Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
dgreen

***OFFICIAL*** Washington Football Team Thread

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

If you don't think any of the guys I mentioned are "very good".... do you think Gandy-Golden is?

I suppose it's all relative.  Every one of the guys you talked about is an amazing athlete and godlike, if you were to compare them to me.

But when you are comparing them to the others who have significantly more draft capital, no they aren't Very Good.  Maybe Above Average, maybe not.  But they aren't expected to be, because 32 teams let them go many times over.

They're probably all on par with Gandy Golden in the sense that they are all massive long shots to be fantasy relevent ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vandelay said:

Any WR that doesn't go in the first three rounds is already a serious long shot.  

I'm not sure I agree, but let's say that you are correct.

If a player drafted on day 3 is truly a long shot would you say that player has a better chance to make the final roster if they can contribute on special teams? And if that was the case then do you think Bryce Hall or Gandy-Golden has a better chance of being a better ST contributor to give them a better chance at making the final roster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

I'm not sure I agree, but let's say that you are correct.

If a player drafted on day 3 is truly a long shot would you say that player has a better chance to make the final roster if they can contribute on special teams? And if that was the case then do you think Bryce Hall or Gandy-Golden has a better chance of being a better ST contributor to give them a better chance at making the final roster?

I'm saying a long shot to become some level of difference maker, not just hang on the roster.  I'm tired of them drafting low ceiling guys over the years just to fill the roster.  You can get back of the roster/special teams contributors in free agency.  Much rather spend mid round picks on guys who at least have the physical tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2020 at 11:39 PM, fatness said:

Pretty underrated roster for the Skins

 

Offense
QB Dwayne Haskins/Kyle Allen/Steven Montez     OK if Haskins keeps progressing
RB Adrian Peterson/Derrius Guice/Bryce Love     More like Peterson/Gibson/prayer/Guice
TE Caleb Wilson/Thaddeus Moss/Jeremy Sprinkle/Logan Thomas     Weak. Hope Moss and Sprinkle can be adequate.
WR Terry McLaurin/Cam Sims     McLauren is going to be great
WR Steven Sims / Antonio Gandy-Golden     Still think Sims is a gadget player but he improved last year. Gandy-Golden is the key.
WR Antonio Gibson / Kelvin Harmon     I like Harmon a lot, but this is the year for him and the 2 Sims's to show if they're really NFL players. Overall               at WR they are weak.
LT Geron Christian Sr. / Saahdiq Charles      Weak unless Charles is functional his first year. Christian is a bust.
LG Wes Schweitzer / Wes Martin     Below average if Martin can almost hold his own.
C Chase Roullier / Ross Pierschbacher     Below average. Rouillier is just a substitute and Piersbacher will likely be cut.
RG Brandon Sheriff / Keith Ismael     Good where Scherff isn't hurt
RT Cornelius Lucas/Morgan Moses     Good because Moses is good and almost always plays

 

I'll do the defense another time, but they're better than the offense. And don't forget that John Allen can play DE. I think we may see a lot of that this year.

yeah it will be interesting to see how they use Gibson, Skins kinda needed a receiver more than a RB. Moses is the worst starter on the team guy is an absolute turnstile  11th in penalties and allowed 5 sacks, Cornelius Lucas was a good tackle for the Bears allowing just 1 sack no penalties. Roullier is a decent center.  Schweitzer only allowed 2 sacks last year hoping he's equivalent to Flowers. I think you're underestimating Caleb Wilson he's a better TE than Devin Asiasi who went in the third, not as good of a blocker but a much better receiver. 

Edited by gocats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:14 PM, fatness said:

I see this draft as a risky one. Gibson, Charles, and Gandy-Golden all need to be on the field a good bit this year for it to be a successful draft.

From what I have read, all three are talented but raw players.  And in Charles case, also off the field issues.

I am sure Rivera has a lot of say in the draft board since Smith has talked about a team approach to everything.  It looks like Rivera wants raw, talented players who he believes he can coach into NFL players.

Also, it is not preordained that these guys will or will not become good players.  They may need the right coach, right environment, and/or the right scheme to get them to be good players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Offense

QB Dwayne Haskins/Kyle Allen/Steven Montez     OK if Haskins keeps progressing
RB Adrian Peterson/Derrius Guice/Bryce Love     More like Peterson/Gibson/prayer/Guice
TE Caleb Wilson/Thaddeus Moss/Jeremy Sprinkle/Logan Thomas     Weak. Hope Moss and Sprinkle can be adequate.
WR Terry McLaurin/Cam Sims     McLauren is going to be great
WR Steven Sims / Antonio Gandy-Golden     Still think Sims is a gadget player but he improved last year. Gandy-Golden is the key.
WR Antonio Gibson / Kelvin Harmon     I like Harmon a lot, but this is the year for him and the 2 Sims's to show if they're really NFL players. Overall               at WR they are weak.
LT Geron Christian Sr. / Saahdiq Charles      Weak unless Charles is functional his first year. Christian is a bust.
LG Wes Schweitzer / Wes Martin     Below average if Martin can almost hold his own.
C Chase Roullier / Ross Pierschbacher     Below average. Rouillier is just a substitute and Piersbacher will likely be cut.
RG Brandon Sheriff / Keith Ismael     Good where Scherff isn't hurt
RT Cornelius Lucas/Morgan Moses     Good because Moses is good and almost always plays
 

I'll do the defense another time, but they're better than the offense. And don't forget that John Allen can play DE. I think we may see a lot of that this year.

 

I think the Redskins will be depending on a lot of unproven talent.  This is probably expected, with a new coaching staff and coming off a 3 win season. 

They definitely need Haskins to keep developing and someone to emerge at LT.  Otherwise, we could be talking about draft position in October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:03 PM, fatness said:

Been away while so I'm reacting to some older posts for a bit.

His arms are too short and he cannot play tackle in the NFL.  The Skins wantedd badly to say he was drafted to be a tackle to justify his draft position but IIRC he was the first player in training camp whose position was switched (to guard) because he was so inept at tackle that early on.  To his credit he's an all-pro (and to me overrated but still good) guard when he's not hurt.

Scherffs arms are 33 3/8 which is longer than Saadiq Charles and the same length as Ezra Cleveland 

 

https://www.nfl.com/players/brandon-scherff/

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/ezra-cleveland/3219434c-4567-0117-4b64-f3ef088b9fb5

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/saahdiq-charles/32194348-4159-6597-92df-2c5eba7d2e50

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 10:50 PM, gocats said:

Scherffs arms are 33 3/8 which is longer than Saadiq Charles and the same length as Ezra Cleveland 

I agree that college LT's should probably be given a shot at LT before switching to the interior, although I have heard people say they think Charles best position in the NFL will be at OG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 5:46 PM, Vandelay said:

I'm saying a long shot to become some level of difference maker, not just hang on the roster.  I'm tired of them drafting low ceiling guys over the years just to fill the roster.  You can get back of the roster/special teams contributors in free agency.  Much rather spend mid round picks on guys who at least have the physical tools.

I guess we just simply have very differing ideas of what Bryce Hall and his ceiling is compared to Gandy-Golden. I agree that day 3 picks should be used to swing for the fences the difference is I just think Hall has a better chance of developing into a better than average NFL starter in the secondary(whether it's CB or FS) than Gandy-Golden. 

Maybe I misrepresented my position but I don't think they should have drafted Hall to be a ST contributor, I think Hall would have a better chance of contributing right away as ST contributor AND as nickel/dime back even before any injuries. But I also think that coverage players in the secondary might be the weakest team on the entire roster(after TE) and with Ronald Darby, Sean Davis, and Fabian Moreau all on the last year of their deals it's wise to draft in 2020 with the 2021 offseason in mind. Never more important when the team is making a complete rebuild like they are right now. They are pretty bad right now but going into 2021 they could be an even bigger disaster in coverage. Why they didn't sign Eli Apple is beyond me, I seriously doubt his contract broke the bank and if you are looking for cheap upside with physical tools that signing would have fit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The defense is an elite unit in the future. Think Rivera and Del Rio are going to bring a lot of toughness and experience.

McLaurin is a legit WR1 and I think as the season goes Gandy Golden will start to take the WR2 job with his catch radius--though Sims will hang around in the slot and has good rapport with Haskins already. If Guice stays healthy the skill position talent is there IMO--not elite by any means but not a black hole either

It's a shame too. I LOVE the Redskins defense.

Think they have the talent to ####house their way into the division title and be a dollar store version of last year's 49ers if only they had a real QB or someone anywhere close to a real QB.

But alas I think we will be seeing Kyle Allen take over for selfie man at some point this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if the name change stuff belongs here or in the FFA forums? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far past time imo. I hope the other big sponsors and advertisers keep the pressure on and this starts to hit other NFL owners in their wallets if Snyder pushes back and the league has to choose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Not sure if the name change stuff belongs here or in the FFA forums? 

Its football, I vote put it here.

I'm a diehard Skins fan and have argued against this for a long time, but its time to change it.  The strongest argument I can come up with for keeping it is there are tribal high schools composed of virtually all Native Americans who call their football team the Redskins, which is pretty weak.  

From a business sense, the franchise needs a rebranding anyway.  They could align with the other DC teams and go red, white, and blue.  Call themselves something like Defenders or some such.  It would be fresh, exciting and could possibly invigorate the generation that diesnt care whatsoever about the local team.

Or, the could keep the theme and switch to Warriors or some such.  If they go this route, I really hope they keep the handsome emblem on the helmets.  Theres nothing disparaging about that work of art.  You can lose the name and still keep a connection to all the history and imagery were accustomed to.

I can see merit to both options.  I'm just not sure even Snyder can hold out for much longer.  His business partners are now turning on him and the climate is impossible to ignore.  For the first time, I actually think it will be changed...and fairly soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest: I try to be sensitive to matters like this but the name and logo never really bothered me like the Chief Wahoo logo did. I never really saw it as a slur and haven't heard that way in popular culture, and the logo was designed by a Native American

I am not white or Native American but the county I grew up (and school) in had a heavy Native American population, and I know exactly one actual Native American bothered by it-- (a couple are even fans of the team)--including friends, classmates, their parents, etc. Not that it's a representative sample just

BUT

At the same time the pearl clutching over defending the name has to stop at some point

Might as well be now

I never really got the controversy and still don't but I see no point in dying on this hill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vandelay said:

Its football, I vote put it here.

I'm a diehard Skins fan and have argued against this for a long time, but its time to change it.  The strongest argument I can come up with for keeping it is there are tribal high schools composed of virtually all Native Americans who call their football team the Redskins, which is pretty weak.  

From a business sense, the franchise needs a rebranding anyway.  They could align with the other DC teams and go red, white, and blue.  Call themselves something like Defenders or some such.  It would be fresh, exciting and could possibly invigorate the generation that diesnt care whatsoever about the local team.

Or, the could keep the theme and switch to Warriors or some such.  If they go this route, I really hope they keep the handsome emblem on the helmets.  Theres nothing disparaging about that work of art.  You can lose the name and still keep a connection to all the history and imagery were accustomed to.

I can see merit to both options.  I'm just not sure even Snyder can hold out for much longer.  His business partners are now turning on him and the climate is impossible to ignore.  For the first time, I actually think it will be changed...and fairly soon.

It's inevitable anyways... so now would be the perfect time for all the reasons you mentioned above.  With FedEx asking them to change it, and the CEO of fedex as a part owner of the team, and with the push for equality we are seeing now, he should announce it asap and it come into effect next season.  Washington has done a name change before, as "Bullets" was too violent.... this is far worse in many people's eyes.  I don't really see any downside to changing it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deamon said:

It's inevitable anyways... so now would be the perfect time for all the reasons you mentioned above.  With FedEx asking them to change it, and the CEO of fedex as a part owner of the team, and with the push for equality we are seeing now, he should announce it asap and it come into effect next season.  Washington has done a name change before, as "Bullets" was too violent.... this is far worse in many people's eyes.  I don't really see any downside to changing it now?

Bullets was so much better than Wizards

Such a stupid name change

Like the "Red River Shootout" now being called the "Showdown" lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  Wizards is a terrible name.

I dunno, I agree with the sentiment KC mentioned above honestly.  I've never seen it as all that disrespectful and the handful of natives I've encountered are fans of the team.  Shrug.  Its time though.  At least the glory years have so faded from our memory that its not super upsetting.  

If this country really wants to do something for Natives, maybe give them some land or something meaningful.  This is the lowest hanging fruit that could appease and I honestly think very few care anyway. 

And if were changing our name, they better change the name of the state of Oklahoma.  Did you know that when translated in its Choctaw roots it means "red people"?  We literally stole their land and named the territory red people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2020 at 10:14 PM, ConnSKINS26 said:

Far past time imo. I hope the other big sponsors and advertisers keep the pressure on and this starts to hit other NFL owners in their wallets if Snyder pushes back and the league has to choose. 

 

 

Edited by GordonGekko
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

There's a lot to dislike about Dan Snyder the owner, the business person and the overall human being.

But I can't really blame him on this one. The Redskins were named long before he got to them. He did not name them the Redskins. Just getting up and changing the name is not all that simple. It's not like he has to fill out two forms then add a 50 dollar money order with it.

Fred Smith was in a no win situation here. But he broke ranks and that's a problem. The other owners don't like Snyder, but he's one of them. They also don't want anyone pushing too hard into how they run their teams, it's a slippery slope.  It's very likely Smith, Snyder and Goodell all talked this out before Smith went public.

Donald Sterling said something quite true but was routinely ignored when his team was taken from him - Where was all this outrage for the last twenty years?

Redskins situation was a little different, but where was the outrage of these companies in the past? Snyder, if anyone gives him even half a second to talk before torching him, is going to likely make a very logical point - The time to have brought this up should have been right when I was in the process of buying the franchise.

People have the right not to watch. Not to buy. Not to support. He has the right to keep the team's name as he sees fit.

I'm actually glad he's dug in.

To me, the critical issue becomes Dan Snyder DID NOT name this team the Redskins. He's done quite a bit of other ####### things as an owner, but it's going to be hard to hang him on this one.

The amusing thing is, despite being a crappy owner in general, he indirectly did more for coaches in the NFL than anyone else in league history. He inflated the salary structure for coaches so much, that the ripple created more of a living wage for lower level coaches in general ( They still work in draconian conditions, but it's a lot better post Snyder than pre Snyder)

And while it is the contrarian view, I do believe it is courage ( yes, courage can even come from a heel like Snyder) to face popular opposition and stay true to your convictions, even if people don't agree with you. Even if it costs you.

I genuinely hope he stays dug in on this one. ( Though I feel badly for the Skins faithful. They are one of the most passionate fan bases in the entire league)

The exercise of freedoms you don't like are reminders that those freedoms still exist in the first place.

Love this sentiment and in general love standing up against prevailing culture and the hive mind of self righteousness it creates. Snyder is an awful owner and has done some really bad things as a person too but--like with coach wages--in the naming controversy he has incorporated Native American voices and out of football invested in/done philanthropy for their communities.

No one is 100% good or bad

BUT

I also think there is something to be said about picking your battles, and at this point this one is lost and dragging it out just digs a deeper hole to recover from

And comparatively speaking it's a really minor battle, even with the hassle it creates (for him)

I am all for drawing a line somewhere, and some of these cancellations really do perplex me (Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's), but this still isn't the type of fight to dig in on IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2020 at 10:04 AM, gocats said:

SS Landon Collins / Khaleke Hudson
 

 

 

Edited by GordonGekko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vandelay said:

If this country really wants to do something for Natives, maybe give them some land or something meaningful.  

:oldunsure:

How? Maybe reserve some land and set it aside just for them?

Hmm... could be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, IheartGuinness said:

:oldunsure:

How? Maybe reserve some land and set it aside just for them?

Hmm... could be interesting. 

How about realize our ancestors raped them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything in dc is white monuments. With great green age. And the cherry blossoms are spectacular. 
 

The Washington Spirit.

Mostly White with trim deep navy blue and small amount of red as accent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I’d like see army star as emblem. Maybe road units are marine and navy. Third jersey is Air Force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackbear said:

Now I’d like see army star as emblem. Maybe road units are marine and navy. Third jersey is Air Force. 

Think we can do better than playing into the military fetishization the NFL already has too much of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ConnSKINS26 said:

Think we can do better than playing into the military fetishization the NFL already has too much of. 

Then what? I’m not asking to be a smart ###... I would like to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blackbear said:

Then what? I’m not asking to be a smart ###... I would like to know. 

No idea, haven't seen a slam dunk option around the internet that I actually like yet, and that's fine for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Blackbear said:

How about realize our ancestors raped them. 

So unproductive

I will start by saying I am not white or Native American but have significant ancestry from three countries that were colonized by European powers.

And it always irritates me when people in those countries (including friends and family) incessantly grumble and complain about how those European countries are to blame for every current issue in the country. I love those countries and their people, but they have been independent for 50+ years now. Their issues are in large part (if not full part) their own doing, yet many people's (not all) fixation with the distant past and having someone to blame prevents them from diagnosing issues, rooting out corruption in their own people, seeing how their own policies/politicians have failed them and taking steps to solutions that can change the present for many in their country.

I can't/don't speak for all Native Americans and I am sure there are some who may disagree.

But seeing a modern twenty something year old Brit/Portuguese unironically personally beg my forgiveness for something someone long, long ago the same nationality as their ancestors did maybe to my ancestors and/or people who look like my ancestors or agitate to take down a statue of King George/Empress Victoria/Churchill/Rudyard Kipling/Vasco de Gama/Francis Xavier/etc would just make me think they are a self righteous, self hating jackass--perhaps a well intentioned one but still

Obviously colonialism was wrong on many different levels, as were treatment of Native Americans and slavery/segregation--atrocious episodes of our past that lasted too long

Not denying that in the slightest

But people whose great-ancestors looked like those who did them (even more relevant in the US's case: your average white guy could easily be a descendant of an Irish immigrant from the 1850s who spent the rest of his life in NY and never even saw a slave or Native American) personally apologizing to people who haven't suffered them is NOT solving racism or frankly even helping those communities

For Native Americans in particular: there are so many issues affecting their communities and people that can actually be helped in the now and present: opioid crisis (also affects a lot of non Native Americans), lack of jobs/economic growth on reservations, etc that action towards would help a lot more people now than apologies, taking down statues or changing names.

Not to say there isn't a place for the past: places like the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee should always be preserved as they are and curriculums should encompass the lights and shadows of the past to educate fully

But ultimately remembrance of the past should not be so much to threaten reconciliation and action on what can actually be changed today. Imagine if FDR had refused to help/work with the UK out of a 150+ year grudge for colonialism, 1812, burning down the White House, instead of recognized the imminent threat to people now/work needed to be done and what could be controlled

 

And honestly no group on Earth has its hands clean (mine included). Take a look at a map of tribes in North America for each century going back to the 1600s and you will find many no longer there and replaced by others: some were wiped off by Europeans/settlers, some by settlers and many others by other tribes. Same thing can be seen looking at ethnic groups in Africa/Asia

This fact DOES NOT in any way minimize the inhumanity, atrociousness and injustice of our past and slavery/treatment of Natives/colonialism--not in the slightest

Just the unproductiveness of fixating on a past that can't be changed and grouping people with their ancestors in order to do so

 

For the Redskins name: it will be changed and--though I never felt strongly about it--it seems to me like the way to go at this point (please don't come for my Tomahawk Chop at Arrowhead next though), but it doesn't change the past and quite frankly it doesn't help the present (no one truly "becomes" a racist because of the Redskins name/logo)

That present can only be helped through action from living in the present rather than the past

 

Hope I didn't offend--if anyone is offended, please point out what it was and I will gladly apologize. Not my intent in the slightest, nor was this intended to even a little political (I don't step into that arena!)

Edited by KChusker
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackbear said:

Then what? I’m not asking to be a smart ###... I would like to know. 

I think whatever it is it needs to pay tribute to native Americans for sure.  Just not in an offensive way.  Maybe discuss with a local tribe and decide?  I like bravehearts which I’ve heard dan has trademarked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also pretty wild to say thay just because 50 or 100 years or even more has passed that previously colonized countries are now fully to blame for their own problems, for not "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" so to speak. These are deep-rooted issues for another thread but the majority of the continent of Africa would like a word about this, despite no longer being literally colonized. The DRC is a great example and some research on the topic would shine a light on just how much these countries are still being exploited (by European countries especially) and how their economies and politics are still being corrupted by Western interests to this day, stunting entire countries and populations of people in (so far) irreparable ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

But I can't really blame him on this one. The Redskins were named long before he got to them. He did not name them the Redskins. Just getting up and changing the name is not all that simple. It's not like he has to fill out two forms then add a 50 dollar money order with it.

"That's the way it's always been" is probably one of the weakest arguments imaginable. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DallasDMac said:

"That's the way it's always been" is probably one of the weakest arguments imaginable. 

Same argument slave owners used for hundreds of years too 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

Just got an alert from Sleeper that said Washington is reviewing their team name. AKA changes are coming. That's how I see it.

Just saw this.  Guess Snyder felt that financial impact coming.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see the name review. 

For this topic though, please let's keep this 100% on the game and players.

I'm sure there will be tons of discussion in the FFA and the Political forum on this. Thanks. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

I'm glad to see the name review. 

For this topic though, please let's keep this 100% on the game and players.

I'm sure there will be tons of discussion in the FFA and the Political forum on this. Thanks. 

We can't discuss the name change in the thread about the team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vandelay said:

We can't discuss the name change in the thread about the team?

We try to keep the Shark Pool forum 100% about what will happen on the field. We did the same thing with the Covid 19 discussion.

Clearly those are two hot topics very much worth discussing and we have two huge forums where we discuss all the non football topics. Thanks for taking that there and keeping this all just football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I'm glad to see the name review. 

For this topic though, please let's keep this 100% on the game and players.

I'm sure there will be tons of discussion in the FFA and the Political forum on this. Thanks. 

JB - I find this odd.  At this point it's not political.  The announcement means the team name is already gonna change.   I think we'd like to discuss with other Washington fans what the new team name should be.  Is that OK?  Discussing a potential new name?  And how it effects where they may have a new stadium ... ie back at the RFK site.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brunell4MVP said:

JB - I find this odd.  At this point it's not political.  The announcement means the team name is already gonna change.   I think we'd like to discuss with other Washington fans what the new team name should be.  Is that OK?  Discussing a potential new name?  And how it effects where they may have a new stadium ... ie back at the RFK site.

Sure. If it can be civil talk about the new name, that's fine.

The last half page that the moderators had to delete was nothing but political arguing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brunell4MVP said:

JB - I find this odd.  At this point it's not political.  The announcement means the team name is already gonna change.   I think we'd like to discuss with other Washington fans what the new team name should be.  Is that OK?  Discussing a potential new name?  And how it effects where they may have a new stadium ... ie back at the RFK site.

Well, it would be sad if we lost sight of all the other current hard hitting Redskin news right now because it was buried by team name discussions.  ;)

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member