Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***OFFICIAL*** Washington Football Team Thread


dgreen

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Trading back for volume generally doesn't work out in terms of impact. There will be outlier examples, but teams can only assimilate so many rookies in a given season. The pan out rate also sharply drops as you progress through the draft.

The "business" side of the game also rears its ugly head. You need a player to market around and to anchor your fanbases attention.

Right now, the strength of this team will be in it's special teams. Other teams were sniffing around Kazcor during the early stages of the purge, he's seen as a riser in the league. This is tried and true Parcells methodology, in a bad situation, you can always find a way to improve your special teams. Signing Kevin Pierre Louis was a step in the right direction. I suspect the drafting of Curl and Hudson were made with Kazcor in mind.

Antonio Gibson looks like a Snyder pick. The unintended fallout though is he will immediately be able to give something to said special teams unit.

Better field position helps every unit. The impact of lost yardage on special teams often looks incremental, but when taken in total, the cost is actually pretty staggering to a team's chances of success.

What Kazcor is able to squeeze out of these 2nd and 3rd string guys will likely be more of a factor for winning than pinning hopes on rookie skill players to break out.

No way around it, this team was a dumpster fire for long time, it's going to have to get a little uglier before it gets a little better.

Not a Redskins fan (or whatever the name is) but I actually disagree.

The front 7 is a future monster unit in its infancy with experienced quality coaches there to help them take the next step. I imagine a run heavy offense like last year's Panthers but with the CMC role broken up by Guice and Gibson and McLaurin as the target hog WR. 

And with a healthy Guice I think the patchwork OL can be enough to ride the defense (front 7 really) to a lot more wins in that division

Said this elsewhere but if I had confidence in Trashkins not being a bust this division is weak enough (really is--wouldn't shock me if a 9-7 Giants team took a wild card and even threatened ended up in the division title race--would shock me if they actually won it though) for me to slot the Skins in as a sleeper playoff team and dollar store version of last year's 49ers. Cowboys have a better chance at being elite than the Eagles IMO but neither has done anything to vault themselves into an upper tier

I don't though and expect a new QB next year, but I still expect the run game and defense to clear the way to 6-10 maybe 7-9 this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once saw a serious name suggestion: the Washington Generals.  The Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Generals every game.  And the Washington Generals lose every game.  It seems appropriate.

On a more serious note:  I am part of a racial minority.  I don't identify with it strongly.  My personal opinion:  I would not feel honored by having my heritage, culture, etc. turned into a sports team name and mascot.  That is not why I watch the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Washington is planning to remove all Native American imagery.

Long overdue, but everything is trending towards Washington owner Dan Snyder finally moving towards a new team name and logo. It's unclear when things will be announced and what the mascot will actually be, but anything is an upgrade. Despite decades worth of ignoring discussions from the Native American community, Snyder was completely against changing his team's name up until the point he was set to lose money from his top team sponsorships. FedEx, who owns the naming rights to Washington's stadium, was the first to publicly request a name change. Since then, Nike, Amazon, and other outlets have pulled Washington merchandise from it's stores.

SOURCE: Adam Schefter on Twitter

Jul 8, 2020, 5:30 PM ET

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...