Jump to content

Washington Commanders to debut new NFL identity


DCarp1231

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Cujo said:

A decent mockup based off today's leaks

 

FIR07_9WQAof7PH?format=jpg&name=largeFIR07_9WYAobvbx?format=jpg&name=large


I have a terrible feeling these will be FAR better than what Washington actually rolls out. 
 

My best guess at this point would be that the new name will either be Commanders (gross, generic name but they are recent URL domain name registers that are hosted from the same company that operates every NFL URL and trademark applications that suggest this is indeed the new name) or they simply keep it Washington Football Team (even though I know they stated they would not do this).

 

No matter what, they’re going to look like a team playing dress up as the Washington *blank* of old. 

  • Like 8

Cowboys - Lakers - LAFC - USMNT - LA Rams - LA Kings - NUFC 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

This isn't a Cleveland Browns thread

 

It can be real quick.  There's no thread that's safe from a good old fashioned Clevejacking.  Even Browns threads have somehow been Clevejacked!

  • Like 16

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

It can be real quick.  There's no thread that's safe from a good old fashioned Clevejacking.  Even Browns threads have somehow been Clevejacked!

 

Obligatory

 

clevejacked.png

6uXNWAo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest way for them to drop in the new identity would be to have it Red-something. But they've already eliminated one possibility, and at least one other falls in the same boat.

 

In the video, they said they weren't going to use "RedWolves" for legal reasons. They also implied they couldn't trademark "Wolves" as a nickname. Arkansas State athletics already has RedWolves as its nickname, don't think anyone else has Wolves, but maybe Washington Wolves is already taken by another entity?

 

By this reasoning, how could RedHawks still be in the running? Miami University (Ohio) athletics is the RedHawks, and there are quite a few teams with Hawks as the nickname, so they wouldn't likely be able to secure that as a trademark either.

 

As far as Admirals, while the NFL (I think) still owns the name from NFL Europe, there are already 2 minor league hockey teams using that as a nickname, one of which is in a bordering state. 

 

Since RedTails was not one of the finalists, I'm surprised they showed a few of the logo mockups in the video.

 

I think "Defenders" might by the front-runner. Defenders is military-ish enough to fit the NFL's November obsession without implying any specific armed force.  Even though the Pentagon is close by, "Commanders" might be too tied-in to the President's title, and they'd probably want to avoid politically-based names and imagery.

  • Like 1

Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

I thought they couldn't secure the trademark rights to WFT because it was too generic

Actually, they might be able to argue that the brand has acquired sufficient distinctiveness by dint of them using it while playing two seasons in the most famous football league in the world. They've sold merch, sublicensed their brand and logos, etc.

 

I don't think a DC-based XFL team could (or would want to) say "we are a Washington Football Team." Not at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, there’s a part of me that was hoping Washington would take this opportunity to switch the shades of burgundy and gold to the 2002 fauxback shades and redesign the new uniform accordingly. Name aside, this is still one of my favorite football uniforms of all time:

 

spacer.png
 

Remove the name + spear and put a “W” of some sort on the helmet, and they’d have been in some good business. Oh well. I still think the new set has a lot of potential from the bits we’ve seen, so we’ll have to see how the whole thing comes together when all is said and done.

  • Like 20

CCSLC%20Signature_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

No matter what, they’re going to look like a team playing dress up as the Washington *blank* of old. 

You make a good point. There's an argument that they should be more aggressive and modern with their design, if only to distance themselves from the old brand. A traditional uniform with only minor tweaks doesn't do that. 

 

Of course, they've been very clear that they want to retain 100% of the team's heritage, minus the nasty bits. That's some delicate surgery to pull off. You're right that they run the risk of either looking too generic -- or worse, just a faint echo of the real brand they desperately want to evoke without fully owning.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, slapshot said:

The easiest way for them to drop in the new identity would be to have it Red-something. But they've already eliminated one possibility, and at least one other falls in the same boat.

 

In the video, they said they weren't going to use "RedWolves" for legal reasons. They also implied they couldn't trademark "Wolves" as a nickname. Arkansas State athletics already has RedWolves as its nickname, don't think anyone else has Wolves, but maybe Washington Wolves is already taken by another entity?

 

By this reasoning, how could RedHawks still be in the running? Miami University (Ohio) athletics is the RedHawks, and there are quite a few teams with Hawks as the nickname, so they wouldn't likely be able to secure that as a trademark either.

 

As far as Admirals, while the NFL (I think) still owns the name from NFL Europe, there are already 2 minor league hockey teams using that as a nickname, one of which is in a bordering state. 

 

Since RedTails was not one of the finalists, I'm surprised they showed a few of the logo mockups in the video.

 

I think "Defenders" might by the front-runner. Defenders is military-ish enough to fit the NFL's November obsession without implying any specific armed force.  Even though the Pentagon is close by, "Commanders" might be too tied-in to the President's title, and they'd probably want to avoid politically-based names and imagery.

 

It's possible that the existing owners of RedWolves marks aren't willing to sign a TM consent agreement, whereas the owners of other marks on the list are. Or, perhaps they wanted to address the groundswell of support for one name, and there aren't any other clear fan favorites that need addressing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, slapshot said:

In the video, they said they weren't going to use "RedWolves" for legal reasons. They also implied they couldn't trademark "Wolves" as a nickname. Arkansas State athletics already has RedWolves as its nickname, don't think anyone else has Wolves, but maybe Washington Wolves is already taken by another entity?

 

Chicago Wolves would probably be the closest team to question it…especially with a maroon, gold, black color scheme. 

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, keynote said:

Of course, they've been very clear that they want to retain 100% of the team's heritage, minus the nasty bits. That's some delicate surgery to pull off. 

Yeah. They have some sordid history, and it’s not just the old name. In fact, I would argue that the actions of George Preston Marshall with regard to integration were a good bit worse than any team name. Then you have the harassment allegations from the past few years, and the mostly unspoken fact that their current owner is a toxic dickweed and to some extent their work environment will *always* be toxic while he is in charge. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on the subject of Washington Wolves, well...there's this.  (Don't know if they're still playing, but it is out there.)

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

Assuming the three stars are the 'hanger effect', then it looks like the logo is going above the NOB and is circle shaped.  Roundel perhaps?  More of a clue that it's 'Commanders'?

Or They represent the three Super Bowls the Washington football franchise has won

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.