Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

I'm one of those who does not think the name is derogatory. It was a classic logo. No one names a team after a group that is not embraced as valuable. Why do that? But if it is too volatile an issue, going back to Washington Football Team isn't a bad fall back. I started to like it once I got used to it.

 

Agreed on Redskins - maybe they should poll all Native Americans to see if they think it's offensive. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Dislike 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

They ought to take advantage of the opportunity to do better.

 

image.png.157d27ed87f73aa946f5bbe1bbf4a936.png

 

So you're telling me there's a chance...

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 7
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

Unbelievable, people thinking the old name shouldn't have offended Native Americans.  

 

Commanders is awful though. 

 

They cannot name them the Washington Idiots.  Those mentioned above might think it refers to them and they would be right.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

I'm one of those who does not think the name is derogatory. It was a classic logo. No one names a team after a group that is not embraced as valuable. Why do that? But if it is too volatile an issue, going back to Washington Football Team isn't a bad fall back. I started to like it once I got used to it.

Idk. Just imagine a team called the Washington Blackskins. It is pretty offensive TBH. The logo was def cool though. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

image.png.157d27ed87f73aa946f5bbe1bbf4a936.png

 

So you're telling me there's a chance...

I was looking at the image trying to figure out what the hell that was supposed to be before I read breadsticks. I anticipate certain grain fanatics and possibly a subset of carbohydrate aficionados will preemptively begin to organize a boycott of the team.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

Two? I wonder who else did it.


That * who went and filed trademarks for like every name so the team would have to give him millions to acquire one? That is the cheapest, low-down 🍆 move. And IIRC, they all have to be shown being used for an actual thing to keep the trademark.

 

If they do have to change (or even if the new owner just wants to change it to get a totally clean break from Snyder):

1) Red Wolves and work it out with Minnesota 🏀, altho I’m just 🤨because it’s a completely different sport, different region, and they are of major league status that they cannot be confused. How many other different-sport-same-name teams are there? Cardinals. Giants. Jets off the top of my head. Which is nothing to how every CFL team is some version of Rough Riders.

 

2) Washington Football Team and just keep the helmet logo as is, but change the unis back… because the redesign was complete 🗑️ with BFBS (black for blacks sake) all over for no reason. The Washington team needs to be maroon and yellow… that’s it.

Posted
1 minute ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

Idk. Just imagine a team called the Washington Blackskins. It is pretty offensive TBH. The logo was def cool though. 

I'm not going to rehash the complexities of an historical argument on this issue. For those who are offended by it, there's no information that would persuade them it is inoffensive or not intended to be in any event. Too bad they couldn't reinstate the logo and use the Washington Football Team designation. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, NUT said:

Agreed, so much nonsense these days.

When the stadium sponsor threatens to pull the stadium sponsorship over your team's name, you do stupid things.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

I like Washington football team 

 

it gets to the point and is poignant

By no means the grammar police, but poignant carries a negative connotation with it, no?

  • Disagree 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

I like Washington football team 

 

it gets to the point and is poignant

 

It grew on me. Reminiscent of traditional soccer football names. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Kaenon said:

By no means the grammar police, but poignant carries a negative connotation with it, no?

I’m by no means an English master but I believe definition 2b = being to the point 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, UConn James said:


That * who went and filed trademarks for like every name so the team would have to give him millions to acquire one? That is the cheapest, low-down 🍆 move. And IIRC, they all have to be shown being used for an actual thing to keep the trademark.

 

If they do have to change (or even if the new owner just wants to change it to get a totally clean break from Snyder):

1) Red Wolves and work it out with Minnesota 🏀, altho I’m just 🤨because it’s a completely different sport, different region, and they are of major league status that they cannot be confused. How many other different-sport-same-name teams are there? Cardinals. Giants. Jets off the top of my head. Which is nothing to how every CFL team is some version of Rough Riders.

 

2) Washington Football Team and just keep the helmet logo as is, but change the unis back… because the redesign was complete 🗑️ with BFBS (black for blacks sake) all over for no reason. The Washington team needs to be maroon and yellow… that’s it.

 

Maroon is very appropriate:

image.png.b4c72547cc78eb05bf0be8209aaec312.png

 

Not sure where yellow comes from.  Keystone Kops did not wear yelow.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...