Pick your poison - what do you want the new name to be?

[Win4us]

Fast forward to 4:20

Honestly, I wouldn’t put it past them originally deciding on commanders, and are scrambling to change due to backlash & lack of support.

 

[SilentThreat]

Honestly, I wouldn’t put it past them originally deciding on commanders, and are scrambling to change due to backlash & lack of support.

this interview was from back in August. Wright came out and said there would be blatant misdirection.

It's very possible Commanders is the name, but based on what has come straight from the horses mouth... it's very possible it's not... then again.. that could have been misdirection itself...

 

[Chris]

It takes 5 minutes to set up a Twitter account. I’m calling bs.

Yet the checkmark is much harder, unless someone is good at photoshop. (The @Commanders account is not check mark verified.)

 

[Boone]

Didn’t we see that last week?

We saw the logo - but the @Commanders Twitter account is what is 'new'. As far as I can tell, that's just some fake account.

 

[MikefromOH]

A burgundy and gold cobra commander

Justsayin

 

[Miles Monroe]

I'm pretty worn out with all of this to be honest. I have no ties to DC besides the name and logo I fell in love with as a kid. What bothers me the most (beyond the name change) is the "founded in" you see in every supposed logo. Do the Ravens claim they were founded in 1946 ? Ya moved a team from Cleveland, and changed the name and identity completely... of course they don't. Our name and identity are being changed, why should they say this team was founded in 32 when it wasn't. I find it insulting to all that was the Redskins. The Redskins are gone forever, this is just a new team playing in the same area. If this wasn't about pleasing the "woke" it wouldn't be announced to about the most "woke" viewing audience you can find. This could have been an NFL special on their network, or ESPN where actual football fans would be paying close attention, but the feedback would not be nearly as good as a non-football audience would have. Just my opinion...

 

[Boone]

Obviously - I 100% get your feelings on this Pete and share some of them. On the other hand (just to play devil's advocate), what makes teams over the year 'the same team'? Is it the name, the logo, the colors, where it is located, or something else? If you compared the 2015 Redskins team to the 1939 team, the uniform colors were different, the practice facilities and stadium were different, the fight song didn't exist, and obviously none of the coaches or players have any ties to each other. Literally, the only tie was that one single name. Is that the only thing that matters? The 'franchise' is really just an idea - right? The tie between the Washington Braves, the Washington Redskins, the Washington Football Team, and whatever is about to come next is the history. One lead to the other as the NFL evolved over time. Other than that shared tie and the fact that they are generally in the DC-MD-VA area and represent Washington, each team over the years is unique. We only choose to see them as part of the 'franchise' and 'history'.

I do understand why folks find 'est. in 1932' irksome. But I think the frustration all stems from the same thing. We grew up with and have been invested in 'The Redskins' most of our lives. The name was changed, the implication being we were all wrong for supporting it and are somehow racists even if the name never meant anything to us but good, positive things. That's a hard pill to swallow. That it 'had to be changed' due to what most of us consider 'faux outrage' when the vast majority of Native Americans viewed the name positively as honoring their culture and history has never seemed to matter.

I guess what I'd say (while again, 100% feeling you on your sentiments) is that no matter what the new team name is, it WILL still be part of Redskins history and the next phase of this historic franchise. We may not like it - but it's a fact.

 

[Chris]

I will add this, and only this, to the est 1932 part.

It has never meant a thing to me and I don’t remember it ever being referenced until this very recent history. I’m not saying it wasn’t, just that I don’t remember it, so it never had any emotional impact to me.

My fandom, for lack of a better term, was established in around 1962. That is what matters to me. I think that using it now as some sort of defining reference is, well, pretty curious and silly.

 

[Boone]

I will add this, and only this, to the est 1932 part.

It has never meant a thing to me and I don’t remember it ever being referenced until this very recent history. I’m not saying it wasn’t, just that I don’t remember it, so it never had any emotional impact to me.

My fandom, for lack of a better term, was established in around 1962. That is what matters to me. I think that using it now as some sort of defining reference is, well, pretty curious and silly.

Yep. I think Pete nailed that part of it. Using 'est. 1932' is a pretty transparent attempt to convince fans that 'nothing is really changing - we're still the same franchise'. The problem with trying to shove that point down fans throats is that it doesn't ring true for most fans, and a lot of fans seem to resent it as if it is an insult to their intelligence. It doesn't bother me either - but we seem to be in the minority.

I've said all along, it might've been better if the team just treated the change as if this were a brand new franchise with no attempt to connect it to Redskins history.

 

[Chris]

Most fans of the franchise are living off of muscle memory anyway, at least those lucky enough to have witnessed success.

The damage that has been done across the board to this once proud franchise under the ownership of Daniel Snyder is insulting, embarrassing, and appalling. Changing the name only adds another log to my fire of discontent. As much as I despise the name change and all the reasons for it, it probably doesn’t make my top 3 in a list of frustrations.

The team will always be the Redskins to me and I will continue to refer to it that way.

But, I’m just an old man yelling at clouds anyway. So…

 

[Boone]

Don't forget those little ****ers who need to get off your lawn!

 

[DieselPwr44]

Agreed about the whole est.1932 con.

Just another in a long line of cons,trying to make fans forget how screwed up this whole process has been.

Est 1932. See?? We're still the same club! Well,except for a new name,new uniforms etc.

Well Snyder,Wright and Rivera:

 

[MikefromOH]

Greatest western of all time

 

[MikefromOH]

Joey T is saying it's Commanders according to Riggos Rag

 

[Boone]

Well - if it IS Commanders and they told Theismann expecting mighty mouth to keep it under wraps, they're dumber than I thought. I have the feeling this is all a smokescreen. I just can't believe that Theismann would announce the name 2 days before they're going to go on National TV with it. Even he is not that stupid. Let's just hope they've come up with something better than 'Commanders'...

 

[Chris]

I agree. However, Joe never met a microphone that he didn’t love so…

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Well - if it IS Commanders and they told Theismann expecting mighty mouth to keep it under wraps, they're dumber than I thought. I have the feeling this is all a smokescreen. I just can't believe that Theismann would announce the name 2 days before they're going to go on National TV with it. Even he is not that stupid. Let's just hope they've come up with something better than 'Commanders'...

He could be right, but I doubt they told him. I’m with you, he couldn’t keep a secret under any circumstances.

 

[MikefromOH]

I agree with both. He's a big mouth, and he loves the spotlight.

It could be a way to sniff out yet another snitch in our org, but I dunno.

 

[Chris]

 

[Kel Varnsen]

So it’s what we expected. He’s just shooting his mouth off. Although I will say his answer seemed like he was cheerleading the name, which makes me wonder. I still don’t think he knows anything, but who knows. As Boone has pointed out, his answer just shows how dumb a name that would be.