Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
dgreen

***OFFICIAL*** Washington Football Team Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

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

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

OK.  I must have thankfully missed those.

Now on to what the new name should be fans. 

Like most fans I would love to see the team back at the RFK site and out of the disaster that is FedEx.  RFK site has better transportation system and location in the actual city.  It's been revitalized.  Changing the name will open that up as a more appealing option to the city powers that be.

So what name do we suggest.  I think Senators is trademarked.  Probably Federals too.  Would love to get something positive about our capital and military, which obviously has a huge presence here.

I've seen Warriors put out there.  I think that's pretty solid.  Homage to the Native Americans while at the same time homage to our military.

 

Edited by Brunell4MVP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

This is nonsense. Daniel Snyder owns the team now, and can change the name if he wants. It’s as simple as that.  Every day that they remain the Redskins is a day that Dan Snyder okayed it.  

The fact that you are glad he’s “digging in” suggests you’re more interested in “owning the libs” than actually doing what’s right.  Come on.  
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

I've seen Warriors put out there.  I think that's pretty solid.  Homage to the Native Americans while at the same time homage to our military.

 

For many years, Marquette University was nicknamed the Warriors. Then in the mid 90's, the administration changed the name to Golden Eagles citing sensitivity concerns to Native Americans.

You can't please everyone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

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. 

Good call.  I’ll start a thread in the FFA.  https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/676828-do-you-think-snyder-should-change-the-name-of-the-redskins/page/68/#comments

Edited by tommyGunZ
ETA: Link to long-standing discussion on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

OK.  I must have thankfully missed those.

Now on to what the new name should be fans. 

Like most fans I would love to see the team back at the RFK site and out of the disaster that is FedEx.  RFK site has better transportation system and location in the actual city.  It's been revitalized.  Changing the name will open that up as a more appealing option to the city powers that be.

So what name do we suggest.  I think Senators is trademarked.  Probably Federals too.  Would love to get something positive about our capital and military, which obviously has a huge presence here.

I've seen Warriors put out there.  I think that's pretty solid.  Homage to the Native Americans while at the same time homage to our military.

 

I swear I read somewhere a long time ago that Snyder had Warriors trademarked and sitting in his back pocket as the next name if it ever came to it.

Personally I find myself wanting them to get on theme with the other DC teams.  Call them Defenders or Destroyers and go red, white, and blue.   Maybe a fighter jet for a logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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.

Agree. Good stuff.

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

I've seen Warriors put out there.  I think that's pretty solid.  Homage to the Native Americans while at the same time homage to our military.

 

Like that one a bit myself. Washington Warriors just kinda rolls off the tongue.

Share this post


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

I swear I read somewhere a long time ago that Snyder had Warriors trademarked and sitting in his back pocket as the next name if it ever came to it.

Personally I find myself wanting them to get on theme with the other DC teams.  Call them Defenders or Destroyers and go red, white, and blue.   Maybe a fighter jet for a logo.

I believe it was said his neighbor trademarked it for potential use for an arena league team.  I heard bravehearts as well was trademarked but could be wrong about that.

Share this post


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

I believe it was said his neighbor trademarked it for potential use for an arena league team.  I heard bravehearts as well was trademarked but could be wrong about that.

Hmm that sounds vaguely familiar.  Its all kinda fuzzy to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Warriors, but if we're going down this road, there's probably going to be some borderline reasonable sentiment that being warriors is only one aspect of a magnificent and complex people and society...

I'd like to throw 'Natives' out there for consideration, and see if anyone thinks I'm missing something racially offensive about that term.

The word 'Redskins is only mentioned one time in the fight song, and affects the rhythm, not the rhyme.

Hail to the Red-skins....Hail to the Na-tives, both two syllables.

Nothing else has to change. The colors have never been discussed as a racial issue, and the logo is artwork, not a caricature.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravehearts

warriors

senators

red tails

natives

 

I’ve seen all of those thrown out there.  Not a fan of senators as a name and think it should be a tribute to native Americans still.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nittanylion said:

I like Warriors, but if we're going down this road, there's probably going to be some borderline reasonable sentiment that being warriors is only one aspect of a magnificent and complex people and society...

I'd like to throw 'Natives' out there for consideration, and see if anyone thinks I'm missing something racially offensive about that term.

The word 'Redskins is only mentioned one time in the fight song, and affects the rhythm, not the rhyme.

Hail to the Red-skins....Hail to the Na-tives, both two syllables.

Nothing else has to change. The colors have never been discussed as a racial issue, and the logo is artwork, not a caricature.

Thoughts?

Touchdown, Washington Natives!

Think I like Warriors better, but if you're looking for the most inoffensive way to keep it all, you found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't have an issue with 'Redskins', having been born and raised, and lived most of my 52 years here, I've thought a day like this might eventually come, and I've tried several times to come up with something that would honor Native Americans while modifying as little as possible that fell outside the realm of the nickname.

It's really tough, though, given the names of the tribes who occupied the Chesapeake Bay watershed prior to the arrival of folks from overseas...

http://www.ala.org/aboutala/indigenous-tribes-washington-dc

Reading that, 'Anacostans' seems appropriate.

From a business sense, doing something to honor Native Americans, and tie the team to raising awareness and involvement in issues involving them, would be nothing but a massive, massive win.

Share this post


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

Although I don't have an issue with 'Redskins', having been born and raised, and lived most of my 52 years here, I've thought a day like this might eventually come, and I've tried several times to come up with something that would honor Native Americans while modifying as little as possible that fell outside the realm of the nickname.

It's really tough, though, given the names of the tribes who occupied the Chesapeake Bay watershed prior to the arrival of folks from overseas...

http://www.ala.org/aboutala/indigenous-tribes-washington-dc

Reading that, 'Anacostans' seems appropriate.

From a business sense, doing something to honor Native Americans, and tie the team to raising awareness and involvement in issues involving them, would be nothing but a massive, massive win.

I like that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nittanylion said:

About the logo...

https://sportslogohistory.com/washington-redskins-primary-logo

I'm hard-pressed to find anything offensive about that, but I'm willing to listen.

Agreed.  We do have options though with the logo with some of our older ones.  But i do like the current logo and i heard spoken to a number of native americans who have said the same.  I think the issue has always been in the name. 

Share this post


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

OK.  I must have thankfully missed those.

Now on to what the new name should be fans. 

Like most fans I would love to see the team back at the RFK site and out of the disaster that is FedEx.  RFK site has better transportation system and location in the actual city.  It's been revitalized.  Changing the name will open that up as a more appealing option to the city powers that be.

So what name do we suggest.  I think Senators is trademarked.  Probably Federals too.  Would love to get something positive about our capital and military, which obviously has a huge presence here.

I've seen Warriors put out there.  I think that's pretty solid.  Homage to the Native Americans while at the same time homage to our military.

 

Yes. Be thankful. Mods spent a good bit of work cleaning up the mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there's two schools of thought here. 

1.  Completely go away from native american culture in order to not risk anything in the future.  Would "warriors" POSSIBLY bring something up in the future?  You don't want to change this thing twice.

2.  Stick with the Native American culture so you can keep the same 'aura' of the team name, and also show that you are committed to doing the right thing and that it was never intended badly.

Not sure which way Dan will go.  If you go with 2, I think Warriors is the perfect name.  If you go with 1, then I agree, you may have to change to a nationalism type name and red/white/blue colours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Americans.  Keep the logo and team colors.  I think that would be a nice statement, given everything that's been happening in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Granted I may be misremembering and a quick google search doesnt show anything but I swear a few years ago there was a pretty widespread questionnaire/survey among native americans/reservations and the overwhelming majority didnt car about the name. 

 

edit - I found one by the Post but I swear I thought the team did a national survey of the name

Edited by pantherclub
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Granted I may be misremembering and a quick google search doesnt show anything but I swear a few years ago there was a pretty widespread questionnaire/survey among native americans/reservations and the overwhelming majority didnt car about the name. 

 

edit - I found one by the Post but I swear I thought the team did a national survey of the name

Probably

But the ones that don't care are quiet about it and tend not to feel strongly one way or another

The ones who are offended are much louder about it--hence the incoming name change

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Washington Post has done a couple of flawed polls with poor methodology in the past, yes. A more recent UC Berkley study, more shall we say vigorously academic in it's methodology and most importantly peer-reviewed (aka this is science, unlike what the Post put together) shows different results. More than 50% disapproval from Native Americans on the name.

For anyone actually interested:

Article About the UC Berkley Study

Article About the Flaws in the WP Polls and How This Study Is Different

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington Thinskins.......jk......It has to be the Washington Warriors.   Keep the logo, just change the face.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, KChusker said:

Probably

But the ones that don't care are quiet about it and tend not to feel strongly one way or another

The ones who are offended are much louder about it--hence the incoming name change

Yes, that's probably accurate.

Edited by IheartGuinness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

The Washington Post has done a couple of flawed polls with poor methodology in the past, yes. A more recent UC Berkley study, more shall we say vigorously academic in it's methodology and most importantly peer-reviewed (aka this is science, unlike what the Post put together) shows different results. More than 50% disapproval from Native Americans on the name.

For anyone actually interested:

Article About the UC Berkley Study

Article About the Flaws in the WP Polls and How This Study Is Different

 

Appreciate the links, but given the source (Berkeley, not you), I'm inclined to be pretty skeptical of the results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not political, but I have always believed if one native american found it offensive, it should go

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Appreciate the links, but given the source (Berkeley, not you), I'm inclined to be pretty skeptical of the results.

 

I don't think this is the thread or forum to discuss the fact that a certain segment of the population has slowly, premeditatedly, and systematically had their faith and trust in academia and science corrupted and undermined by certain radio and television stations over a period of decades. 

So we can't really discuss this angle you bring up. But I'm happy to discuss the study itself (from a respected institution and peer-reviewed by other scholars) though if you feel like reading it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

I don't think this is the thread or forum to discuss the fact that a certain segment of the population has slowly, premeditatedly, and systematically had their faith and trust in academia and science corrupted and undermined by certain radio and television stations over a period of decades. 

So we can't really discuss this angle you bring up. But I'm happy to discuss the study itself (from a respected institution and peer-reviewed by other scholars) though if you feel like reading it.

I am as well and feel like it is a valid data point that should be considered.

What I am not for is throwing out any data that supports a different picture and only considering what supports the narrative

Share this post


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

I’m not political, but I have always believed if one native american found it offensive, it should go

One, really?  If that was the case then we can find fault with almost everything.  Just like the tearing down of statues and not all of them are confederate related.  The country has gone to hell with all the liberal woke cancel culture..   I agree that "Redskins" is kind of insulting however.  I think Warriors with the same logo, different face would be a good change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JackReacher said:

I’m not political, but I have always believed if one native american found it offensive, it should go

One person in a group is always going to dislike something...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

One, really?  If that was the case then we can find fault with almost everything.  Just like the tearing down of statues and not all of them are confederate related.  The country has gone to hell with all the liberal woke cancel culture..   I agree that "Redskins" is kind of insulting however.  I think Warriors with the same logo, different face would be a good change.

Understand what you are saying, but who am I to tell any Native American that their vote doesn’t count. So yes, one does it for me. 

Share this post


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

Understand what you are saying, but who am I to tell any Native American that their vote doesn’t count. So yes, one does it for me. 

You know that isn't reasonable.  As @wgoldsph said, there will always be one in the room that doesn't like something.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, JackReacher said:

Understand what you are saying, but who am I to tell any Native American that their vote doesn’t count. So yes, one does it for me. 

I have half Indian (not Native American) actual Indian ancestry.

The Cincinnati Bengals are offensive

Not only are Bengals a traditional jewelry item in Indian culture but they are exploiting thr Bengal Tiger—one of India’s prized symbols of strength, stealth, beauty and power and a recurring sight in Indian literature and the Hindu religion

And on top of that their ownership and front office are cheap af reinforcing a negative stereotype about Indian people

(I don’t really believe this for a second but I have met people who I could easily see getting on board with this if laid out in this way)

Should they change their name?

I can do this with a bunch of franchises and places as well

I am OK with the Redskins changing. I never felt strongly about it but O understand thise who do, but this logic opens up a big can of worms

Edited by KChusker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

One, really?  If that was the case then we can find fault with almost everything.  Just like the tearing down of statues and not all of them are confederate related.  The country has gone to hell with all the liberal woke cancel culture..   I agree that "Redskins" is kind of insulting however.  I think Warriors with the same logo, different face would be a good change.

 

Please stop bringing this stuff into every thread you can, but especially another team's thread. I've pointed this out to you recently but you are really stuck on it. This is PSF fodder.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey guys, STOP discussing the politics of the name change in this thread before it gets locked.  If you can't do that, then leave this thread to those of us who are fans of the team.

Edited by Vandelay
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Hey guys, STOP discussing the politics of the name change in this thread before it gets locked.  If you can't do that, then leave this thread to those of us who are fans of the team.

Was not my intention. Mods can delete or move or whatever they deem necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Please stop bringing this stuff into every thread you can, but especially another team's thread. I've pointed this out to you recently but you are really stuck on it. This is PSF fodder.

It is what it is.  This is political whether you like it or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nittanylion said:

I'd like to throw 'Natives' out there for consideration, and see if anyone thinks I'm missing something racially offensive about that term.

It isn't racist but... yuck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how del rio feels about the name change.  👀

 

btw i saw an update they think it will be changed within a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

It isn't racist but... yuck.

I don’t think it is that bad, but Warriors is better.

Share this post


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

It's tough, a lot of the Native Americans I've seen actually speak out about this are not interested in being more appropriately "honored" like that article seems to be suggesting. Even though what they propose isn't necessarily offensive like "Redskins", for many the goal is to not have their tribal cultures, all of which were victim to a brutal systematic genocide, appropriated for our entertainment. Even if the thought is in the right place in fixing this by "honoring" them correctly, many feel their historical culture is not fit to be a money-making mascot in a present-day capitalist society. I think we can respect that and find a new non-NA name, personally. The only way this works is if you bring a NA group in as an ownership partner so that they can benefit from their own culture's use and have a say, which won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

It's tough, a lot of the Native Americans I've seen actually speak out about this are not interested in being more appropriately "honored" like that article seems to be suggesting. Even though what they propose isn't necessarily offensive like "Redskins", for many the goal is to not have their tribal cultures, all of which were victim to a brutal systematic genocide, appropriated for our entertainment. Even if the thought is in the right place in fixing this by "honoring" them correctly, many feel their historical culture is not fit to be a money-making mascot in a present-day capitalist society. I think we can respect that and find a new non-NA name, personally. The only way this works is if you bring a NA group in as an ownership partner so that they can benefit from their own culture's use and have a say, which won't happen. 

I love this idea.  
Eta: and yea Snyder would never do that.

Edited by PinkydaPimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Go with Washington Warriors and slap a W on this beauty.

Fantastic idea!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IheartGuinness said:

For many years, Marquette University was nicknamed the Warriors. Then in the mid 90's, the administration changed the name to Golden Eagles citing sensitivity concerns to Native Americans.

You can't please everyone...

Yes, but their mascot was a Native American using a tomahawk.  I was thinking of a military type emblem/mascot.  Like a jacked up marine or Seal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2020 at 11:33 AM, MikeApf said:

Re: the pick.  Pre-draft, i wanted the Skins to trade down and acquire multiple picks on the theory that you have a better chance to improve with multiple selections vs. one swing for the fence.  Nothing is certain, not even Chase Young.  We could have parlayed Young into Trent's replacement and maybe either a WR or Safety, which would have been nice.  And we already have a decent defensive front.  But, with all that said, by all reports only Atlanta offered a haul and maybe that haul was not of sufficient value to make a trade down worth it.  By all accounts, Young is a great player, so if no one offered us an RG3-like haul, it's possible the team did the right thing by drafting a potentially game changing player.

 

🙂

 

 

 

Edited by GordonGekko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Gibson, Scott Turner LOVES him apparently, that was a HC listening to his OC pick imo

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.