beast
2 months ago

Hey heres an idea and get off the woke agenda and go back to celebrating the Redskins

Originally Posted by: dhazer 

0% chance, NFL forced Snyder to change it after a bunch of financial institutes went after the NFL sponsors....

It was change the name or lose 7 to 10 figures each year and it wasn't just sponsors but insurance and other issues. NFL owners aren't going to lose that much money over a name.

Also, it's not just a woke thing, that ignores the reality that it has been and continues to be used as the Native American version of the "N word". Though more around the Native American reservations. And the word is about them, so in theory they get to define it.

Though one also has to admit, the business meant to use it as a positive and rallying team mascot way and didn't mean to use it as the evil or hateful way the slur has been used, but it is the same word.



 
UserPostedImage
beast
2 months ago

I'm inclined to go with just Wolves since it rolls off the tongue better. Plus the team colors are red (or a shade of it anyway) so adding red to the name seems redundant.

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 



I completely agree, Washington Wolves sounds the best and smoothest. Though the "Frozen Tundra" is also redundant and I love it compared to just saying "Tundra".

But I could also make an argument for Red wolves (or at least making an argument for using them as the mascots), as the "Red" will help connect some fans that miss the old name to the new.

And there is actually a type of Wolf called the Red Wolf, which historical was in the Washington area. And Red wolves traditional offered no harm to humans as they were too small, unless their scarer larger cousins further north and west.

Red wolves are thought to be closely related with coyotes, possibly a Hybrid of Coyotes. Also related (though less so) to Grey Wolves.

The Red wolves were mostly hunted out, partly due to their name and the horrible wolf stories that their larger cousin Wolves brought.

Red wolves now are only naturally in a very small part of Texas and Louisiana. Though there are missions trying to help re-established them in eastern North Carolina.

But yes, Washington Wolves sounds better, and helps them go in a new direction, though if they keep the red colors, I do hope they use the Red Wolf as the mascot vs the Western Wolfs.


UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

 
UserPostedImage
beast
2 months ago

Is the name Hogs available? I feel like that would be a good one for them since it would tie back in to team history and fits the bill of an animal. Warthogs might fit better with the alliterative sound.  

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 



I've come to the conclusion is that no name is totally 100% available, as you got tons of minor league and school and other business mascots names. Plus speculators had two year head start, speculating and trademarking any name they thought the Washington team might use.

Though, would you really want to be called the Hogs? That can also have a negative connotation. Even more so in Washington (Pork Spending 💰). 

But former players known as the "Hogs" have filed for the "Hogs" trademark.  Partly because they wanted to protect their legacy and control how it was used. I guess it depends if they win the trademark and if they want to work with the team, after being pissed at the team under old management. Also if the "Hogs" trade mark was available, I'm kinda surprised that the Arkansas razorbacks didn't trade mark it, as they're also often called Hogs.

There used to be an Area League team named the "Hawgs" which might be available and easier to trademark.

Looks like there was already a Washington Warthogs, soccer team in the late 90s, no longer around. But again, do you really want to be called Hogs? Or Warts?


​​​​​Arkansas State University owns the trademark to Red Wolves, and they had or have a lawsuit against Chattanooga professional soccer team, which I've read different expects sya different things if they thought Arkansas had a chance of winning or not.

I can't seem to find whom owners the trademark to simply "Wolves" if anyone owns it, or if it was just too generic for them to trademark. But in 2020 someone attempted to trademark Washington Wolves.

​​​​​​Considering speculators got what basically turned out to be a 4 year head start on changing the name, I don't think they're going to come up with anything they haven't attempted to trade mark after "Washington".

​​​​
UserPostedImage
2 months ago

(From Beast's suggestion) I'm inclined to go with just Wolves since it rolls off the tongue better. 

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 

Alliterative names always roll off the tongue better...which is why the Warthogs also works, but is less a less desirable name.   In its favor is the fact that there is an airplane named the Warthog, a close air support, anti-tank aircraft that has served with the USAF since 1976.

Another choice which would have to avoid patent issues is the Wildcats.  There are so many teams (Kentucky, Arizona, Villanova, et al) that use it, it would seem anyone else could.

If Worthog does not work and military name is desired, perhaps the Warheads, although that carries a naughty connotation which may not work for the wholesome NFL.   Warriors would have perfect, but somehow, despite millennia of non-Native American usage, that name is politically incorrect (talk about cultural appropriation)  It was stupid and cowardly for Marquette to change their name.

If a government (especially agencies) link is desired, perhaps the 'Weasels' as Websters 3rd definition is "a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person".   Perhaps the Worms...again from Webster, "  a human being who is an object of contempt, loathing, or pity."

 
beast
2 months ago

Alliterative names always roll off the tongue better...which is why the Warthogs also works, but is less a less desirable name.   In its favor is the fact that there is an airplane named the Warthog, a close air support, anti-tank aircraft that has served with the USAF since 1976.

Another choice which would have to avoid patent issues is the Wildcats.  There are so many teams (Kentucky, Arizona, Villanova, et al) that use it, it would seem anyone else could.

If Worthog does not work and military name is desired, perhaps the Warheads, although that carries a naughty connotation which may not work for the wholesome NFL.   Warriors would have perfect, but somehow, despite millennia of non-Native American usage, that name is politically incorrect (talk about cultural appropriation)  It was stupid and cowardly for Marquette to change their name.

If a government (especially agencies) link is desired, perhaps the 'Weasels' as Websters 3rd definition is "a sneaky, untrustworthy, or insincere person".   Perhaps the Worms...again from Webster, "  a human being who is an object of contempt, loathing, or pity."

 

Originally Posted by: Martha Careful 



The pervious owner is the one that wanted a military name, if he ever changed the name. He's gone now.

But yes they is the Fairchild A-10C Thunderbolt, better known as the “Warthog". The National Guard has some of them a bit north of Baltimore, less than an Hours drive (depending on traffic) from FexEx Field and probably could of talked them into doing flybys with them.

Though a guy I knew that worked on them says they're not a plane. It's an oversized gun that they decided to put wings on... as they didn't put a gun on a plane, but instead build planes around a gun. (Yes it's a plane, but just the common to remark how it's the only one that they started with a gun first.... the rest started as planes, which they then added guns to).

Dan Snyder (again, former owner) basically had inside track to the Washington Warriors as he had been filing for trademarks for it since the early 2000s as that was the name of his Arena Football League team that he also owned, and sounds like he would of had it in 2020, if he hadn't given up in 2019, and sounds like they should of had it much earlier but didn't file the proper paperwork.
 
UserPostedImage
dyeah_gb
2 months ago
Pretty cool video on one of the pilots talking about the A-10 and her experience during combat




 
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman
beast
2 months ago
Washington Sentinels

Washington Minutemen

American Minutemen 

Washington Americans

Thought this was a pretty cool logo.
UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
2 months ago
I like Washington Red Wolves the best of what I've heard. It flows nicely and they can keep their ole "HTTR" thing and it'd be great listening to do the Hog noises while they have a Red Wolf as their mascot, haha. And the logo posted above is pretty impressive.

As for using Redskins. I had no idea it was offensive.

Washington Lakers makes zero sense. The Los Angeles Lakers, makes zero sense, however, they were originally Minneapolis Lakers which does make sense.

As for the lazy saying of "Redskin" is same as "Nigger" is weak. I'm gonna be somewhat semantic here so brace yourselves and enjoy the facetious ride. I've never heard "Redskin" used on TV Show, Movie or Music when relating to a person like we are inundated with it even to this very day. Yet, it's OK for some to use the word, even if they end with "ga" or "ger", but if you're white and use either variation, then you're racist. At least with "Redskin" it was because of the (perceived) pigment of the skin of American Indians.

Okay, that's not a real debate or argument, it's mot of a comical observation than anything else.  I will say this though. The constant changing of what it is acceptable vs not acceptable to use is a little overbearing. It sometimes feels like the goal posts are moving just so there's something to claim "I'm offended" to at times. BUT, times change, so I suppose that'll happen.

Anyhow, on to my actual debate worthy comment. I prefer Washington Red Wolves.



 
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5h) : Woo-hoo
jdlax (30-Sep) : Fuck.
Mucky Tundra (30-Sep) : Boooooo!
Zero2Cool (30-Sep) : Lions WR Jameson Williams had suspensions reduced from 6 games to 4 games.
Zero2Cool (30-Sep) : Colts asking price for Jonathan Taylor is “roughly” a high second round pick, per @TomPelissero No team has come close to that yet.
Mucky Tundra (29-Sep) : are you sure that person isn't JimBo?
Zero2Cool (29-Sep) : dfosterf said someone didn't join cuz we weren't SSL. We've been SSL for WEEKS. LIES LIES LIES
Nonstopdrivel (29-Sep) : The best thing about that game? It's over.
Zero2Cool (29-Sep) : WOOHOOO!! New day! Let's go!!!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 6 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
11h / Around The NFL / beast

30-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

30-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

29-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

28-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

27-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2023 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.