Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Washington to choose new name and unveil logo February 2nd


danlhart87

Recommended Posts

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. 

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

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

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.

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.

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 

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

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!"

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I accept this analysis as an upgrade to instant analysis that was a few days after the draft. There's a year of information to go off of now, and it's the first major step to knowing who is more or less likely to be a hit or a bust in the NFL. I acknowledged that a lot of our 2023 draft class had injury issues. However, that doesn't mean you can say they would be a hit if they weren't injured, it just means you don't know and their development is pushed down the line. For some, it could mean they hit next year, for others, it could mean Ballard drafts competition to battle them for their spot on the team.    Right now, it's a below average draft class with 1 year of sample size. That can change. It does depend a lot on how Richardson does. However, I will stick with what I said earlier that our draft classes seem to get injured more than any other team. It could be due to bad luck or the number of players we draft every year, or it could be due to Ballard avoiding injury concerns when drafting players. It seems to be a pattern.
    • Being from Jersey, very hard to believe the Jets didn't make the list. Their fan base is WASTED before they enter the stadium! And they leave by halftime to sober up to be able drive home! 
    • Let’s be real last years draft class is going to come down to how Richardson does.  You can’t give any kind of realistic grade when the guy who the whole draft class is going to be judged on only played five games and only finished one of them.  The Colts draft class last year grade is incomplete until we know more about Richardson.
    • I think he meant if Luck had returned in 2019, the Colts were poised to win it all which I don't agree with. I think they still needed quite a bit to win it all.
    • Which would be the best argument  for taking BTJ at 15 and not risk losing him. He’ll almost certainly be there at 15. At 20, likely not. Thomas would be an excellent addition to the Colts. He looks like the WR1 they’ve been seeking. But for the three uber talented freaks he’s competing against,  he’d be the top WR in a typical draft. I wouldn’t want to have to choose between him, Bowers or Mitchell if it came to that.     
  • Members

    • chad72

      chad72 17,708

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 16,396

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bellevuecolt

      bellevuecolt 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 4,154

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PRnum1

      PRnum1 2,873

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • G8R

      G8R 43

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fingers

      Fingers 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NJFanatic

      NJFanatic 43

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Restinpeacesweetchloe

      Restinpeacesweetchloe 41,427

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • runthepost

      runthepost 1,929

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...