sounding kind of like it. And that's not okay. And the fault lies with those opinions.

Word meanings are almost never static: they evolve. In this case, whipping boy and scapegoat are virtually synonyms now. I thought I made it perfectly clear where I was coming from with my use of whipping boy---such a person was appointed for their role, they did not volunteer and the whippings for misdeeds they were not responsible for were surely against their will. If you want to see that as a fault, that's your own choice.

And since now you're trying to edge towards saying that I'm saying slavery is okay, it's probably best to end this discussion.

You are the one assuming I am making such an insinuation against you because you seem to think you know where I am coming from. Our language is rife with expressions that denigrate certain groups or individuals that many never seem to think about, even when it is brought to their attention. The concept of a whipping boy or scapegoat unfairly bearing the blame for others is actually very harmonious with the idea of slaves unfairly bearing the workload for the conquerors/masters.

Although I will say that while I have nothing personal against you at all, I would think someone calling himself a word that can also be considered a racial slur would the absolute last person here arguing that if a word CAN be taken a certain way that it MUST be taken that way. I'm sure you have a perfectly valid non-slur explanation of why you have that nickname, and you'd be just as annoyed by someone making assumptions as to what you MUST mean by it.

Respectfully, I suggest that maybe it would be best for you to place me on ignore.

My nickname, which I have been called out for before, are my initials, nothing more. I fully understood why I have been called out for it on occasion and even anticipated I would be called out by some individuals. Yet I continue to use it nonetheless because they are, in fact, my initials---I have never had much use for imaginative name tags for discussion boards.

Nevertheless, as I stated in my last post, it is best to end this discussion since, regardless of how any of you view things, it is highly doubtful you will change my view on this topic. And I never expected to change yours---I have had too much experience in that regard.

 

[Corbin]

Ok guys late to the party... is it even worth reading the previous 9 pages?

 

[Boffo97]

Ok guys late to the party... is it even worth reading the previous 9 pages?

No.

 

[Corbin]

No.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Ok guys late to the party... is it even worth reading the previous 9 pages?

As soon as you se the term "whipping boy", stop.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

As soon as you se the term "whipping boy", stop.

I take the blame, I used the term first. As soon as this guy makes some questionable play calls, people are going to start hurling abuses at our new offensive coordinator, so that's the point I was making.

 

[Boffo97]

I take the blame, I used the term first. As soon as this guy makes some questionable play calls, people are going to start hurling abuses at our new offensive coordinator, so that's the point I was making.

NO! You can't take the blame! I already took the blame! BOARD WAR!!!!!!!!

This epic battle will continue until... ooh, shiny...

 

[dieterbrock]

And thus I probably had the initial misconception taking it there in the first place. My bad.

Anyway, I don't think the point of that term being introduced was to disparagingly label Cignetti but to state an opinion that Schotty took at least some unfair blame when execution was the issue, and that Cignetti probably will as well.

I'm with you, but I do believe that Shotty had areas of weakness that were fair to discuss as I feel posters have a right to be discouraged with the hire of Cignetti without earning a label of "whipping boy".

 

[MauiRam]

I'll wait until it's official

Cignetti named Rams' offensive coordinator (Post -Dispatch)

By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_d741b709-35cc-5470-9f1c-0367538e44e2.html

For three years as Rams quarterbacks coach Frank Cignetti has operated quietly behind the scenes, working with no less than four starting QBs over the past two seasons. Cignetti’s days of relative anonymity are over.

Coach Jeff Fisher has decided to hire Cignetti as his new offensive coordinator, according to team sources. The formal announcement is expected next week. Cignetti, 49, replaces Brian Schottenheimer, who took the same position with the University of Georgia shortly after the conclusion of the 2014 season.

Just a week ago, it looked like Fisher was leaning toward tight ends coach Rob Boras as his next offensive coordinator, but with Cignetti sharing some of the OC responsibility possibly as passing game coordinator. Instead Boras will be promoted to assistant head coach/offense.

It has been clear for the past couple of weeks that Fisher was going in-house for his new coordinator. It was just a matter of whether it would be Boras or Cignetti in that role. Fisher, obviously, thinks highly of both.

Cignetti was part of Fisher’s original staff in 2012, so he knows the offense and the playbook very well. So this figures to be a smooth transition and a continuation of the overall offensive philosophy espoused by Fisher. Namely, a strong running game with play-action passing.

Cignetti, 49, is a Pittsburgh native who has had extensive coordinator’s experience on the college level, starting at Div. II Indiana (Pa.) in 1997-98, but then at the Div. I level at Fresno State (2002-05), North Carolina (2006), California-Berkeley (2008), and Pittsburgh (2009-11).

He doubled up as coordinator/QBs coach at Indiana (Pa.), Cal, and Pitt. In the end, that coordinator experience may have given Cignetti the edge over Boras.

Boras, 44, has spent 11 seasons in the NFL coaching tight ends with the Rams, Jacksonville and Chicago. Among his college-coaching stops was a five-year stint at Nevada-Las Vegas from 1999-2003. He was the offensive line coach there for all five seasons, but doubled up as offensive coordinator his last three seasons there.

Cignetti may not be a household name, but besides his college work, he has also been an NFL assistant in Kansas City, New Orleans and San Francisco. He grew up in a coaching household. His father, Frank Cignetti Sr., once was head coach at West Virginia and was a long-time coach at small-college Indiana (Pa.)

At Fresno State, the younger Cignetti coordinated offenses that finished fifth nationally in total offense in 2004 and seventh in 2005. The ‘04 team became only the sixth team in NCAA history to score 50-plus points in four consecutive games. In ‘09 at Pittsburgh, the Panthers averaged 32.1 points per game.

In another development, Rams assistant defensive line coach Clyde Simmons is interviewing for the head D-line coaching job with the Oakland Raiders.