Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Washington to choose new name and unveil logo February 2nd


danlhart87
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

or eating at steelers lmao. It wont let me type in Sq.uealers lol - that is a restaurant lol.

Yeah, on 86th street.  Not sure if there are any others, but I know there's that one in Indianapolis.  Decent bbq pork restaurant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBS has ranked the prospective names:

9. Defenders

8. Commanders

7. Redhawks

6. Brigade

5. Sentinels

4. Admirals

3. Presidents

2. Armada

1. Red Hogs

 

Pretty interesting list. I think they've gone by Hogs as a nickname in the past, so that probably makes the most sense. I like armada too. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

CBS has ranked the prospective names:

9. Defenders

8. Commanders

7. Redhawks

6. Brigade

5. Sentinels

4. Admirals

3. Presidents

2. Armada

1. Red Hogs

 

Pretty interesting list. I think they've gone by Hogs as a nickname in the past, so that probably makes the most sense. I like armada too. 

Their oline used to be nicknamed the Hogs

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I was going to say the Washington Hogs lmao but then people that love pigs will be offended :banana:

 

That is a good one. :scoregood: Their SB Nation site is called Hogs Haven, if I am not mistaken.

 

I thought The Washington Snyders

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

CBS has ranked the prospective names:

9. Defenders

8. Commanders

7. Redhawks

6. Brigade

5. Sentinels

4. Admirals

3. Presidents

2. Armada

1. Red Hogs

 

Pretty interesting list. I think they've gone by Hogs as a nickname in the past, so that probably makes the most sense. I like armada too. 

Hogs were their face in the 80's, early 90's. That O.Line was nasty with Jacoby and crew.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious post this time:

 

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves in 1936.

I understand that the term "redskin" is offensive, but does "brave" have to be?

Doesn't matter, I suppose.  No, you don't have to respond to try to convince me why brave would be offensive.

But that's what I would prefer, if I had my way.

Washington Braves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Serious post this time:

 

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves in 1936.

I understand that the term "redskin" is offensive, but does "brave" have to be?

Doesn't matter, I suppose.  No, you don't have to respond to try to convince me why brave would be offensive.

But that's what I would prefer, if I had my way.

Washington Braves.

I missed something… Since when is brave unacceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I missed something… Since when is brave unacceptable?

Just somehow it is.

Here's a quote from ABC News on their name change:
 

"Washington was the first team in the four major North American professional sports leagues to move away from Native American imagery amid a national reckoning on race. Cleveland in Major League Baseball followed suit, adopting the new name Guardians that is now in effect after settling a lawsuit with a roller derby team by the same name.

MLB's Atlanta Braves and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks have defended keeping their names.

Wright made it clear during the rebranding process that Washington would not use any sort of Native American imagery moving forward. He, Rivera and others have made references to wanting to honor the once-storied franchise's tradition, which includes three Super Bowl championships."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Just somehow it is.

Here's a quote from ABC News on their name change:
 

"Washington was the first team in the four major North American professional sports leagues to move away from Native American imagery amid a national reckoning on race. Cleveland in Major League Baseball followed suit, adopting the new name Guardians that is now in effect after settling a lawsuit with a roller derby team by the same name.

MLB's Atlanta Braves and the NHL's Chicago Blackhawks have defended keeping their names.

Wright made it clear during the rebranding process that Washington would not use any sort of Native American imagery moving forward. He, Rivera and others have made references to wanting to honor the once-storied franchise's tradition, which includes three Super Bowl championships."

I honestly can’t think of why Braves would be bad. It’s not exactly derogatory…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "Guardians" is horrible for Cleveland....

For the Redskins I like Red Hots, in reference to the #1 choice of food at ball parks and it's still colorful, the logo a hot dog inside a bun....next Red Hogs, their old name describing their huge offensive line and still colorful .

 

:thinking:.    haha

 

 

hot dog GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, buccolts said:

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they kept it, as is.

I'm kinda fond of the whole simplistic thing.

Except transpose the last two words so it’s Washington team football  and have “WTH”on the helmets 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Hammonds said:

Serious post this time:

 

The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves in 1936.

I understand that the term "redskin" is offensive, but does "brave" have to be?

Doesn't matter, I suppose.  No, you don't have to respond to try to convince me why brave would be offensive.

But that's what I would prefer, if I had my way.

Washington Braves.

Maybe if it isn’t plural like home of the brave.  The Washington Brave.  I’d like that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, buccolts said:

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they kept it, as is.

I'm kinda fond of the whole simplistic thing.

 

I like it too. Would make an interesting trivia question in upcoming decades

 

13 hours ago, Fluke_33 said:

Except transpose the last two words so it’s Washington team football  and have “WTH”on the helmets 

 

Every time I see WFT I think of double-you tee F

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 10:45 AM, buccolts said:

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they kept it, as is.

I'm kinda fond of the whole simplistic thing.

Me too.  The entire NFL should drop the nicknames if the owners are going to fall for people pretending to be upset at the names. 

 

Indianapolis FBT, Minnesota FBT, Chicago FBT, etc.  Don't really even need a name after the first name.

 

"Go Indy!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st reactions were 'Corruption', or 'Swamp'...but I could be flagged for 'taunting'.

'Admirals' could provoke the Army, Air Force, Marines, and maybe even the US Coast Guard.

'Feds' would be an easy, single syllable, and would blend with the home field's sponsor.

 

 

  • Haha 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm not as optimistic as you are in some areas lol.  I'm in a wait and see mode in several. And a prove me wrong mode until I see something different in a few.    Doesn't really matter. If we're good, everyone (most anyway) will be happy and forget about a lot of the stuff. If we're not, the same conversations will be had.   Perhaps we need a "Colts Negative" thread to go along with the "Colts Positive" thread lol.... It would be a safe place for all the neg nancies to vent. I don't think the Colts Positive thread has kept the sunshine pumpers from pumping sunshine in normal threads though 
    • Loved what Cross did, and there was some other stuff to like. But it's hard to get too cheery knowing it was our 1st team D vs their 2nd team O.    And let's be honest. On the first drive, Keenum drove them right down to the 5... and they went for it on 4th and 4. If Allen is in, that's a TD 99% of the time. It was Keenum though. won't call him a super scrub, but he's not a starter. And Shakir and Moss pretty much had their way that drive. Our DBs had no answer for Shakir.   And just not a lot of pressure from the DL. No sacks or QB hits at all from our starters. Expected much better vs their 2nd team OL. 
    • I have even been posting with a chip on my shoulder lately, grouchy at times, etc.. As a fan I am all in, in serious mode once September rolls around. I am on record saying AFC Title Game or bust for us, time to man up, etc..    I just think we have the QB, roster, and yes even coach to get to the Championship Game and then from there lets see what happens. Matt Ryan doesn't have that ring so I have a feeling he is going to have a big year, not so much statistically but just making big plays at crucial moments. I don't see Taylor missing much of a beat either, and I think Pittman will even be better. Hines will be our ace in the hole, bailing us out on many 3rd and shorts with the pass. I like our defense but not sold on it, I am concerned about Maniac because we need him. He creates so many game changing Turnovers. Overall, I love our team though. Only huge question mark is LT IMO, but Nelson plays on the left side so that should help.
    • There's always going to be debate, that's for sure. And yes, all sunshine and puppy dogs would be boring, and you wouldn't have much traffic lol.    Overall, I think most give rooks, new players (to the team), and new coaches/scheme, the patience they deserve.    Patience though gets shorter when folks get tired of trends, certain vets, or certain coaches. I have high hopes for Ryan/Reich. But I begin this season with the same pessimism about play calling and scheme. And that will remain until I see something different. Hopefully the addition of Ryan offsets that... But folks in general have become more skeptical of Frank the last year. And I think that will continue unless the O looks different. 
    • It most definitely isn’t. If Shakir balls out over the next couple of years and Pierce doesn’t Ballard clearly overvalues characteristics that don’t equate to production. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...