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

[Dan T.]

I'm trying to think of other situations in major sports where this has happened ... a long-standing franchise changes its name.    I'm not counting franchises that change cities and rebrand - like the Titans, Nats, etc.  I mean a team that's been in a town for a long while and decides to rebrand. 

 

Other than the Bullets/Wizards, the one I can  think of is in MLB where the Houston Colt 45's changed their name to the Houston Astros.  But they were an expansion team and had only been the "Colt 45's" for a couple years when that happened.

 

Are there other examples?

 

[BTW, I am okay with a name change.  Just be done with it, sell a bunch of new merch, and move on.]

[MariusVT]

9 hours ago, The Sisko said:

 

I was thinking along similar lines. If I were Snyder, I’d offer 5% ownership to a few tribes or maybe an umbrella organization of all tribes and get their input on picking an appropriate name and the maybe keeping the logo. It would be a good thing to do and it would also provide some backing from people with actual “Skin” in the game. Some would call it a buy out but this kind of arrangement seems to have worked well for FSU.

 

With all due respect, you’re delusional. Maybe the year or two after he bought the team but not now. The league would quickly respond that Stubby hasn’t pulled his weight for years and he should be happy the league’s shared revenue has kept him in business now for decades. Were it not for that, the Skins would have gone the way of Six Flags a loooong time ago.

 

I can understand this. However, I was born at Freedman’s Hospital. My Dad spent much of his Navy career at Walter Wonderful and DC is the only area my mother ever lived in outside of her hometown of Wohlau, Germany. I graduated from Bladensburg High and UMCP. I have ties to this team even though I spent my youth in central FL and now live in Atlanta. Whatever they call the team, it’s going to be mine, just like the Bucs are. For the latter, I’ve had to swallow the signing of a Tя☭mp loving cheater, Shady Brady. I can easily take a change of name for my DC team.

 

That said, after the Kaep thing I’m kind of over the NFL as a whole. I’m not the rabid fan I used to be, but whatever I’ve got left belongs to these guys and the creamsicle boys.

In an ordinary world you're absolutely right, but things aren't normal right now and the league is going out of its way to seem racially sensitive.  That fact alone wouldn't even surprise me if they straight up told the Dan to change the name and they'd cover all expenses, guarantee a super bowl in a new stadium and anything else to get him on the name change train.  I also fully expect given the climate of things we'll officially be the red tails in a few weeks.

[The Evil Genius]

14 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'm trying to think of other situations in major sports where this has happened ... a long-standing franchise changes its name.    I'm not counting franchises that change cities and rebrand - like the Titans, Nats, etc.  I mean a team that's been in a town for a long while and decides to rebrand. 

 

Other than the Bullets/Wizards, the one I can  think of is in MLB where the Houston Colt 45's changed their name to the Houston Astros.  But they were an expansion team and had only been the "Colt 45's" for a couple years when that happened.

 

Are there other examples?

 

[BTW, I am okay with a name change.  Just be done with it, sell a bunch of new merch, and move on.]

 

Oilers became the Titans after 2 seasons in Tennessee.  Hornets became the Pelicans after a few seasons in New Orleans. 

 

Devil Rays dropped the Devil part and won a pennant. 

[Hersh]

A friend of mine said they shouldn't do anything related to NA nor the military. Do a complete and total redo including changing the color schemes. Personally I wouldn't change the color scheme but I agree with the first. Make it unrelated to NA and the military. Please not Washington Warriors. That would be awful. 

 

I'm down with the Washington Football Club. 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

I don’t have the problem with the name. I especially don’t have a problem with the logo. But I’m not dying on either hill. If there were ever an opportunity to change it, now is the perfect time.

 

With that being said, I’ve never wavered from the belief that once the team name is changed.... the team’s fortunes will follow. I’ve always felt a lot of unfortunate things (especially the refereeing/calls) that have plagued this team were due to the name.

 

That's a great point.  Some players have outright said that they are being picked on by refs because of the name.  I recall Jason Hatcher was one of those players.  I recall it came out later that one referee refused to do Redskins game or told the NFL he didn't want to do them or something like that.  Another ref said he was somewhat uncomfortable with the name.

 

I like the way you put it, dying on the hill.  To me that's exactly how I feel.  I am cool with the name.  I disagree that its racist.  But I don't feel so passionate about it, that I'd die on a hill and keep taking lumps for it. 

 

Loverro had a good point on Sheehan's podcast and Loverro wasn't a dude who pushed for a name change -- he goes something to the effect of its tough to be a fan of a team and have to deal with people shaming you for it at the same time.    Personally, I can deal with it.  It doesn't happen a lot.  But still for me the name isn't that so important that I enjoy taking arrows for it.  Be fun not to have to deal with that at all.    If you go to google images and search racism in the NFL, our logo pops up.  Whether its justified or not, I don't enjoy that been part of fandom of this team.   It's not a hill I would die on to defend even though personally I think it's unjustified. 

31 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

 

New name. New brand. New stadium deal will follow soon after. He’s going to make money. And a lot of it.

 

I think the coup would be to leverage this somehow to get Congress to back off and allow DC to secure the land around RFK and then they land the stadium.  Rick Snider thinks that's a pipe dream.  I got no idea.  But in Dan's shoes, I'd try to leverage the situation to try to get something from Congress on this front. 

[Wildbunny]

21 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'm trying to think of other situations in major sports where this has happened ... a long-standing franchise changes its name.    I'm not counting franchises that change cities and rebrand - like the Titans, Nats, etc.  I mean a team that's been in a town for a long while and decides to rebrand. 

 

Other than the Bullets/Wizards, the one I can  think of is in MLB where the Houston Colt 45's changed their name to the Houston Astros.  But they were an expansion team and had only been the "Colt 45's" for a couple years when that happened.

 

Are there other examples?

 

[BTW, I am okay with a name change.  Just be done with it, sell a bunch of new merch, and move on.]

There was this article from RedskinsWire a few days ago:

 

https://redskinswire.usatoday.com/gallery/12-american-sports-teams-to-change-team-names-in-recent-memory/

 

And it is not that usual, like Pittsburgh, Detroit (NHL), Philadelphia (NBA). Even the Red Sox and Yankees are part of this list so.. I'd say this is not as unusual, even though most of them took place like 50 or 60 years ago, if not more...

[Skinsinparadise]

I'll double down the stadium in particular in DC would be a coup.  

 

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

random person:  so how long have you been a fan of the Washington Redskins?

 

me:  all energetic, omg I've been a die hard fan of the Redskins since I was about 4 years old, live breath and die Redskins, watch every game with passion and spend all week in anticipation of sunday.

 

random person: so how long have you been a fan of the Washington warriors?

 

can anybody honestly say they'll be able to answer that question with the same vigor and passion without feeling like you're trying to lie to yourself?

 

doesn't it feel like your gonna have to say 6 months?

 

it seems crazy to think the name is what makes the history but it really does, at least for me anyway and apparently I'm not alone.

 

this whole situation sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I'm confused by the way some people seem to feel like the name of the team changing suddenly means it's going to be some completely new and foreign entity. If I changed my name from Tim to Ron would that suddenly mean I'm a complete stranger now even if you've known me for 20 years? It's the same team, just a different name and logo. If someone asked me the above question I'd answer it the same, saying I've been a fan of Washington football since I was a little kid, from when they were the Skins through when they changed their name.

[Commander -JB-]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

random person:  so how long have you been a fan of the Washington Redskins?

 

me:  all energetic, omg I've been a die hard fan of the Redskins since I was about 4 years old, live breath and die Redskins, watch every game with passion and spend all week in anticipation of sunday.

 

random person: so how long have you been a fan of the Washington warriors?

 

can anybody honestly say they'll be able to answer that question with the same vigor and passion without feeling like you're trying to lie to yourself?

 

doesn't it feel like your gonna have to say 6 months?

 

it seems crazy to think the name is what makes the history but it really does, at least for me anyway and apparently I'm not alone.

 

this whole situation sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That enthusiasm & passion I had for the Redskins died long ago, my man.  My line of thinking is, maybe a rebrand and name change will actually be the cure to what ails us all when it comes to this franchise.

[Redskins Nation Adam]

When real Native American people are asked, most agree that the Redskins name stands for pride, honor, and respect. A majority of Native Americans polled in 2019 associate the Redskins name with the word "proud," and 90 percent of Native Americans polled in 2016 are fine with it. Some of the activists opposed to it have even lied about the origin of the word “redskin” to advance their agenda. The crusaders against Native imagery in sports are the real racists, because they are trying to stage a whitewashing of culture. This is the story of where the Redskins logo came from, and why it is a source of pride in so many Native people. The logo was designed by Walter Wetzel, Native rights activist and the Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation.

 

https://406mtsports.com/football/washington-redskins-logo-has-deep-connection-to-blackfeet-reservation-wetzel-family/article_7e919d9b-8e06-5218-8d86-d5c713ee3997.html

 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Bifflog]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

I'm confused by the way some people seem to feel like the name of the team changing suddenly means it's going to be some completely new and foreign entity. If I changed my name from Tim to Ron would that suddenly mean I'm a complete stranger now even if you've known me for 20 years? It's the same team, just a different name and logo. If someone asked me the above question I'd answer it the same, saying I've been a fan of Washington football since I was a little kid, from when they were the Skins through when they changed their name.

 

What would actually make it a different (or even, just not quite the same) team then?  If they moved cities?  I don't know where you live, but if all you care about is where a team plays relative to you, what if a new team sprung up closer to you than DC?  Would that be your new team?  Or, if you live in DC, say a second team moved in.  Would you split loyalties?

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

[Bifflog]

3 hours ago, spjunkies said:

If you sit back and think about it without the controversy surrounding it, Redskins is a **** team name that we are just used to. Sure some people will purge themselves out of the fanbase, but we'll be fine and get used to what's next over time. 

 

 

 

There's definitely nothing special about the combination of letters itself, and if we could go back and time and correct it like it never happened and was always something else, I doubt many wouldn't.  I just ask though, are you looking forward to talking about all time great Wombats coach Joe Gibbs?  Or the fact that I don't see how you can even justify ever showing any of the pre-name-change footage since it's riddled with visible slurs.  Some say nothing about the history of the team has changed, but that's hogwash (there's a name idea!), the history is boarded up in a silo marked "Biohazard!".  Some people might be fine being an expansion team, I have no idea if I am.  I am extremely jealous of the other storied, historic teams in our division, and I am sick at the rampant schadenfreude.

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Bifflog said:

 

What would actually make it a different (or even, just not quite the same) team then?  If they moved cities?  I don't know where you live, but if all you care about is where a team plays relative to you, what if a new team sprung up closer to you than DC?  Would that be your new team.  Or, if you live in DC, say a second team moved in.  Would you split loyalties?

 

It would likely take a lot for me to basically see it as a new entity that had no relation to what I knew and then move on. Like maybe if they were intentionally doing everything they could to repackage themselves as a new team with no relation to the old one. New city, new name, new logo, wipe the roster and start over, new coaching staff, new owner (that one would actually be a plus though) and then pretty much disown the history of the Washington Redskins franchise as unrelated to them. Essentially them saying "We are a new team that has zero to do with the old Washington Redskins and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that's well understood.".

 

As far as my personal story, yes I grew up in the DMV area but locality isn't necessarily the driving force. My immediate family are all Skins fans so since I was a kid I grew up with it so it's just ingrained in me and I love the team. If they moved cities but remained the same franchise I'd be sad but they'd still be my team. I very rarely go to games as it is, so not being able to go much wouldn't really be a big deal to me.

[Bifflog]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

It would likely take a lot for me to basically see it as a new entity that had no relation to what I knew and then move on. Like maybe if they were intentionally doing everything they could to repackage themselves as a new team with no relation to the old one. New city, new name, new logo, wipe the roster and start over, new coaching staff, new owner (that one would actually be a plus though) and then pretty much disown the history of the Washington Redskins franchise as unrelated to them. Essentially them saying "We are a new team that has zero to do with the old Washington Redskins and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that's well understood.".

 

As far as my personal story, yes I grew up in the DMV area but locality isn't necessarily the driving force. My immediate family are all Skins fans so since I was a kid I grew up with it so it's just ingrained in me and I love the team. If they moved cities but remained the same franchise I'd be sad but they'd still be my team. I very rarely go to games as it is, so not being able to go much wouldn't really be a big deal to me.

 

See that comes too dangerously close to just saying you're rooting for the franchise charter paperwork to me.  I don't think I am capable of that, maybe I would have a better time if I could be that pragmatic but it starts to border on the absurd to me.  But I'm also not in the business of telling people how to be a fan, and if that works for someone then I certainly get it.

[mistertim]

18 minutes ago, Bifflog said:

 

See that comes too dangerously close to just saying you're rooting for the franchise charter paperwork to me.  I don't think I am capable of that, maybe I would have a better time if I could be that pragmatic but it starts to border on the absurd to me.  But I'm also not in the business of telling people how to be a fan, and if that works for someone then I certainly get it.

 

It has nothing at all to do with pragmatism or paperwork. I've been a fan of the team and around family members who were fans of it since I can remember. It's a deep attachment to the team/franchise and its history...and an emotional one, not a pragmatic one. If I was being purely pragmatic I'd say "ok, I need to find a team to root for that doesn't suck and doesn't have a total dip**** for an owner, because I'm sick of being let down and dejected every season". 

 

As I said, they'd likely have to intentionally do things to negate the entire history and re-brand themselves as a completely new entity for me to move on. 

[Skinsinparadise]

don't know if this guy has any insider info or not but just in case..

 

 

 

[Bifflog]

13 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

It has nothing at all to do with pragmatism or paperwork. I've been a fan of the team and around family members who were fans of it since I can remember. It's a deep attachment to the team/franchise and its history...and an emotional one, not a pragmatic one. If I was being purely pragmatic I'd say "ok, I need to find a team to root for that doesn't suck and doesn't have a total dip**** for an owner, because I'm sick of being let down and dejected every season". 

 

As I said, they'd likely have to intentionally do things to negate the entire history and re-brand themselves as a completely new entity for me to move on. 

 

Yeah, it must just manifest itself differently, because I am feeling ill about the entire process for all the same reasons above.

[88Comrade2000]

It would be great if this name change ultimately, leads Dan to sell the team or at least control interest.  

[grego]

On 7/3/2020 at 1:57 PM, PeterMP said:

 

I'm saying his statement about the polling data isn't likely correct.

 

In general, I tend to try not to offend people.  But my point above was more about being accurate.

 

I'm not sure they aren't correct. The man who conducted the annenberg poll doesn't personally like the name, yet stands by the results. That's a hostile witness. So is the Washington Post. I'll take a professional, credible polling company over that Berkeley study unless there is reason to believe the Berkeley study is more accurate. 

 

 

[KevinthePRF]

Guilty admission. I'm petty. Of all the horrible replacement names, which is basically all of them for me. I like Redtails. 

 

If the native americans don't like the team celebrating their history then so be it. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I just posted the below on my facebook page.  I thought I would post it here as well. This is long, which is definitely on-brand for me.   (PS: If you get all the way to the end, great. But since you aren't my facebook friend, I'm not buying you a doughnut.   

 

Friends, with the news on Friday the Washington Redskins are going to evaluate changing their names under intense public and financial scrutiny, I have some thoughts having followed this story for the better part of 40 years.

 

Bottom line up front: It is time for the Redskins to change the team name.

 

This is going to be a bit long, because unlike what a lot of folks want you to believe, this is a nuanced and complicated issue. So apologies in advance. If you get all the way to the end, let me know in the comments, I'll buy you a doughnut the next time we're allowed to be out of our houses.  

 

However, there are certain things I think which are important to highlight as we come to this issue. It's been painted in the wrong light for too long, and the organization and the fans have been painted in a negative light for too long as well.

 

1. First, let me start with this: the people who just definitively say, "the name is racist, end of argument, it's akin to the "n-word" are WRONG. It's not. That's a factually incorrect statement for personal and political gain. The correct statement is "The term Redskins offends a growing number in the Native American community." Here are 3 pieces of information to back that up, coming from polling done over 20 years by different groups who surveyed Native Americans. The first is the Annenberg poll in 2004, in which "respondents who identified themselves as being Native American were asked: "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn't it bother you?" In response, ninety percent replied that the name did not bother them, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer." The next major poll was conducted in 2016 by the Washington Post, who DESPERATELY were looking for a survey which supported their position the name was a racial slur. They have been on the name change bandwagon since the mid-2000's when they got into a massive battle with the team over a number of issues, hate Dan Snyder, and have been using the name issue as a weapon against the team. (As an aside, the team is not blameless, they provoked The Post, and acted like insolent teenagers, especially Larry Michael, the complete tool who is the "voice of the Redskins.") However, the WP poll again failed, as 80% of people who identified themselves as Native American's responded that they would not be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a "Redskin". The final piece of evidence is the Berkley study which was conducted this year. The study concluded "at least half of more than 1,000 Native Americans surveyed are offended by the football team’s 87-year-old moniker and Native mascots in general." Please read that statement carefully, as it was worded very specifically. It's important to note that this study was NOT a study of the Redskins team name, it lumped all of the native american imagery, team names and other stuff together. For example, the use of the tomahawk chop, the wearing of headresses, things like a dude dressed up as an indian running onto the field and throwing a spear, team names (including Redskins, Indians and Chiefs) were all asked about as a group, there was no question (that I know of) which addressed the Redskin team name specifically, unlike the other two polls. Also, having listened to a lot of discussion about the Berkley study, it's absolutely clear they knew what they wanted the research to show before the started the study. The name change advocates were dealt a huge blow by the 2016 WP poll, and to combat that, they have been attacking the polls since. The Berkley study was part of the response to that, to try and get "more accurate" information on the issue at large. If you enter a study knowing what you want the outcome to be, you often can find it. To me, the most accurate poll is the Washington Post poll in 2016, which was conducted by extremely reputable pollsters and organizations. Granted, it's 4 years ago now, so there is probably some type of a shift in thinking. But just 4 years ago, 90% of native american's polled were not offended by the name, and did not consider it a racial slur.

 

One additional piece of information is there are several predominantly Native American HSs who use the name Redskin for their team mascot. One of the principal's however, did write he believes that while the term is one of pride when used by native american's to refer to themselves, it should not be used by others to define them. Which I think is an extremely nuanced and valid point.

 

What we can take away from this is the following: the term Redskins is NOT the "n-word." If it was, the polling and survey's over the last 15 years would have indicated a significantly larger number of native american's who are offended by the name. And you wouldn't really see too much of a movement over time. If it was the n-word, it would have been offensive in 2004, continued to be offensive in 2016, and 2019. Even within the native american community, there is some disagreement as to whether this is a racist term or not, and in the latest poll, only half of the respondents identified the name as offensive. That immediately makes this a much more nuanced and complicated argument than the "It's a racial slur, and anybody who uses it is a racist or racially insensitive."

 

An example of how language changes, in most of the country, if you're at a restaurant, and somebody says, "hey look, 3 Redskins just walked in," you turn around looking to see if it's Dwayne Haskins, Terry McLaurin, maybe Chase Young. (Granted, most people these days can't identify 3 members of the team because they've been SO bad for SO long.) You would never expect it to be 3 native american. For over 50 years, the term Redskin has essentially meant "people who play for the professional football team in Washington."

 

Contrast that to if you're sitting in a restaurant, and somebody says, "hey look 3 **** just walked in." My guess is you're about to have a brawl. There's a difference. And anybody who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.

 

2. There are some people who consider the team emblem, the profile picture of a native american chief to be offensive. However, it's important to note that in the 1970's, when the 'Skins were looking for a new image, George Allen, the head coach of the team, went to an Indian Reservation and worked with the tribe to come up with what they wanted the Redskins to use as their image. The tribe actually provided the graphic which has been used for the last 50 years. It then provided George Allen an award which still hangs in the Ashburn Team Headquarters. The intent of the team has always been to pay respect and honor the native american community. There has never been an attempt in any way to marginalize, offend or in any other way insult the community. The team does not have caricatures, cartoons, offensive chants, people dressed up with headdresses, or other offense images as part of it's game-day, marketing, or team sanctioned merchandising. The merch is either the name, or just the emblem. (In fact, the most recognizable group of fans in the team history were a bunch of fat guys who dressed up as women pigs, the "hogettes."

 

In addition, over the last decade, the team has made a concerted effort to work with tribes across the country, and supported those tribes financially and in other ways. Several of the most prominent players, coaches and even the owner (who everybody despises) have traveled to reservations and met with native american communities, listened to them, taken feedback and contributed thousands of dollars to the causes they find important. Some would say this is just an attempt to buy-off the tribes. Which is possible. But these visits fits in line with a broader approach the team has, for at least 50 years, which has been trying to do nothing more than honor the community it has the name.

 

I understand the racial undertones of the name because it's directly referring to the color of a person's skin. And that's why it needs to change. But anybody who claims the team, it's ownership, management, players or fans are racist is just plain wrong.

 

3. However, the reason I support the change of the name is because the name IS offending a growing percentage of Native American's, and with all of the other names you can choose from, there's really no reason to offend the community which you are trying to honor. If THEY think, and they are, in growing numbers, the name, and native american imagery in sports, is offensive, then it's got to go. I do think there a piece of this where the media and politicians have talked this into a reality where it wasn't, but to be honest, that doesn't matter so much. It is what it is, and it's time for a change.

 

4. And finally, what really makes me spitting mad is the media, certain politicians and newly crowed social advocate influencers who have latched onto this issue without any real research, thought or understanding. For example, an argument of "We really shouldn't refer to a team name by the color of somebody's skin, however the team is being extremely respectful to the native american community, maybe they can work together to come up with a new team name which honors the traditions they are trying to honor" would be universally accepted. But the argument is, "The name is racist. Anybody who doesn't believe so is a racist. They need to change the name because it's offensive to all native american's. The organization is hateful towards them, and is insulting them." Which simply isn't true. Then you have latchers on like Costas, Peter King, and that ass hat from Pro Football Talk Mike Florio who HATES Dan Snyder and therefore was a late comer but extremely vocal name change advocate. You have politicians (who for the sake of not sparking a political debate I won't name) who see this as a social injustice however have no nuance at all when it comes to the topic, because they don't understand, or they don't want to understand, they haven't been educated or they don't want to be educated, or they do understand and are educated and just want a platform no matter what. And finally you have social justice folks like Alyssa Milano who have latched on, and I bet Ms. Milano has not even read one thing about the topic, talked to one native american, or considered any discussion. It's just a flat, "The name is racist. Change it." argument. That's what upsets me.

 

5. Without any question, the most offensive thing about the Redskins over the past 25 years has been their play on the field. And that's something every person of every ethnicity, gender and nationality can agree on.

 

In closing, I desperately hope they choose a good name, and I hope they stay away from any native american theme altogether., This has been a ridiculously tiring issue for too long. I don't care, they can change the name to the Washington Pitchforks for all I care.

[dchogs]

1 hour ago, Bifflog said:

 

What would actually make it a different (or even, just not quite the same) team then?  If they moved cities?  I don't know where you live, but if all you care about is where a team plays relative to you, what if a new team sprung up closer to you than DC?  Would that be your new team?  Or, if you live in DC, say a second team moved in.  Would you split loyalties?

For me, it would be leaving the city.  If the Redskins (name intact) left DC and moved out of the area... say, wilmington NC, i'd be done.  i doubt i'd find a new team and would just be a fan for the local team geographically.  that's how i do all of my other sports, save the Premier League.  i was a padres fan in san diego, a phillies fan in philly, and a nats fan in the DMV. 

 

if another team moves into DC or the general area (like, say, the ravens), i ain't switching allegiance.

 

that's just me, and i don't mind when others do things differently (though i do give my uncle a ton of crap for switching from the skins to the ravens... his only saving grace is that he was a colts fan and then transferred to the skins when the colts bolted). 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Bifflog said:

 

There's definitely nothing special about the combination of letters itself, and if we could go back and time and correct it like it never happened and was always something else, I doubt many wouldn't.  I just ask though, are you looking forward to talking about all time great Wombats coach Joe Gibbs?  Or the fact that I don't see how you can even justify ever showing any of the pre-name-change footage since it's riddled with visible slurs.  Some say nothing about the history of the team has changed, but that's hogwash (there's a name idea!), the history is boarded up in a silo marked "Biohazard!".  Some people might be fine being an expansion team, I have no idea if I am.  I am extremely jealous of the other storied, historic teams in our division, and I am sick at the rampant schadenfreude.

 

Could not disagree with this more. Let me give you an analogy. I have a friend whose name is Michael Trent XXXXX (first an middle name, last name withheld to protect the innocent, in this case you 🙂 He is crazy.    I knew him for more than 10 yrs. We lost track of each other for while. He came back to the area and we reconnected through a mutual friend. But now he was Trent. I didn't forget all the good times i had with Mike. It's the same guy. Why would that change? 

 

Many fans - likely including me - will remember things as the Redskins. So Joe Gibbs and the Redskins. But some may talk about those days as remember the Warriors old coach Joe Gibbs. Either way, Riggins still scores on 4th and 1 from the 42 in SB 17. How does that change because they change the name? They still have 3 SBs. That does not go away. It's still their history. 

 

I recognize your right to your feelings. But I have to admit I have a hard time following that the entire prior team and what they accomplished is all locked up and suddenly is not part of this new namerd team.