What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***OFFICIAL*** Washington Commanders Thread (4 Viewers)

I know this isn't gonna be the prevailing opinion but I'm glad. It's time. And I'm excited for something completely unrelated to what it was to avoid this coming up again, it's been a distraction for well over a decade and dominates conversation about the team even when they luck into a decent season.

New HC and decision-maker, Snyder's 17-year yes men in the FO and trainer's room finally gone, complete organizational re-alignment around Rivera...now is the time for this clean break at the beginning of a new era. I'm legitimately excited and would even be okay if they changed the colors right now (though I think they stick with the B&G). Let's go boldly into the future.

 
Snyder has always figured out that money talks. The difference is that money is now starting to talk when it wasn't before.
Yep.  I think we all knew once it hit his pockets he would change it.  Nike and Fedex were the kickers. 

Can we have them help us force Dan to sell the team?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep.  I think we all knew once it hit his pockets he would change it.  Nike and Fedex were the kickers. 

Can we have them help us force Dan to sell the team?
One of my sons said he read that the minority owners approached Dan about selling to them.

 
It will be interesting to hear how they message the name change. If they say they are changing everything because it's racist, then it will be interesting to see how the NFL and broadcast partners deal with that in terms of showing past highlights. For example, can they say it's all racist and then still show John Riggins running for a TD in the Super Bowl and Frank Herzog's voice saying "Touchdown, Washington Redskins!"? Will they have a throwback jersey? Will the HOF do something to remove the name from their displays?

My guess is they don't say it's changing because it's racist. I think they'll continue to say it was always meant to honor, but that it's just time for a change.

 
It will be interesting to hear how they message the name change. If they say they are changing everything because it's racist, then it will be interesting to see how the NFL and broadcast partners deal with that in terms of showing past highlights. For example, can they say it's all racist and then still show John Riggins running for a TD in the Super Bowl and Frank Herzog's voice saying "Touchdown, Washington Redskins!"? Will they have a throwback jersey? Will the HOF do something to remove the name from their displays?

My guess is they don't say it's changing because it's racist. I think they'll continue to say it was always meant to honor, but that it's just time for a change.
Without "getting into the politics" of it, the scenario you're imagining is what can happen when you whitewash history due to popular demand. What about all those proud moments, traditions, and games played under an offensive rubric? Is the mere mention offensive, etc.?

Good questions and I'm not sure I have an answer. So one moves, stumbling forward, random walking along that which is ethical and moral and that which is not once knowledge is procured. 

 
Must be behind a paywall because it just links to the sun.com's front page.
Sorry about that.  Not sure why I can see it but not you since, I am not a Sun paper subscriber.

I would paste the article but I am not sure how legal it is, so in summary it was an article written by John Steadman in 1999 (long ago, I know).

The essence of the article is how the Baltimore Colts identity was overlayed with Indianapolis Colts references, so that stars like Unitas and others took offense to being identified as a Indianapolis Colts star and HOF in NFL brochures and plaques.

 
Sorry about that.  Not sure why I can see it but not you since, I am not a Sun paper subscriber.

I would paste the article but I am not sure how legal it is, so in summary it was an article written by John Steadman in 1999 (long ago, I know).

The essence of the article is how the Baltimore Colts identity was overlayed with Indianapolis Colts references, so that stars like Unitas and others took offense to being identified as a Indianapolis Colts star and HOF in NFL brochures and plaques.
Maybe it just redirects everything. I'm simply clicking the link and it's bringing me there. No biggie.

I thought it might be more about offensive naming than team moves, but I can see how the league does indeed do that with the Colts. You'd think they were in Indianapolis forever. Very interesting to think about. That money sure rolls in, though. Never seems to stop for an accountable history, an accountable story

 
Sorry about that.  Not sure why I can see it but not you since, I am not a Sun paper subscriber.

I would paste the article but I am not sure how legal it is, so in summary it was an article written by John Steadman in 1999 (long ago, I know).

The essence of the article is how the Baltimore Colts identity was overlayed with Indianapolis Colts references, so that stars like Unitas and others took offense to being identified as a Indianapolis Colts star and HOF in NFL brochures and plaques.
I did not read the full article, but I  don't think this is really the same thing.  I do think it is odd that the Indianopolis Colts own all of the Baltimore Colts records and history.  It is the same owners, but two completely different cites.  For most of us Baltimore Colt fans, the Colts ended when the moved to Indiana.

I think the Washington Nationals are the owners of the Montreal Expos records and history too.

 
Without "getting into the politics" of it, the scenario you're imagining is what can happen when you whitewash history due to popular demand. What about all those proud moments, traditions, and games played under an offensive rubric? Is the mere mention offensive, etc.?

Good questions and I'm not sure I have an answer. So one moves, stumbling forward, random walking along that which is ethical and moral and that which is not once knowledge is procured. 
I don't see any reason to declare the Redskin name racist when doing the name change.  They were the Redskins. Going forward, they are something else.  Same team.  Same owner (unfortunately).  Same fans, although fewer of us now.

A PR guys can say Redskins was meant to honor Native Americans, but new name will be more inclusive.

 
I don't see any reason to declare the Redskin name racist when doing the name change.  They were the Redskins. Going forward, they are something else.  Same team.  Same owner (unfortunately).  Same fans, although fewer of us now.

A PR guys can say Redskins was meant to honor Native Americans, but new name will be more inclusive.
Yeah, I don't think they will declare it racist. But it's not what they declare, but what history determines that will ultimately be the final judgment. I'm pretty noncommittal on the issue, so please don't take my interlude as having a point other than a "Once it starts, where does it stop?" kind of thing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been a fan my whole life and defended the name up until a couple years ago.  I do think the fans see the name and logo with honor and respect, but I get it, and think it's good to make the change now.  My mother in law came over a few nights ago and was not so accommodating to the name change.  She said she ordered a bunch of stuff from the nfl store before they change the name.  Lol.  I agree with @dgreen that they won't come out and say it was racist to begin with, but if they do (could only happen with a new owner), would they let you trade in your old gear?  I have a couple old, cotton hoodies that could use updating.  😆

I preferred Warriors at first, probably because that's just what I've heard the last few years as what it would "probably" be if they did change the name.  Red Wolves has been gaining a lot of traction lately, in public opinion anyway, and it's starting to grow on me.  Generals could be interesting if they went with some camo uniforms and stars & strips alternates or something, although I doubt Dan has the vision to make that as cool as it could be.  I like the concept of Red Tails, but I think it'd make more sense for a team located closer to Tuskegee, and we definitely don't need the butt whipping jokes that we'd get for a few more years.

 
Regarding the Red Wolves, the more I look into it, the more I like that as a potential new name.  Former Redskin Fred Smooth is really pushing for this.  Here is a link to what the uniform could look like, but it’s just an idea, not sure if Dan Snyder is willing to even consider the Red Wolves.

Red Wolves Uniform Idea

 
Do you have an article or something? Love to read it. I haven't really heard a timeline until now.
Lots of local beat reporters are reporting the same.  https://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-41095882-4
 

“The Washington Redskins are close to having a new name "sooner than later", a source said Saturday night. Earlier in the day Yahoo's Charles Robinson reported a name could be announced within 24 to 48 hours. After Washington announced July 3 it would review its name, the feeling was it would be a quicker process. Multiple sources said owner Dan Snyder had started talking to the league about this three weeks ago. Snyder had once wanted an Arena League team, intending to call them the Warriors.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lots of local beat reporters are reporting the same.  https://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-41095882-4
 

“The Washington Redskins are close to having a new name "sooner than later", a source said Saturday night. Earlier in the day Yahoo's Charles Robinson reported a name could be announced within 24 to 48 hours. After Washington announced July 3 it would review its name, the feeling was it would be a quicker process. Multiple sources said owner Dan Snyder had started talking to the league about this three weeks ago. Snyder had once wanted an Arena League team, intending to call them the Warriors.”
The Warriors would be great if only Golden State didn’t already have it.  I remember the Warriors sweeping the Bullets in the NBA final when I was kid, I was so sad.   Red Wolves are the perfect choice, hopefully Snyder is on board.

 
Apparently some type of major thing NOT related to the name change and not considered to be good news is about to go down in WAS. Anyone have any idea?

 
Yeah well, firing a couple of inept jibronis isn't the story.  The WHY will likely be ugly and we don't yet know what it is.

 
Press release:

On July 3rd, we announced the commencement of a thorough review of the team's name. That review has begun in earnest. As part of this process, we want to keep our sponsors, fans and community apprised of our thinking as we go forward.

Today, we are announcing we will be retiring the Redskins name and logo upon completion of this review.

Dan Snyder and Coach Rivera are working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years.
I like how they mention "sponsors" before "fans" and "community" twice.

 
Well, I will be anxious to see what it is unless it was regarding the firings earlier,  but I didn’t consider that a big story, plus it was a good thing.
I'm curious to know because of way multiple Redskins beat writers were acting last night. Several of them, all of them I came across which was just 4 total, were all heavily hinting at or flat out saying some major non-name and not related to personnel firings news was going to be breaking this week and I heard phrases like "it was not all good news" and "stay alert" . Sounded ominous but really curious why so many beat writers can all seemingly know something, but if they all know something so major why are they just hinting at it and not coming out and saying it?

 
I'm curious to know because of way multiple Redskins beat writers were acting last night. Several of them, all of them I came across which was just 4 total, were all heavily hinting at or flat out saying some major non-name and not related to personnel firings news was going to be breaking this week and I heard phrases like "it was not all good news" and "stay alert" . Sounded ominous but really curious why so many beat writers can all seemingly know something, but if they all know something so major why are they just hinting at it and not coming out and saying it?
Is it this?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/washington-fires-top-two-employees-in-its-pro-scouting-department-per-report/

 
It was time for a change.  The media decided in the 90s that the name was derogatory.   20 years later that stance had become a popular opinion.   The NFL having a team called the Redskins was a symbol of pride for Native Americans at one point.  The Potomac River was largely populated by Native Americans until the 1700s.  But my Native American friend is bothered by it now, so I agree it had to go.  

Times change.  I suspect in 100 years it won't be called Washington or the District of Columbia.  After all, Washington owned slaves and Columbus had his own issues with settlements in the New World.  It will eventually be known as The District.  And if it is, I won't give a care about that either.

Warriors.  Redtails.  Red Wolves.  Big Red.  It reminds me of a Family Guy episode....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86bY6Ltrdp4

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the delay in announcing the new name may stem from a realtor in Virginia that already trademarked all the potential popular team names. It seems odd to me that you can claim stake to something you are not even remotely involved in, but here we are. 

 
Whatever the big news is, Julie Donaldson tweeted this yesterday:

”What’s coming is disappointing and sad.”

No idea what this could be.

 
Whatever the big news is, Julie Donaldson tweeted this yesterday:

”What’s coming is disappointing and sad.”

No idea what this could be.
Strange to me that so many reporters are teasing this but not only is no one willing to go on the record and report it but not even an anonymous leak. I'm not a Skins fan but find this interesting just trying to guess if these rumors are valid and then if so what are they that so many would hint at same thing but not a word has leaked out yet?  If there is anything here we should know soon. From what I read recently the story was going to break yesterday in Washington Post but got pushed to Thursday, tomorrow. This makes me inclined to guess it's got something to do with either a lawsuit dropping or ugly video emerging.

This from last night:

@JasonLaCanfora

The warped and toxic culture of the Washington Football Team is about to be exposed in a sickening fashion ... Again

 
Strange to me that so many reporters are teasing this but not only is no one willing to go on the record and report it but not even an anonymous leak. I'm not a Skins fan but find this interesting just trying to guess if these rumors are valid and then if so what are they that so many would hint at same thing but not a word has leaked out yet?  If there is anything here we should know soon. From what I read recently the story was going to break yesterday in Washington Post but got pushed to Thursday, tomorrow. This makes me inclined to guess it's got something to do with either a lawsuit dropping or ugly video emerging.

This from last night:

@JasonLaCanfora

The warped and toxic culture of the Washington Football Team is about to be exposed in a sickening fashion ... Again
I pray it somehow forces Danny to sell the team.  please?

 
Strange to me that so many reporters are teasing this but not only is no one willing to go on the record and report it but not even an anonymous leak. I'm not a Skins fan but find this interesting just trying to guess if these rumors are valid and then if so what are they that so many would hint at same thing but not a word has leaked out yet?  If there is anything here we should know soon. From what I read recently the story was going to break yesterday in Washington Post but got pushed to Thursday, tomorrow. This makes me inclined to guess it's got something to do with either a lawsuit dropping or ugly video emerging.

This from last night:

@JasonLaCanfora

The warped and toxic culture of the Washington Football Team is about to be exposed in a sickening fashion ... Again
JP Finlay was asked about the teasing and he said it just wasn’t his news to break 

 
Apparently the delay in announcing the new name may stem from a realtor in Virginia that already trademarked all the potential popular team names. It seems odd to me that you can claim stake to something you are not even remotely involved in, but here we are. 
I took Intellectual Property Law in law school. You can't register a trademark unless you're selling a product actually in use.

From a source:

To get a trademark, you need to meet the following six requirements:

1. Provide your name and address as owner of the trademark.

2. State the entity type (individual or corporation) and your national citizenship.

3. Demonstrate actual use or a real intent to use the trademark in commerce.

4. Give a detailed description of the product being trademarked.

5. Submit a drawing or specimen of the trademark.

6. Offer the date of the first use of the trademark.

 
I took Intellectual Property Law in law school. You can't register a trademark unless you're selling a product actually in use.

From a source:

To get a trademark, you need to meet the following six requirements:

1. Provide your name and address as owner of the trademark.

2. State the entity type (individual or corporation) and your national citizenship.

3. Demonstrate actual use or a real intent to use the trademark in commerce.

4. Give a detailed description of the product being trademarked.

5. Submit a drawing or specimen of the trademark.

6. Offer the date of the first use of the trademark.
I am not all that interested in the battle of Washington trying to find a new team name, but based on what I have seen so far . . .

1) The guy obviously supplied his name and address.
2) And he supplied his status and citizenship.
3) He claims that he has designed apparel and/or collectibles with all the names he trademarked and has samples of them all in his house. He is said to have a bunch of stuffed
animals wearing the stuff that he intends to sell.
4) He says that he has future plans to market and sell these items (not really defined or an actual timeline for production).
5) I believe he filed color schemes, basic designs, and logos for his proposed Washington named teams.
6) I believe he listed the date of first use as the date of his application for the names.

Allegedly, the guy now says he is not in it to make a profit or to sell the naming rights / trademarks. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me, as why shell out thousands of dollars for nothing. To be clear, he has not been awarded / issued a trademark, he's only submitted applications. I don't think he has a great case as he is not actively using all the names he applied to trademark. But that's what I saw being reported as a potential hold up for the Washington football team.

I have also heard that another more serious obstacle would be if the team picked a name that is in use by a college team. Apparently that school is currently in court with someone else over a trademark issue. I don't know how this stuff works, as it seems to me that there are a lot of schools with the same mascots or nicknames. For example, there are 33 colleges who are known as the Wildcats. There are 61 schools that go by the Eagles. And there are 43 schools that go by the Tigers.

Why the name of a pro team is suddenly an issue is above my pay grade. Maybe the logo design is too similar to a college with the same name. Who knows . . .

 
I wonder if there will be more on the Trent Williams situation and the way team doctors downplay and cover up risks to players’ health...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Semi-joking over at Saintsreport that Jeff Bezos will own the franchise within a week. Will Snyder's downfall basically be like the Donald Sterling of the NFL?

 
Semi-joking over at Saintsreport that Jeff Bezos will own the franchise within a week. Will Snyder's downfall basically be like the Donald Sterling of the NFL?
Racism is not Snyder's MO

If anything it'll be sex abuse or something to add onto the cheerleader scandal

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top