Do You Support Dan Snyder moving the team to LA, so long as the NFL promised DC an expansion team within three years?

[spaceman47]

I do not really see how this makes anything better.  I may just be overlooking something, but my brief googling of NFL expansion teams tells me that, aside from the Ravens which kept the Browns roster, the Bucs and Seahawks were the last teams to come into the league and win SBs.  They came in in 76 and the Bucs won in 02 and Sea of course last year.  That's 26 more years til a SB. 

 

Plus what happens if we end up like Cle and have the Skins move just to win 2 SBs while our expansion team continues to bottum out each year. 

[mike42]

Yes if we get to keep name/logo/history.  Im all for the move to LA since I live in San Diego, that's only a little over an hour away for me!  I will take it.  Their hometown is cursed, get them the hell out of there and away from all your ****ty media.

I don't think Snyder would keep the name, even if he wanted to. I'm sure the mayor/league would feel pressure to axe the name and uniforms before signing any deal in LA. 

[MassSkinsFan]

I do not really see how this makes anything better.  I may just be overlooking something, but my brief googling of NFL expansion teams tells me that, aside from the Ravens which kept the Browns roster, the Bucs and Seahawks were the last teams to come into the league and win SBs.  They came in in 76 and the Bucs won in 02 and Sea of course last year.  That's 26 more years til a SB. 

 

Plus what happens if we end up like Cle and have the Skins move just to win 2 SBs while our expansion team continues to bottum out each year. 

 

The idea is based on the assumption that the Toxic Toddler^TM is the problem with the team, and that he will continue to own it indefinitely. With those 2 assumptions, status quo is that the Redskins continue to go 2-14, 3-13 or 4-12 for decades.

 

That is option 3.

 

Option 1 is that we send this mess and the Toxic Toddler^TM to LA. They begin there with the current roster but a new name. After three years DC gets the Redskins back under a new owner.

 

Option 2 is that we send the mess to LA but they remain the Redskins. In three years DC gets a new team with a new name.

[NewCliche21]

I do not really see how this makes anything better.  I may just be overlooking something, but my brief googling of NFL expansion teams tells me that, aside from the Ravens which kept the Browns roster, the Bucs and Seahawks were the last teams to come into the league and win SBs.  They came in in 76 and the Bucs won in 02 and Sea of course last year.  That's 26 more years til a SB. 

 

Plus what happens if we end up like Cle and have the Skins move just to win 2 SBs while our expansion team continues to bottum out each year. 

 

It's been 23 years since we won a Super Bowl.  I don't mean this in any way disrespectfully, but honestly, what's the difference?

[arftech]

Isn't Dan tied to FedEx Field for a few more years?  What will be the legal ramifications for trying to break the lease?

 

HTTR!

[Hail4Life]

I don't think Snyder would keep the name, even if he wanted to. I'm sure the mayor/league would feel pressure to axe the name and uniforms before signing any deal in LA. 

 

Oh yeah, there is no way LA would allow a team to be named "Redskins".  Too many bleeding hearts and phony sympathizers down here.

[spaceman47]

It's been 23 years since we won a Super Bowl.  I don't mean this in any way disrespectfully, but honestly, what's the difference?

 

No disrespect taken.  I am just saying are we willing to accept that we may only be at the halfway point. 

[carex]

Your team, our team, is forever going to suck. If it means Snyder moving the team to be able to root for a team that's at least respectable I'd be all for it. Don't think of it as our Redskins moving to L.A. Think of it as Snyder moving the mess he made here in D.C. to L.A.

 

I don't care about the mess, I care about the Redskins.  Hell, I don't even dislike Snyder.  I LIKE people who try hard and I certainly think Snyder is doing that.

[NoCalMike]

You do realize that if the team moved and changed it's name, the NFL would probably never authorize the use of "Redskins" going forward? 

 

Plus....it's not happening.

[Mr. Sinister]

Yes. Even if he takes the team name/logo/records with him.

Im 26. I never saw them when they were perenially one of the leagues best

[Voice_of_Reason]

He can't take my history. It belongs to this community and Snyder never had a hand in it. Even if he took the trophies with him, the world knows the truth.

And yes I'd take three years off if it sent that clown and his eternal circus somewhere else.

When the Browns franchise moved to Baltimore, it left all the records and what-not with the new franchise.  

 

All the Ravens did is go out and win 2 SBs.  The Browns have been stuck in the mud since their return.

 

It will never, ever, in a million years, happen.  And part of the agreement would be neither team would be named the Redskins.

 

I'd be fine with it.  But I'd also be fine with having an orgy with Scarlett Johansen, Jennifer Lawrence and Megan Fox.  

 

Neither is going to happen.   

[Patrick Evidente]

Hell no. The new Redskins will be an expansion team no matter what.

[carex]

reading some of these threads, it seems some people are more attached to football or winning than the Washington Redskins

[Spearfeather]

 

It will never, ever, in a million years, happen.  

 

I'd be fine with it.  But I'd also be fine with having an orgy with Scarlett Johansen, Jennifer Lawrence and Megan Fox.  

 

Neither is going to happen.   

 

You have excellent taste, and there is probably a better chance of that happening than Snyder going to L.A.

 

Best of luck to you.

[Voice_of_Reason]

reading some of these threads, it seems some people are more attached to football or winning than the Washington Redskins

Question: The Browns did this.  The Browns became the Ravens, and Cleveland got a new franchise called the Browns.

 

Now, the situation was different.  

 

But let's say this franchise, owned and operated by Dan Snyder left, and a new franchise, with the same name (very unlikely as it might be) showed up.  Kept the records, etc.  However, it would be different management.

 

Why wouldn't you root for the new management?  Wouldn't it be the same as if Dan sold, and a new owner/management came in?

You have excellent taste, and there is probably a better chance of that happening than Snyder going to L.A.

 

Best of luck to you.

I'm not picky, I'd even take one at a time.    

[balki1867]

the idea is that everyone would lie to themselves then.  I don't view the current Cleveland Browns as the team that played in the AAFC, they're an expansion team no matter what the NFL says, and the same would be true for the proposed Fakeskins. 

 

The Fakeskins seems like an appropriate name for a team playing in Los Angeles.  Maybe they can take that name

[TMK9973]

I vote NO - a BIG no. Its like everyone has forgotten that we watch Football as entertainment.  

Look - I want to win as much as anyone - I live and breath the Redskins, and in the last 29 years have missed exactly 3 games.  

I even told my ex wife we could only try to have a child certain months of the year to not get in the way of a Redskins game AND when we divorced (maybe because of that...lol ) I had a Redskins clause in my decree that gives me custody of the kids for all Redskins playoff and Redskins / Cowboys games.

 

But getting ready for the season, watching the games, debating the roster and coaching calls, IS part of the fun.  Part of the love...

BTW- What makes you think we will win later even if that all happen? What have the browns won since 1999?

[balki1867]

reading some of these threads, it seems some people are more attached to football or winning than the Washington Redskins

 

That's most fanbases.  I don't know any diehard fanbases that don't consistently win.  Even Ravens fans, who are so proud about their loyalty, go into deep denial mode when you point out that they had 2 games blacked out in their second season in Baltimore (and a third was saved because local sponsors bought up tickets).

 

My BIL has had Ravens' season tickets since that franchise's beginning and he's pretty open that he had to sell games he couldn't go to at a loss until their Super Bowl season in 2000. Now he has dozens of friends asking if there's games he's selling, and if he really can't find someone for a particular weekend, he makes even more money getting rid of those games on stubhub.

[carex]

Question: The Browns did this.  The Browns became the Ravens, and Cleveland got a new franchise called the Browns.

 

Now, the situation was different.  

 

But let's say this franchise, owned and operated by Dan Snyder left, and a new franchise, with the same name (very unlikely as it might be) showed up.  Kept the records, etc.  However, it would be different management.

 

Why wouldn't you root for the new management?  Wouldn't it be the same as if Dan sold, and a new owner/management came in?

 

 

Records are just paper.  There's no tangible connection to the past.

 

And after three years of no football I doubt I'd care enough to get interested.  I watch the Redskins and that's it for any regular football watching for me.  The only thing that keeps me watching a non-Skins game for more than ten or fifteen minutes at a time is if the Cowboys, Eagles or Giants are being beaten, and if they get an advantage I change the channel.  I barely even watch the playoffs or Super Bowl. 

[Shortcut21]

In my opinion (which doesnt count for much).  Dan Snyder bought this team, he didn't win a superbowl, he didn't create the traditions or memories.  He bought into them, which he is capitalizing on.  

 

If he were to up and move this team, players, coaches, front office. All the things we are fed up with, that is all he is moving.  He is not moving the legacy/traditions/memories/super bowls.  Those will forever remain in Washington DC.  The name debate is tough, as the world we live in today; everyone is offended by everything (and everything gives you cancer).

 

We are fans of the Washington Redskins. And you remember the good memories, and carry on the traditions.  If the team moves, those do not technically move with it. 

 

I am a huge Yankees fan, and if for some crazy reason Hal Steinbrenner moved the team and players to Tampa, and a new group created the New York Yankees again.... well i would be a New York Yankees fan.....because they are in New York...

 

On a separate thought if the Redskins theoretically moved to another state/city - who on this team would you miss? I honestly would not miss a single player, all the players I have enjoyed on the Redskins are long gone..... 

 

again my opinion and those who have different thoughts make very good points.

[AZDave]

I voted NO!

I know its easy to say get rid of them for three years, but growing up in NW DC and moving to Phoenix, I have seen this before. I'm telling you that bad football is way better then no football. We would not get the team back ever no matter what as promised. DC would loose its history and name. Do you guys really believe that the NFL would allow the Redskin name to be used again. Think again

[Mr. Sinister]

reading some of these threads, it seems some people are more attached to football or winning than the Washington Redskins

Ive been a Redskins fan for almost 20 years. Its gotten me nowhere. What is a team/fanbase, without winning?

Every positive memory fans have of their team is when they won, not when they were a seemingly eternal trainwreck. This fanbase would not be what it is today, if it werent for the 70s, 80s, and early 90s

[worldpost]

Seriously is this even a question with die hard bleeding burgundy and gold fans... What a complete joke.. Who here believes anything that the NFL says..  smh

[FrFan]

Remove the owner to LA or to another galaxy, keep the team in DC.

[MassSkinsFan]

BTW- What makes you think we will win later even if that all happen? What have the browns won since 1999?

 

I'm not saying we'd win for sure.

 

The way I see it is with the Toxic Toddler^TM we have 100% chance of failure. With someone else we're likely to have a lower % chance of failure. The odds are with us here.

 

The other thing is that the "if it goes to LA it is still the Redskins, the team I've rooted for all along, even if the name/history changes" argument is specious given how quickly personnel change in the modern NFL. In the 3 years between moving the franchise out and starting another one here, the Toxic Toddler^TM would probably go through 2 HCs, 2 QBs and a bunch of WRs. The OL would be mostly the same bunch of 2nd stringers though. Hardly like it would be the same team that ended the continuous run in DC.