Bill0813

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Can't figure out how to post a tweet that's part of a thread without posting the parent, so sorry for the redundant post.  But the second one links to an article about how any variation of Wolves won't be the name.

 

 

EDIT: They specifically say Wolves or a variation like Redwolves (one name) but they didn't say anything about a modified name like Red Wolves (two words).  It would be stupid of them to say it's not Redwolves but then go with Red Wolves, but they kinda left the door open (Though based on the stars on the jersey, I think it's Commanders.)

Legal issues, i.e. the lawyers couldn't reach a trademark settlement amount that Snyder would pay.    The DC flag has 3 stars, but it does also lend to a military name, which could also be Red Tails.   I also think it'll be Commanders.

3 hours ago, insert name said:

Mets 60th Anniversary logo. Completely crossed my mind 2022 is suppose to be their 60th season. 

 

Here's current Mets manager, Buck Showalter,  with the Orioles 60th anniversary patch in 2014

A "red tail" is what you have after your butt gets kicked.    I don't know how Armada and Brigade rose to the top 8.  Presidents and Defenders don't cut it.   Of the rumored top 3, go with Wolves (don't add "red"), but it has no real connection to the city. 

Time to open that WFT  thread again?

40 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Why on earth should we think context does not matter?

 

Teams that get ahead of a problematic identity, willingly changing it before they are forced to, they can sometimes salvage a name by rebranding and redefining it.  But Washington, who have spent the last half-century doubling down, tripling down, litigating, and then only changing when forced to and under extreme duress, they’ve lost any benefit of the doubt.

 

Plus there is a marked difference between a team taking its existing name and redefining it to remove the racist context and a team adopting a name new to them that has also historically carried that content.

 

For those two reasons, ”Washington Warriors” would be seen for precisely what it would be, a wink-and-nod to Native identity by a team that didn’t really want to give up theirs. 

They were pushed into doing it, but the fact remains they did it (while the KC Chiefs lay low without any outcry).    Again, it goes back to how they rebrand it.   They could use a different symbol altogether.     The Pentagon is full of warriors, it's not unique to Natives.   Dozens of examples here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior

If Warrior has the historical context you claim, then GS should not be allowed to use it, voluntary rebranding or not.

Whatever.   Don't give me Red Wolves which no one associates with DC.   

10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

It would be more insulting as if they used “warriors” pretending that it never had any native connotations in our country. 
 

taking that name off the table is the right call. 

Pretending?  Like Golden State does?     They were able to rebrand the name, but that point keeps getting ignored because of Washington's long history with the word that shall not be named.  Saying it would be different for Washington if it were done years earlier makes no sense.

26 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

WFT using Warriors would be terrible, because it just seems like a back door way to go back to the “old ways.” Unlike GSW, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

As Golden State proved,  there are ways to use it that wouldn't be a "back door."    They are already using a "W" logo. which could mean either "Washington" or "Warriors."    If one were to look for "back doors, " the burgundy color may also be problematic since it goes back to the color of the last mascot.    Warriors is far better than Red Wolves which is another reach just to use the "R."   

16 minutes ago, MNtwins3 said:

Of all the takes, this is one of them

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5970/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Alternate_Logo

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5972/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Primary_Logo

Point taken, silly of me not to recall a logo from 1962 & 1968.  There was this one more recent than those anyway.     It shows that being a warrior does not have to be Native inspired.

3 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Even though we knew this a while ago, Washington has formally announced that its new name with not include Native American imagery

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.   For Washington to assume warriors must equate only to a reference to Native Americans is more insulting.  Don't believe me?  Ask these guys

Since the Ravens use the actual colors of their mascot, then make the beak on the Raven black as well, and again, lose the "B" on the helmet.

On 6/29/2021 at 12:10 AM, _DietDrPepper_ said:

Because purple is much more unique and less frequently seen color in sports, especially the NFL, where the Vikings were the only team in the league who had purple in their color scheme for 40 years.

The Ravens also not only share purple, but also a shade of gold, plus black which is found more in Minnesota’s identity now then ever, even if it’s not a lot. That means even the small distinctions matter more so then just any other team that wears purple. 

The Ravens have had a purple jersey since day one in 1996.    A different shade of purple helmet  is a bridge too far?   Whatever monopoly some think Minnesota has on purple is long gone.

I don't see why the league which has 5 teams in white helmets, 4 teams in black helmets is fine, but a second team in purple isn't.    Baltimore could use a different shade of purple, just as the 49ers and Saints don't use the same gold, for example.   That said, I'd rather they come up with a less cartoonish bird without the "B" , which  is already used on their pants, then worry about another color.

Here's your chance, Washington.

https://twitter.com/MudHens/status/859460147189514240/photo/1