Skip to content

Goodell reiterates defense of Redskins name, willingness to listen to opponents of it

Goodell AP

Fred Davis wasn’t the only person talking about the Redskins name on Tuesday.

At the usual post-ownership meeting press conference, Commissioner Roger Goodell faced several questions on the topic.  And it’s getting harder, not easier, to understand his precise position on the issue.

“I have said since the Super Bowl that, by no means, growing up in Washington, D.C. as a Redskins fan, have I ever considered it derogatory,” Goodell said in response to the question of whether the name should be changed.  “That is how Redskins fans look at it.  The Redskins have always presented it as part of their tradition and history.  ‘Hail to the Redskins’ is part of that tradition.  Whenever you have a situation like this you have to listen and recognize that some other people will have different perspectives.  Clearly there are cases where that is true here.  That is what I have suggested.  I have been open about it, that we need to carefully listen and make sure we are doing what is right.”

In other words (possibly), Goodell personally sees no problem with the name.  Goodell believes Redskins fans see no problem with the name.  But Goodell believes those who see a problem with the name must be heard because maybe they’ll say something that makes Goodell and/or Redskins fans change their minds.

Asked about President Barack Obama’s recent suggestion that owner Daniel Snyder should think about changing the name, Goodell seemed to link his views to Obama’s.

“That is reflective of what I just said, which is that there are different views,” Goodell said.  “I do not speak for the President, and would not dare to do so.  He is acknowledging that there are different views, and people should listen and people should think clearly about what they do.”

But Obama was far more firm than that.  He said Snyder should think about changing the name.  If Goodell believes his opinion overlaps with the President’s, then perhaps Goodell believes Snyder should think about changing the name.

“I am confident the Redskins are listening [to outside opinions],” Goodell later added.  “I am confident that they are sensitive to their fans and to the views of people that are not their fans.  I am very confident they are listening.”

The Redskins may be listening, but perhaps only so they’ll know how to best frame any statements or responses from P.R. specialists and/or outside lawyers.  As Peter King reported during Football Night in America, Snyder is more determined than ever to keep the name.

So what’s the point of listening?  The positions are obvious.  The reasoning is known.  At some point, what’s the league and the Redskins listening to?  A chorus of “please Dad, please Dad, please Dad”?

It’s possible that the league is listening in order to gauge any changes in the strength of the opposition, and that changes will be made if/when enough voices are joining in the “please Dad” choir to make it in the league’s and the team’s financial interests to do so.

Through it all, the league will hope that Snyder comes to the conclusion on his own.  As expected, there was no discussion of the name during Tuesday’s meeting.  Eventually, Goodell and a small group of influential owners will approach Snyder, if/when the league concludes that the time has come to do more than listen.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Washington Redskins
61 Responses to “Goodell reiterates defense of Redskins name, willingness to listen to opponents of it”
  1. calicokiller49 says: Oct 8, 2013 11:55 PM

    If you are offended by the redskins name, then don’t root for them, don’t watch their games, don’t buy their merchandise , don’t support them in any way. I’m sure they will do just fine without you, not that there are any redskins fans offended by the name. This is such a joke. When did it become okay to force other people to share your opinion. I’m tired of this new liberal strategy of trying to make everybody out to be racist, heartless, greedy, selfish etc.

  2. justintuckrule says: Oct 8, 2013 11:59 PM

    It’s a racial slur that should be changed. Anyone that argues to the contrary is a bigot. Case closed.

  3. letmesetyoustraight says: Oct 9, 2013 12:02 AM

    Worst commissioner ever. What a spineless, two-faced, pitiful excuse of a man.

  4. thestrategyexpert says: Oct 9, 2013 12:05 AM

    The issue is simple, it’s just MONEY. That’s all this is about. Snyder feels that when he bought into the league that the NFL had endorsed and vouched for full entitlement and secure use of the name and they banked on that. There would be a cost associated with making the change. Since the NFL is responsible for what they had previously represented, Snyder just wants the cost to be appropriately divided. To not offer to subsidize the cost would be tantamount to fraud and obviously it’s ridiculous to even fathom the idea of things having to come to that. So the solution is simple, Snyder can have his actuaries draw up a number, let’s say it’s $100MM for the true full cost of the change, and then simply divide that number by 31 and each team can cut him a check for that amount and he will have the name changed with a deadline date of the NFL draft or first day of the new league year. Any combativeness to this proposal is fine, but it will take a decade to resolve.

    In or Out?

  5. 509seahawks says: Oct 9, 2013 12:12 AM

    If BO wants the redskins to chance their name they should change it to the Washington clowns cuz nothing is getting done on capitol hill

  6. callahan9119 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:13 AM

    This is nonsense. Polls of actual native Americans found that 80 percent had no problem with the name. Another poll found that 91 percent of respondents had no problem with it.

    It’s a handful of activists and white people outraged over it.

  7. stlluna7 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:13 AM

    I think he needs to just shut up and so should the whining nanny staters.

  8. tjr324 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:14 AM

    3 articles on this “issue” in one day. thats more articles than there have been about one of the best WRs probably being out for the rest of the year, any trades that could happen before the fast approaching trade deadline, or a preview, of any sort, about the game that’s happening in 2 days. This little crusade you’re on trying to force everyone to think like you is getting very old, very quick… give it a rest, please

  9. godofwine330 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:20 AM

    Roger come on. there are people of all races who would day that they have never found the N word offensive, but there are a ton of people who believe that it is. If I had the ability to change or cease usage of the word I would. Problem is, Goodell has painted himself in a bad corner and is trying to justify his bad paint job. Redskins is offensive to MANY Indian people, not just one. This could be a marketing tidalwave, new stuff, new name, new logo (Griffins, Renegades, Generals,whatever)

  10. arnoldziffel says: Oct 9, 2013 12:22 AM

    In a league where the majority of the players are black, it’s ironic that a white owner and a white commissioner can’t see the problem with having a team called the red skins, and the profile of a Native American on their helmet.

    Times do change …

    With Goodell handing out player fines like candy at halloween, it’s interesting to note that he’s willing to try and change the game “for the better” … but not willing to change a name and logo that’s hurtful to an entire segment of the population.

  11. fancyleague says: Oct 9, 2013 12:26 AM

    How is it a racial slur? Why would any sports team ever call themselves something they considered to be an insult? Even the Cleveland Browns did not intend for their name to be a negative thing.

  12. swedishfish14 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:28 AM

    Yep. I agree with PFT. It is a racial slur. The Indians are finally getting someone to listen.

  13. patmccabe69 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:37 AM

    For all of you opposed, imagine if the name was being changed to the Blackskins. There would be an uproar over that, this is the same situation.

  14. monetdali says: Oct 9, 2013 12:40 AM

    The dictionary definition of redskin: An offensive and derogatory term refering to native americans. Comes from when the government paid for each ‘indian’ one killed. Instead of carrying the bodies they would take the scalps to prove they had murdered a native american.

    It seems there is a too common belief that the word redskin is not offensive so I dare those who believe that to go try that word out on a native american person and see their reaction.

  15. ohnothatguy says: Oct 9, 2013 12:42 AM

    Leave the redskins alone!! They been around longer then all of us posting on this forum!! How come it was never a huge problem till now?? And to say who ever thinks its a slur or bad name is a bigot, is as idiotic as goodell and the president. Why are either getting involved in another mans business!! Obama should worry abt the poor people he screwed with the shut down then some billionaire football owner. As for goodell he needs to shut it too,bc from what i know snyder is 1 of 32 people who pay his huge unnecessary overrated salary he doesnt deserve. Im a giants and i dont want the redskins to change their name. Its part of the nfl and all its history and one of the best rivalries is football. Go change the indians,braves,blackhawks etc then try and change the redskins name!! Cant wait to keep watching the giants-redskins games for the rest of my life!! Now lets get passed all the racist bs!! Its 2013 you should of complained and changed the name in 1933-43-53-63-73-83-93-2003 Get the point now everyone get over this and move on

  16. grandsonofcoach says: Oct 9, 2013 12:43 AM

    I’m not on one side or the other. But I think many people are being presented only one side of the story. This from an ABC.com story that ran Oct 8…

    “In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive”.

    I often think people pick up a fight in the name of others without taking the time to understand the views of others. An open discussion is great. A rush to judgement is wrong.

  17. uhohfloriosoffended says: Oct 9, 2013 12:58 AM

    Can you shut the door? It’s starting to get whiny in here…

  18. reed20fence says: Oct 9, 2013 1:03 AM

    After having just seen the Frontline documentary of the weasley way the NFL handled the concussion issue for decades, I have newfound loathing for the scumbags running the NFL.

    And they continue to obfuscate reality!

    Shame in the Commissioner and this league.

  19. bluntsmokinskinsfan says: Oct 9, 2013 1:03 AM

    It’s not racist. Not once have I ever had a problem with a Native American, but if I did I wouldn’t think to call them a redskin to piss them off. It’s about as racist as cracker jacks. Go Redskins!

  20. mophatici says: Oct 9, 2013 1:04 AM

    Slavery was an integral part of our history, but we don’t still practice it because, as a culture, we realized it was wrong. The name “Redskins” is a relic from an era when we still practiced Jim Crow laws throughout a good part of the US. Why is it that it’s okay to have a derogatory name for native Americans for your mascot, but derogatory names for other races are taboo? After hundreds of years of prejudice, how about finally treating native Americans as equals?

  21. redskinswarrior777 says: Oct 9, 2013 1:04 AM

    I refuse to waste anymore time typing, beyond this, on this topic. It’s such a hateful distraction. As the wise Native Americans have been saying to the news, there are more problems to think about than a name that does not offend them….

    I think we all get it when we know a few people are offended, but a great man once said something to the affect of “You can make all of the people happy some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but never all of the people all of the time”.

  22. icdogg says: Oct 9, 2013 1:34 AM

    It’s fun to call them “The Washington Football Team” just to get on Skins fans’ nerves.

  23. uhohfloriosoffended says: Oct 9, 2013 1:37 AM

    justintuckrule says:
    Oct 8, 2013 11:59 PM
    It’s a racial slur that should be changed. Anyone that argues to the contrary is a bigot. Case closed.
    ———————————-

    Typical liberal authoritarian.

  24. truthserum4u says: Oct 9, 2013 2:06 AM

    They are listening, and they hear less than 20% of the people complaining. Many of which are non Native Americans who are too concerned about being PC and not taking the time to look up the origins of the word. If the connotation of a word can change from good to bad, then it can change from bad to good. Connotations change all the time.

  25. mark0226 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:17 AM

    IBM should change their name too because Irregular Bowel Movements are offensive. They should forget the decades of history and brand recognition and reputation that they have created with this name and change it because *I* say that it is offensive. Every business has their detractors, but no smart (successful) businessman will capitulate to those detractors simply because they are offended. They will only change if that change wil benefit the business. Please tell us how changing the name will increase brand recognition and revenue for the Washington DC team.

  26. shukey11 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:26 AM

    well color me a bigot…. see what i did there? anyways you’re an ass clown. how can any not see that when the name is used its meant to strike fear into the opposing team? 80 years ago the owner had the idea to use a name that people would associate with negativity? I think not. Only recently has redskin become a negative connotation for natives, is because a some people saw a way to maybe make a few bucks. And I have never once called a native a redskin for a term of endearment. I’ve called them Wahoo, wagon burner, skwa, ingin, drunk, never redskin.

  27. shukey11 says: Oct 9, 2013 2:29 AM

    Oh and the best way to stop hurtful words is to take the power of the word away. which is exactly what the Washington redskins name does.

  28. provguard says: Oct 9, 2013 2:55 AM

    Well, actually I consider “Indian” a racial slur. They are neither from India or look like them. Most preferred to be called “Native American”.

    If redskins is racial, does that make whiteskins and blackskins intolerable???

    Keep the name so the Native Americans will not be forgotten…

  29. provguard says: Oct 9, 2013 3:01 AM

    And……as like yesterday, why not just drop the “red” part of the name to leave just “Skins”?????

  30. arctantheta says: Oct 9, 2013 3:11 AM

    vwell color me a bigot…. see what i did there? anyways you’re an ass clown. how can any not see that when the name is used its meant to strike fear into the opposing team? 80 years ago the owner had the idea to use a name that people would associate with negativity? I think not. Only recently has redskin become a negative connotation for natives, is because a some people saw a way to maybe make a few bucks. And I have never once called a native a redskin for a term of endearment. I’ve called them Wahoo, wagon burner, skwa, ingin, drunk, never redskin

    well, 80 years ago nobody cared about native americans, or any other minority for that matter. your blithe comments show just how callous you truly are about a segment of the population with a lower
    mean life expectancy, income and education rate than the rest of
    of us. go to a reservation without a casino and nearby metropolis to see what life is like, and call some big guy a redskin. see what happens.

  31. jakkispeed says: Oct 9, 2013 3:17 AM

    The name won’t change until it hits Snyder in his wallet. If sponsors bow out and ticket sales decline, then you might see a reconsideration. It’s not likely to happen, and I’m glad for that. It’s a private business. If you don’t like it, don’t buy the product.

  32. jpepperton says: Oct 9, 2013 4:41 AM

    What’S the definition of Oklahoma again? Red people?? Where does this end? The Redskins are only the beginning folks! PC RULES

  33. roarfrom384 says: Oct 9, 2013 6:42 AM

    Listening and hearing are different.

    “Look man, Your can listen to Jimi but you can’t hear him. There’s a difference man. Just because your listening to him doesn’t mean you’re hearing him.”
    -Sidney Deane

  34. falstaffsmind says: Oct 9, 2013 6:46 AM

    Since they want to be known for skin color, and are in DC. I think the name Washington Boehners fits. They might have to blend some orange into the unis though.

    They will need some plays that do absolutely nothing but make noise, then after the whistle, they as a team, all point at the defense, and blame them for their lack of yardage.

  35. skinfangray says: Oct 9, 2013 6:54 AM

    Again, this is a classic example of a small group of people trying to speak for a larger group of people. The funny thing about this is the responses of people on this page that have no dog in the fight at all, falling in line with exactly what they are told to think.

    The woman who started this cause up, did so to try and extort money out of the team. Her strategy is to fight them for their Trademark, so she can make a grab of their profits.

    The idiots in government who think this is a cause worth fighting are making themselves out to be even more foolish than normal. The term “Redskins” does not refer to the color of a person’s skin, but rather to a group of the Native Americans who were considered the bravest warriors, who would paint their bodies with red clay before going off to battle. Yet, some narrow minded idiot in Congress got a bunch of their buddies together to fight this fight, probably because a Casino in northern New York State made a hefty campaign contribution.

    If the Skins were to be forced to change their name because of this, it would set a precedent. Next up, any other team name, uniform, or person that another person says offends them. I guess Vegans will next protest to change the Packers name as it promotes cruel murder of animals for food. (I know it sounds ridiculous, but once any of these kooks find out that the name is short for Meat Packers…) If the British threaten to not allow us to have games in the UK any longer, as long as the Patriots are allowed to keep their name. Go back to Vegans, I am sure they will protest the Dolphins, and their characterization of an animal in captivity performing for humans? It can go on and on. And it should not. It is a sports team name.

    A thought. Offer to change the name, in exchange for the group protesting to just go away. No financial exchange with them, and they cannot re-attack in court for any reason. See if they accept that?

  36. cuda1234 says: Oct 9, 2013 7:05 AM

    In a league where the majority of the players are black

    ==============

    Yes, let’s go down that road. Why aren’t there more white and hispanic players? Why aren’t EEO standards applied to these jobs? Why is the workforce all one color? Where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and their outrage about a workforce that’s barely integrated?

  37. jag8r904 says: Oct 9, 2013 7:15 AM

    It is not my place to speak for Native Americans, but I’m willing to bet that they are less concerned about the name of the football team than they are the fact that we KILLED THEIR PEOPLE, TOOK OVER ALL OF THEIR LAND AND FORCED OUR CULTURE DOWN THEIR THROATS!

    So, if you really feel bad, give your house to an Indian. Otherwise you don’t really give a crap about how they feel.

  38. thuilen says: Oct 9, 2013 7:18 AM

    I am against a name change for the Redskins unless they change it to the Washington Palefaces. I’m a Paleface and would not be offended by that name. The real people that should be offended by the name change should be the Washington fans who over the years have jumped into the Washington merchandise book and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Washington Redskins apparel. If I were them I wouldn’t buy another thing and would wear my Redskins jerseys to every game.

  39. bostoncommon says: Oct 9, 2013 7:23 AM

    I don’t understand why the Cleveland Indians aren’t getting flak. Their logo is more offensive.
    BTW, Mormons believe that if native Americans convert to LDS and live a righteous life, their skin will become “white and delightsome.” No racism there.

  40. ufourya says: Oct 9, 2013 7:24 AM

    Why doesn’t our dear leader, our fuehrer, just decree a name change and put this sordid chapter in the history of any nation on earth behind us/

  41. ufourya says: Oct 9, 2013 7:26 AM

    THAT IS most sordid, and yes, sarcasm rules.

  42. fballguy says: Oct 9, 2013 7:51 AM

    It’s a great name. To change it would be a travesty.

  43. jr507 says: Oct 9, 2013 7:59 AM

    personally I’d rather assist those of native descent to disassociate themselves from the term “Native American” which – in 2013 – is becoming increasingly associated with being a self-righteous, overly PC blowhard.

  44. arwiv says: Oct 9, 2013 8:20 AM

    If a list was generated of the top 1000 things wrong in this world, this issue would not even come close to making it. This planet, and even more importantly, our country, is on a road to disaster….and yet this STUPIDITY is what we concern ourselves with????

    Get a life people…stop worrying about what liberal/pc hacks tell you to worry about and start looking at what the ACTUAL problems are.

  45. wiley16350 says: Oct 9, 2013 8:21 AM

    Oh and the best way to stop hurtful words is to take the power of the word away. which is exactly what the Washington redskins name does.
    ___________________________________
    This is absolutely correct. The reason the majority of people do not find the Redskin name offensive is because of the Washington football team. They have turned it from a negative to a positive. Unfortunately, too many people want to live in the past. Then they wonder why we can’t get past racial hatred. You will never get hatred out if you continue to focus on past misdeeds. Forgiveness is very important to healing and letting go is important to forgetting. That is why I try to get people to see what the word means now and how it is perceived now while the opponents continuously want to focus on what the word meant over 200 years ago. Why does it matter what the word meant 200 years ago? Nobody alive today was around when the word was used in its negative way. Allowing the Washington Redskins to use the name keeps it as a positive term to the minds of the public. Taking the name away will only anger people and allow hatred to brew and the word could become increasingly negative once again. CONTEXT is everything and right now the Redskins use the word in a positive context. The word has no negative power in this day and age because of that. It will regain its negative power if you take away the positive context it has now.

  46. tundratommy says: Oct 9, 2013 8:22 AM

    Hey Mike, It seems as if Godell is listening to the fans for once. You too should consider the opinions of the majority of your posters.

  47. kmartin173 says: Oct 9, 2013 8:27 AM

    Are there actual Indians who have a problem with that name or is it just white liberals?

  48. a5306719 says: Oct 9, 2013 8:54 AM

    Q: Are there actual Indians who have a problem with that name or is it just white liberals?

    A: Yes to part one of your question, and no to part two. Try reading.

  49. a5306719 says: Oct 9, 2013 8:57 AM

    “You too should consider the opinions of the majority of your posters.”

    Yes, the comments on this website offer a valuable snapshot of thoughtful opinion. If only more decisions were based on the angry, ill-informed paranoia of PFT commenters.

  50. footballhistorian says: Oct 9, 2013 9:25 AM

    Every time O’Carter injects himself in some discussion like this, you KNOW that the position he takes is the wrong one. I wonder…if Benito Hussein O’Carter had a son…would it look like a redskin??? And what would that mean???

  51. truthserum4u says: Oct 9, 2013 9:30 AM

    @ monetdali

    There is absolutely no proof that the term is/was related to the scalping of Native Americans. Documented history shows the term being first used by NATIVE AMERICANS to describe THEMSELVES! Decades later it started to be used in a derogatory fashion from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. It hasn’t been commonly used as such for over a half century. And the point of calling a Native American a “redskin” is exactly the point people are making about the word; no one regularly uses it anymore to refer to someone else. They use it in terms of a mascot.

    @patmccabe69

    No one refers to anyone as Blackskins. Native Americans referred to themselves as redskin – big difference!

  52. vicbronco says: Oct 9, 2013 9:54 AM

    It shouldn’t matter whether or not they honor the tradition of the name by singing “hail to the Redskins,” in the early part of the 20th century the term N***er was also considered acceptable to use. Had the team been named that instead then you could argue that when fans sing “Hail to the N***ers” they rightly would be honoring the tradition of the team over the last 80+ years, but it doesn’t make the name less offensive. Saying that you’re honoring a group of people by representing them with a term that those people consider derogatory is ridiculous, and the best example of trying to suck and blow at the same time I think I’ve ever seen.

  53. osiris33 says: Oct 9, 2013 10:12 AM

    Well, actually I consider “Indian” a racial slur. They are neither from India or look like them. Most preferred to be called “Native American”.

    They aren’t Native Americans either. Look up “Kennewick Man.” Caucasians were here first.

    Maybe we could call them the Washington Kennewicks

  54. stevie7018stevie7018 says: Oct 9, 2013 10:14 AM

    Oh a small list of influential owners huh? Yeah I’m sure that would make him change it considering those same owners are probably the ones that cost them $36 mil over 2 seasons against the salary cap. If I was Snyder I would tell them to f*ck off!

  55. 2jivecrew says: Oct 9, 2013 10:19 AM

    well, 80 years ago nobody cared about native americans, or any other minority for that matter. your blithe comments show just how callous you truly are about a segment of the population with a lower
    mean life expectancy, income and education rate than the rest of
    of us. go to a reservation without a casino and nearby metropolis to see what life is like, and call some big guy a redskin. see what happens.

    ————————-

    And I suppose the big bad white man is forcing Native Americans to languish on their reservations instead of going out and changingtheir lot in life? Priceless. Newsflash: education quality is dropping all over the country, on and off the Rez. Nobody is forcibly segregating the Native Americans. Nobody.

    And why don’t you go to a Redskins game and start calling the fans racists and “see what happens”. You’d never have the stones.

  56. redskinsarepeople says: Oct 9, 2013 10:31 AM

    Here’s 3 reasons why you can’t never take away our good name.

    1…LEGACY We had this name a LONG TIME so you can’t change it. So long it was here when the drinking fountains, busses and restrooms were segregated. Back then things were better and we didnt have to be careful what WORDS we use. Ever herd of STICKS and STONES? We obviously don’t mean it as offensive but if you’re gonna be a wuss then we don’t care if it does offend you.

    2…HISTORY. We got a long history of the best owners ever. Just like Danny Snide r is tough and stubborn and everyone knows hes the best owner in pro sports we were started by a good southern gentlemen George Preston Marshall who refused to do what he didn’t believe in. Course now we know it was ok to get both races on your team because we won a superbowl with one as quarteback but he stuck to his guns and didn’t draft anyone who wasn’t white for years after the league was mixed so you got to admire him for his INTEGRITY. Besides you got to be real stupid to think that just because he was racist that would make him pick a racist name. Thats just bad logic and I would know if it didn’t make sense!

    3..It’s OUR good name. If you can’t see this is important your dumb. Sure you think your genealogies are important because they are yours but they aren’t importnt to us! This GAME means more to us than whoever you are. There is more of us anyway so what you think doesn’t matter. This is america where we can do anything we want no matter what as long as there are enough of us that want it. You want a law passed all you have to do is get more votes!

    4…Real INDIANS I know a guy who doesnt look it but he’s 1/64 indian (i’m not making this up) and he says he dont care about the name so get over it.

    5.. MONEY. Snider probably doesn’t have enough to change it because he had to pay a LOT for the team and he didn’t know it could ever be a problem then when he bought it. What he was supposed to do think of every little problem that could happen AND get all that money together for it? You want it changed you pay for it yourself because it’s your problem not his.

    So in conclusion quit writing about this florio!We aren’t changin the name and we can’t get behind a team with another name because if ya dont have your good name what do you have?!?!?

    Get it right! Were the HTTR!!!

    THUMBS UP TO HTTR!!
    THUMBS DOWN TO PC!!

  57. justintuckrule says: Oct 9, 2013 12:14 PM

    I’ve read every pro-skins comment and can sum them up as “too bad, get over it”.

    Where’s this position when it comes to the affordable care act? You know…. The one that’s been passed in the legislature, upheld at the Supreme Court and dodged over 40 other attacks on it in the legislature. “Get over it” instead of holding our country hostage.

    Hypocrites

  58. themagicfanguy says: Oct 9, 2013 12:26 PM

    @justintuckrule You’re an idiot, or did you not see the comment about there being plenty of polls and information supporting the Redskins name staying the same? The fact is that ‘Redskins’ is only a racist term to uninformed and uneducated morons such as yourself.

  59. charger383 says: Oct 9, 2013 12:43 PM

    changing the name will cause resentment against those Redskins name honors

  60. wbkcnslt says: Oct 13, 2013 10:40 PM

    There is an easy one letter change for the name problem. Change the letter “K” to the letter “P”
    resulting in the new team name.

    WASHINGTON REDSPINS

    This name captures the zeitgeist of the capital city without being overtly offensive while remaining vaguely familiar to the fans.

    GO REDSPINS!!

  61. curt9733 says: Oct 14, 2013 11:33 AM

    Names:
    Washington Billions: it applies to Washington and the NFL -possible
    Washington Democrats: Fantastic idea! Well, o.k. never mind.
    The Washington Names -possible
    Washington Tycoons, Pickpockets, etc. -no
    You can’t change the name to Chiefs, but Thieves is somewhat in the ballpark. -possible
    Washington Spread-thins -no
    Washington Dead-upon arrivals? -no
    Washington Deadlocks -I kind of like that
    Washington Kingpins -I like that even more
    Do they really need a name at all? The Cleveland Browns have nothing on their helmets (is that trademarked?) so lets have a red helmet and people can call them whatever they feel like according to how the game is going. The Boos or the Yeahs.
    –There it is. Finally.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!