Rambulance Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 My apologies if that has been posted alreadyhttp://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24137527/could-the-washington-redskins-become-the-washington-bravehearts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Why did they cross out the "The" ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambulance Posted October 25, 2013 Author Share Posted October 25, 2013 You haven't heard? "The" is now considered offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 so they'll honor Native Americans by taking on a name that's typically been applied to a movie about Scottish Revolutionaries in the 14th Century? Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nash61 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 On September 20, 2012 at 0:50 AM, 'CS85 said: It's like watching the hellish undead creakily shuffling their way out of the flames of a liposuction clinic dumpster fire. On February 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, 'pianoknight said: Story B: Red Wings go undefeated and score 100 goals in every game. They also beat a team comprised of Godzilla, the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, 2 Power Rangers and Betty White. Oh, and they played in the middle of Iraq on a military base. In the sand. With no ice. Santa gave them special sand-skates that allowed them to play in shorts and t-shirts in 115 degree weather. Jesus, Zeus and Buddha watched from the sidelines and ate cotton candy. POTD 5/24/12, POTD 2/26/17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalktoChuck Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I can't believe CBS Sports would publish an article that using the phrase "Bravehearts is a sick name" and "What a freaking world we live in." This guy has no business writing articles.As far as the name, it's weird. I'd prefer Warriors, Redhawks, or something along those lines. But I'd be happy with anything besides the current name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I propose another name that "honors" the former team name AND the government bailout of auto manufacturers:The Washington Engines This is, of course, extremely tongue in cheek, FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Incidentally this will be the look on the faces of many a racially insensitive Metro area resident when the name change is announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhans203 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhans203 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I can't believe CBS Sports would publish an article that using the phrase "Bravehearts is a sick name" and "What a freaking world we live in." This guy has no business writing articles.As far as the name, it's weird. I'd prefer Warriors, Redhawks, or something along those lines. But I'd be happy with anything besides the current name.Why not go back to the original nickname of Braves? Washington Braves would be a good option. But, have no idea if that's offensive or not. Warriors is good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwing64 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Bravehearts is certainly an odd choice. But despite the current name that it's associated with, the logo they use now doesn't seem particularly harmful and might work well with this new name - even if it isn't a particularly good logo. I wonder if that was a deliberate thing on their part, changing the name to something less offensive without taking a massive risk with a completely new identity package.Why not go back to the original nickname of Braves?Because the Atlanta Braves might sue PotD: 24/08/2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Bravehearts is certainly an odd choice. But despite the current name that it's associated with, the logo they use now doesn't seem particularly harmful and might work well with this new name - even if it isn't a particularly good logo. I wonder if that was a deliberate thing on their part, changing the name to something less offensive without taking a massive risk with a completely new identity package.Why not go back to the original nickname of Braves?Because the Atlanta Braves might sue I'm actually a fan of returning to the Braves name. Granted, I too don't know if it would be considered offensive, but it's much less offensive than Redskins. I think that some Native American-themed teams like the Utah Utes and Atlanta Braves have done well in reducing direct Native American imagery, and the Redskins, by going to Braves or Warriors, could do the same with either placing a W in the drum and feathers logo or going with the spear. http://i.imgur.com/Pyc5qRH.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/RDXvxFE.gif LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soarindude Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 What a great movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Doesn't he get beheaded at the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Perhaps, a switch to Bravehearts is nothing more than a prelude to Snyder's ultimate move: rebranding the team the Washington Blueskins.Of course, such a move would make the franchise the most hated team to participate in NFL International Series games at Wembley Stadium. That said, if the NFL should ever schedule a contest at Celtic Park, Hampden Park, or Ibrox Stadium, the Blueskins would be fan-favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAnfield Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Bravehearts would be a terrible name IMHO. So many better choices. I don't think the team will rebrand to the Bravehearts, but the only reason I could see Snyder doing it is choosing a rediculous replacement would cause the fans to rebel against the identity, and call for the current one to stay put, even those on the fence. Personally, as bad as I think it would be, it would be welcome replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardV Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Stupid name, and no I don't have an alternative. But going with the name Bravehearts (IMO) evokes the imagery of 500 angry Scotts mooning their British oppressors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Braveskins. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzcut Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Congratulations, you have just won yourself a free internets. The CCSLC's resident Geelong Cats fan. Viva La Vida or Death And All His Friends. Sounds like something from a Rocky & Bullwinkle story arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 The Redskins and Synder have already commented that the trademark registered has no affiliation with the team/organization so this won't be moving forward. (MLF) Chicago Cannons, (IHA) Phoenix Firebirds - 2021 Xtreme Cup Champions (WAFL) Phoenix Federals - WAFL World Bowl XII Champions (Defunct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.