Come up with a new name for the Redskins

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JackLord

Let me get this straight.



For 83 years, we were called the Redskins- a name that had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Washington area. Now that we have been forced to jettison the name, the new one has to have connection to the area?



Not seeing the logic.



Redskins had a faint- very, very faint- connection to their origins in Boston. The colors were influenced by those of Harvard and Boston College. The Indian moniker might have been a nod to the Boston Tea Party, but that is one of several stories and its unknowable.



So now historical connections are primary? So much so that we have to settle for a lame name like Commanders? When did this paradigm shift happen?



Not a lot of lakes or sheep in Los Angeles. Utah never was and never will be a Jazz mecca. No magical beings running around downtown DC.



We never needed a regional connection and don't need one now. Besides, how long before the same fuckwads start yammering about our militaristic name or that it is a connection to a guy who owned slaves?

This is almost exactly how I feel about Commanders/must have regional tie arguments. And the last line about Washington owning slaves is why I think an animal name is the best/safest route.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk