Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

Alaskins

By Alaskins
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted

I'd let Phil Knight and Nike take charge. They did wonders with Oregon's image creation. Winning has also helped. Our unis are tired 70s style.

Yeah, and those Dodger uniforms. UGH! So 1920s. They totally gotta go.

 

I'm sorry, but our uniforms are simple and timeless. I can get on board with a few minor changes, but a full on Oregon makeover? And risk looking back on them 20 years later as dated? No thanks.

 

But, that's for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff

Spaceman Spiff

Posted
Posted

I agree with the above poster, it's just a matter of "when" not "if".  

 

So when it happens, what do you guys plan on doing?  I think I'll probably act like nothing happened, still call them the Redskins, still wear Redskins tshirts, hoodies and jerseys on game day, etc.

 

One thing I'm really afraid of is when the change happens that we have an awful team name with awful colors like the Panthers or Jaguars.  Their colors belong in a Victoria's Secret catalog, not on a football jersey.  Awful colors and a horrible design would be just as much of a letdown as the name change itself.  Perhaps the colors don't have to change, but the name, logo...I just hope it's not awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted

The Dodgers aren't battling a public image problem.

Nike would probably leave their classic imagery alone if they had mlb or the Dodger's contract to create new merch.

No one has a problem with our uniform or its colors. Hell, I haven't heard anyone complain about the logo (it's surely better than Cleveland's). It's just the nickname.

 

If anything, we should go back in time if we change the name. Those uniforms circa 1967 not only look good, but they're fan favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
War Paint

War Paint

Posted
Posted

The craziest thing is, Danny would make a FORTUNE by changing the name.  He would rake in a ton of cash.

 

Name change, logo change, merchandise sales would be through the roof.

Do you really think that?  I think the opposite would happen.  I think it would shrink the fan base drastically to the point where only those who live around the D.C. area remain fans.

 

I think a name change would be horrible, but if it happens, the only name that makes sense to me is "Skins".  A lot of people already call us the "Skins".  The logo can stay the same because there is nothing offensive about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Do you really think that?  I think the opposite would happen.  I think it would shrink the fan base drastically to the point where only those who live around the D.C. area remain fans.

Nothing to back this up but a personal opinion, but I suspect that the number of Skins fans who would desert the team if they changed names is roughly equal to the number of Republicans who moved to Canada when Obama got elected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted

I agree with Larry. If you would stop root for them because of a nickname change. Then why didn't you roll out during the Zorn years?

 

It'll be the Warriors. I would prefer them to have NO nickname and be the only NFL team without one. The Washington Football Club.

 

Folks will buy up all the Skins gear and logos they can and it'll be a decade + before we see that stuff not really stand out.

 

I'm not sure what War Paint is seeing that makes him/her think that there would be a drastic drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
War Paint

War Paint

Posted
Posted

Nothing to back this up but a personal opinion, but I suspect that the number of Skins fans who would desert the team if they changed names is roughly equal to the number of Republicans who moved to Canada when Obama got elected.

Well, it's all opinion, just like it's someone's opinion that Snyder's profits would skyrocket.  I disagree.  I think you are greatly underestimating the power of the name and logo.  I was raised to be a Redskins fan.  Dallas is known as America's team. The Redskins used to be known as the South's team.  Many Redskins fans who grew up in the South don't really have any ties to the Virgina and D.C. area.  They are Redskins fans because it's a family tradition and the Redskins had a lot of influence in the southern regions for many years.  Changing the name and logo really makes them a different team.  The Titans are technically the Houston Oilers, but really, the Houston Oilers are dead.  That team is gone.  The Oilers are a fossil in NFL lore.  Do you want that for the Redskins?  I don't. Why don't you change the L in your name to an H?  It's just a letter.  It's just a name.  It's no big deal. 

I agree with Larry. If you would stop root for them because of a nickname change. Then why didn't you roll out during the Zorn years?

 

It'll be the Warriors. I would prefer them to have NO nickname and be the only NFL team without one. The Washington Football Club.

 

Folks will buy up all the Skins gear and logos they can and it'll be a decade + before we see that stuff not really stand out.

 

I'm not sure what War Paint is seeing that makes him/her think that there would be a drastic drop.

 

I see a drastic drop.  If the Redskins do a name and logo overhaul, their fan base would shrink to the size of the Washington Nationals.  Maybe RG3 would keep the numbers up some, but other than that, the core of their base would be in the D.C. area.  I've read somewhere that the league and owners don't want the name change for the sole reason of the Redskins being so valuable.  I think the name "Warriors" is generic and kind of lame.  I don't want to share a name with an NBA team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
War Paint

War Paint

Posted
Posted

Oh, I'm offended..  unless it rains.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23662838/look-redskins-protest-by-wisconsin-tribe-seems-to-have-fizzled

 

Can't i just be offended when it's convenient?

Obviously there is a huge groundswell of popular support, and this entire fiasco is NOT just some trumped up media grandstanding.

 

~Bang

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

cruiseonoprah.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
War Paint

War Paint

Posted
Posted

OMG, just watching Fox pregame coverage, it just showed a prime example of media manipulation.  It showed a close up shot of the protesters in a way to make the protest look much bigger than it is and said nothing about the low turnout.  If they do that with this issue, imagine how the media manipulates the more important issues in the world.  Pathetic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

the name should be changed. I dont like the clowns in the media who have become the face of the movement, and its strange that they are now offended by the name, but the name should be changed.

 

open your eyes.

 

the clowns in the media ARE the movement.

It's not strange that they are 'now offended'.

NOW is when they can get publicity from it, so NOW is when they 'care'.

 

No one else seems to be taking up the call. (I mean except on safe message boards and other anonymous places unaffected white folks like to do their protestin'.)

 

Oh, they tried. they had a big nationally publicized rally in Green Bay this weekend.

For 9 people.

NINE.

the media did show up, and they bunched all nine of them up close so it looked like more in their camera shots when they went down to cover the big rally.

(Kind of like how Fox photoshops in crowds of people for rallies they want to appear larger, when they want to MANUFACTURE outrage and unity behind their bull****.)

They never did mention how many were there.

Neither would I if it embarrassed the hell out of my cause celebré.

 

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

They never did mention how many were there.

Oh, come now.

I distinctly remember reading one headline that said there were "nearly two dozen". And an article (the same one?) where they quoted the organizer of the protest as claiming that they had a day-long meeting to organize the protest, and that 170 people showed of at the meeting.

How could you have a problem with an article which did not mention how many protesters the reporter actually witnessed, but which prints (without any attempt at verification), the organizer's claim of how many people there were, when the reporters weren't around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

:D well, i guess if they SAID so...

 

I'd bet

170 people = 8 protesters, 32 television reporters, 94 technicians supporting said television people, 19 sports writers, 14 catering staffers, a small kid who's mother couldn't find a sitter,  and a guy named Eddie who had nothing else to do.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeWolf990

JoeWolf990

Posted
Posted

open your eyes.

 

the clowns in the media ARE the movement.

It's not strange that they are 'now offended'.

NOW is when they can get publicity from it, so NOW is when they 'care'.

 

No one else seems to be taking up the call. (I mean except on safe message boards and other anonymous places unaffected white folks like to do their protestin'.)

 

Oh, they tried. they had a big nationally publicized rally in Green Bay this weekend.

For 9 people.

NINE.

the media did show up, and they bunched all nine of them up close so it looked like more in their camera shots when they went down to cover the big rally.

(Kind of like how Fox photoshops in crowds of people for rallies they want to appear larger, when they want to MANUFACTURE outrage and unity behind their bull****.)

They never did mention how many were there.

Neither would I if it embarrassed the hell out of my cause celebré.

 

 

~Bang

nah, ive dismissed the media members. I dont care about them.

I care about the various native American groups that have said they are offended by it. I care about the various lawsuits from said Native American groups about the name. And even thought there were only like 15 people at that protest yesterday, their opinions matter (especially since a big reason for the low numbers is the genocide this country had committed against them those years ago). The name is a slur, it should be changed.

Will it be changed? Doubt it because money makes the world go around, and there are not enough Native Americans out there to mount any type of protest, but for me its long overdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

the various groups..  you mean the tiny group of lawyers, and the publicity-seeking Oneida tribe, and those folks who didn't bother to show up in the rain yesterday?

there weren't 15 people there yesterday. There were 9.

 

there's plenty of natives out there to protest. Plenty.

Many more than 9.Many many many more than 9.

They stopped asking those people what they think.

You know why? because they don't like the answer they get.

 

 

there is nothing on earth that does not offend SOMEONE.

the word "butter" probably offends exactly the same number of people who are actually and truly offended by this team's name.

Should we change it? 

 

the name is not a slur,l because it's never been used as a slur. if it had been, than Harjo and her cronies would have been able to prove it was in the multitude of times this case has come before a court, and subsequently been thrown out.

 

that's all they ever had to do.

When they bring this case in front of the courts, which they have done over and over since 1990, the judge asks therm to prove that it is a disparaging term that is used as a slur.

And they CAN'T because no one, and i mean NO ONE uses it as a slur.

And then they get thrown out of court, just like they did this summer when they tried yet again to get a judge to agree with them.

Now the only thing they have left is to get the media involved so they can manufacture a sense of outrage that does not exist.

 

They have failed to prove their point time and time and time again.

So, in today's Kardashian Kulture that controls our big dumb herd of outraged people, they rely on a campaign of disinformation and media manipulation.

 

Suddenly it offends people. Suddenly, at the same time the media has taken up the cause.

 

the same people that are getting offended are the same folks who are upset that Khloe's boyfriend is a cad, and who's that fat whale at the beach.. is it Kirstie Allie?
They're more offended by whatever Simon told that poor dope who failed on America's Can Sing, or whatever.

 

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...