Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread


JSSkinz

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Plenty of team names have nothing to do with the city. 

 

Lions in Detroit? Rams in LA/St. Louis/Cleveland? 

Yes, but Jason has mentioned they want to keep the colors and honor the city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Oh OK. 

Then clearly they are throwing out some ****ty names so that whatever they choose isn't all that bad 

Armada sounds nice, and it represents the Navy, which is part of the defense so I can get behind it but the others were ugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, dyst said:

Yes, but Jason has mentioned they want to keep the colors and honor the city. 

They have that automatically covered though, whatever the name ends up being it'll start with Washington. 

I think it's important to them to protect the brand as much as possible and the brand is the Washington redskins and their 90 year history.

Despite how much they've sucked for the last 30 years they don't want to have to start completely over on history and branding and I think that's why most suggestions keep team colors and many have some variation of red in the name or just Washington football team or club which technically we've been for the last 90 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned on Twitter that it seems they are sending dozens of different names and choices to different STHs, perhaps to see if there's a trend in the type of name fans want--animal-based, human-based, more abstract, more intimidating, more defensive, more offensive, etc, etc...that the individual names aren't the point, but that they wanted names that fell into different categories so that they can use it as a beginning foundation for which direction they will ultimately go in when determining the new name.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That list of names is horrible and I don’t know if I can even pretend to follow this team if they are called something like Swifts, Aviators or Griffins. 
 

It’s hard to reconcile.

 

Red Wolves is the only halfway decent name on the list. It’s almost like they’re only putting it up against awful names in order to make it win but then they go and ask for the two LEAST favorite names... and everyone knows that people see a list and don’t read... 

 

And we’re going to wind up being the Aviators.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, redskinss said:

They have that automatically covered though, whatever the name ends up being it'll start with Washington. 

I think it's important to them to protect the brand as much as possible and the brand is the Washington redskins and their 90 year history.

Despite how much they've sucked for the last 30 years they don't want to have to start completely over on history and branding and I think that's why most suggestions keep team colors and many have some variation of red in the name or just Washington football team or club which technically we've been for the last 90 years.

See I think the last 30 years actually has a big influence on what the decision is. Had we been a good team with a growing fanbase for the last 30 years it would be really hard to move on. They don't have to start over completely but if they want to cultivate a new group of young fans and grow this fanbase then I think the last 90 years is less important than whatever the future of this team is going to be. The last 30 years of mediocrity and BS means besides the colors everything is negotiable.

Just now, KDawg said:

That list of names is horrible and I don’t know if I can even pretend to follow this team if they are called something like Swifts, Aviators or Griffins. 
 

It’s hard to reconcile.

 

Red Wolves is the only halfway decent name on the list. It’s almost like they’re only putting it up against awful names in order to make it win but then they go and ask for the two LEAST favorite names... and everyone knows that people see a list and don’t read... 

 

And we’re going to wind up being the Aviators.

I'm buying into the idea that these names are just so people can pick overall if they want it to be an animal, miltary thing etc. I don't think it's about the names itself but the genre of name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

See I think the last 30 years actually has a big influence on what the decision is. Had we been a good team with a growing fanbase for the last 30 years it would be really hard to move on. They don't have to start over completely but if they want to cultivate a new group of young fans and grow this fanbase then I think the last 90 years is less important than whatever the future of this team is going to be. The last 30 years of mediocrity and BS means besides the colors everything is negotiable.

I'm buying into the idea that these names are just so people can pick overall if they want it to be an animal, miltary thing etc. I don't think it's about the names itself but the genre of name.


I get it. But why list a bunch of horrible names to do that? It’s such an odd way to figure out the name. 
 

I really hope they know what they’re doing here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KDawg said:


I get it. But why list a bunch of horrible names to do that? It’s such an odd way to figure out the name. 
 

I really hope they know what they’re doing here. 

I don't know much about marketing but I know human psychology has a lot to do with their research. It's not just random.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

but I know human psychology has a lot to do with their research. It's not just random.

I agree but I think you underestimate the psychological value of history when it comes to branding. 

If coca cola changed its name to Johnsons cola or whatever and kept its product exactly the same it would still decimate its sales.

People need history for their attachment to stay strong, even new fans will want history, its not necessary, you can build a brand from scratch but nobody wants to when they already have an existing successful brand.

And as I said before our last 30 years have certainly hurt the brand and dropping redskins will hurt it more but it's still an existing successful brand that the decision makers will want to salvage as much as they possibly can from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, redskinss said:

I agree but I think you underestimate the psychological value of history when it comes to branding. 

If coca cola changed its name to Johnsons cola or whatever and kept its product exactly the same it would still decimate its sales.

People need history for their attachment to stay strong, even new fans will want history, its not necessary, you can build a brand from scratch but nobody wants to when they already have an existing successful brand.

And as I said before our last 30 years have certainly hurt the brand and dropping redskins will hurt it more but it's still an existing successful brand that the decision makers will want to salvage as much as they possibly can from.

 

See I think Coca Cola is a bad example to use because it's universally loved. I mean they did try to change the recipe at one point and the backlash was huge. 

 

The Redskins were not universally loved especially in the last decade, not even in their own backyard. We're not the Cowboys. The brand has not stayed on top of the Forbes list as a top sports franchise in the world, and quite frankly it's probably overvalued simply because owning an NFL franchise is tied to the league so heavily. If all these teams were truly independent and not tied to TV deals then certain franchises lose a lot of their luster. 

 

The NFL is the successful brand, not necessarily the Washington Football Team. We have been bad. We have a universally hated owner, we have a depressing stadium with a terrible gameday experience. 

 

I think this last year and coming season will be as you said a way for the decision makers to salvage as much as they can from those of us that have so much invested in the history of this team. But I also think as savvy business people that need to raise the value of this team to succeed in their positions, they will move forward with a new brand that has the name Washington and the colors burgundy and gold. I don't see us revamping the fight song or constantly harkening back to our past they was they did so much last year. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

 

See I think Coca Cola is a bad example to use because it's universally loved. I mean they did try to change the recipe at one point and the backlash was huge. 

 

The Redskins were not universally loved especially in the last decade, not even in their own backyard. We're not the Cowboys. The brand has not stayed on top of the Forbes list as a top sports franchise in the world, and quite frankly it's probably overvalued simply because owning an NFL franchise is tied to the league so heavily. If all these teams were truly independent and not tied to TV deals then certain franchises lose a lot of their luster. 

 

The NFL is the successful brand, not necessarily the Washington Football Team. We have been bad. We have a universally hated owner, we have a depressing stadium with a terrible gameday experience. 

 

I think this last year and coming season will be as you said a way for the decision makers to salvage as much as they can from those of us that have so much invested in the history of this team. But I also think as savvy business people that need to raise the value of this team to succeed in their positions, they will move forward with a new brand that has the name Washington and the colors burgundy and gold. I don't see us revamping the fight song or constantly harkening back to our past they was they did so much last year. 

You may be right, and the brand has certainly taken quite the hit in the last 30 years I just think they're going to try very hard to keep the history as much as they possibly can.

I think that's why they put the "established 1932" after Washington football team because they know how much that matters.

We'll see, it'll definitely be interesting to see how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go...looks like my username turned out to be quite prophetic!! Never heard of any NFL owner having to drag his former GM into court over defamation...

 

Daniel Snyder seeks to question Bruce Allen under oath, in connection with ongoing defamation lawsuit

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/04/15/daniel-snyder-seeks-to-question-bruce-allen-under-oath-in-connection-with-ongoing-defamation-lawsuit/

 

Although all matters between Washington Football Team owner Daniel Snyder and his former limited partners have been resolved, Snyder continues to pursue a defamation claim against a website that tried to tie him to the late Jeffrey Epstein. According to Daniel Kaplan of TheAthletic.com, Snyder’s latest effort targets former team president Bruce Allen.

Per Kaplan, Snyder wants to question Allen under oath, and also to secure documents in his possession, custody, or control that could be relevant to the pending litigation in India (not Indiana, India) against Meaww.com.

“[Snyder] has a good faith belief that [Allen] has specific knowledge of the creation and distribution of the MEAWW articles, and thus has information relevant to the Indian Action,” Snyder’s lawyers wrote in court papers. “The motion is not a lawsuit, but a request to the court to compel discovery to aid a foreign case, what is known as a 1782 motion.”

The effort to gather information from Allen arises from an allegation that, during the period of January 9, 2020 through November 18, 2020, Allen participated in 87 separate phone calls totaling 1,237 minutes with John Moag. An investment banker, Moag was working for the three minority owners who were trying to sell their interest in the franchise. (Moag has denied knowledge of the articles posted on Meaww.com.)

Regardless of whether they talked about the article that serves as the basis for the lawsuit, the number and duration of the conversations sparks curiosity regarding the subject(s) of their discussions. Was Allen helping Moag find buyers? Was Allen hoping that the minority partners would find a way to take over the team and re-install Allen in an executive role?

Snyder fired Allen after the 2019 season. Presumably, Allen already has been interviewed as part of the investigation conducted by the league regarding claims of workplace misconduct. He quite possibly has a much different attitude about Snyder now, given that Snyder plans to gather information with the potential goal of suing Allen directly.

Any litigation against Allen wouldn’t necessarily relate to the defamatory articles posted on Meaww.com. If, under the guise of exploring that connection, Snyder learns that Allen committed unrelated violations of actual or alleged duties to Snyder or the team, that could be the basis for one or more legal claims.

Regardless, Snyder’s quest for justice has now led to a fight with the man who ran the franchise for years. Jason Wright, take heed.

Edited by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

giphy.gif

giphy.gif

 

Screen Shot 2021-04-15 at 11.56.25 AM.png

 

 

 

 

 

“Snyder Unleashed, the sequel” has come to the great DMV Cineplex just in time for your summer viewing “pleasure”.

 

The cost of production/litigation will be added to the purchase price of season tickets.

 

 All patrons are politely required to wear a mask, not just for covid protection—  because, let’s face it, when Snyder gets involved the shear raw stench becomes unbearable.

 

 

Two hellified quotes immediately come to mind as taglines for the movie poster...

 

“From hell’s heart I stab at thee...”

 

and

 

”Hell hath no fury like a billionaire scorned.”

 

 

 

 

Edited by TrancesWithWolves
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say one thing in Snyder’s potential defense...

 

If after every hand is face up on the table it turns out that Allen not only leaked the story linking Snyder to Epstein but actually made it up then I don’t blame him one iota for going after Allen all guns blazing.

 

If I had the money and was similarly slandered I would be sorely tempted to do the same thing either that or break his jaw.

 

Probably go for the jaw breaker all things considered.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ntotoro said:

Yet Danny Boy probably still wonders why the fanbase pretty well collectively hates him.

He sucks at ownership, but has a talent for suing the hell out of people. It’s his schtick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Daniel Snyder seeks to question Bruce Allen under oath, in connection with ongoing defamation lawsuit

 

On the one hand, Bruce is a snake.  I can't imagine stabbing someone in the back who paid me $10M+ year for 10 years to be useless. 

 

On the other hand, when it comes to Dan Snyder, all I can say is "you get what you ****ing deserve".

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu_RqWH7vCdWtuPda6VBLrRRrUwzL1lJ80AA&usqp=CAU

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it's one of the animal names from the list I would be happy (except maybe Demon Cats). Perhaps then my son would get into it as well. The biggest market for the name change are younger fans. Gonna want to market it to kids as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...