Connect with us


Some Name Ideas For When Redskins Inevitably Lose Legal Battle

chief-zee2.jpgWe know you all come here for news from last Friday, so here it is: The Redskins won a 17-year legal battle with a group of Native Americans American Indians over the team’s nickname. Long, boring legal story short: Snyder & Co. get to keep their marginally racist team name because of a legal technicality — the judge didn’t base the decision on the offensiveness of the name “Redskins,” or lack thereof. (Although part of Snyder’s lawyer’s argument was that a name change would cost the franchise millions because they’d have to rebrand. Wouldn’t the team stand to generate, not lose, ungodly amounts of money if they changed their name, logo and colors? Every fool from Manassas to Annapolis would be buying new digs, including this guy.)

This whole thing resurfaced a topic we’ve discussed around these parts, and amongst ourselves, several times: If (or perhaps, when) the Skins are forced to change their nickname, what should it be? We’d love to hear your ideas in the comments so we can add them to our list and put it all to a vote later in the week. Our ideas as follows:

Washington Warhawks. PROS: It has some alliteration; contains political context (War of 1812, what?!); generally sounds badass; lends itself well to awesome gameday hairstyles. CONS: Makes us think of W.

Washington Hogs. PROS: Definitively Washington football; reminds us of glory days; likely the first name you’d currently affiliate with this team aside from Redskins; could start selling the most awesome hat ever again. CONS: Comically unintimidating, although Swine Flu is helping change that.

Washington Warriors. PROS: Strong alliteration; remains in-line with the American Indian thing without being racist. CONS: Would share a name with a generally unsuccessful NBA franchise.

Washington Monks. PROS: Well, none specifically, but this is just how much we love Art Monk. CONS: Art Monk probably wouldn’t appreciate all the recognition.

Bob Cohn at The Washington Times has some of his own, which I believe are all meant to be funny. So, you know, in case you were thinking of submitting Red Skins Potatoes in the comments, it’s already been suggested.

Related: Not sure, but I don’t think Michael Silver likes the current team name.

Former Managing Editor at UPROXX; former Senior Editor at @SBNation; former ska-zine editor, fan of bad sports teams and good beer.



  1. WFY

    May 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM

    Warhawks? Like the James Madison Warhawks (historically inaccurate, btw), greater Vienna’s other high school? I assume you two went to Marshall.

    Kornheiser has been saying “put a potato on the helmet” for years.

    If they put a curly R on the helmet, would this still be an issue?

  2. tark

    May 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

    I would be heartbroken if they changed the team name. Look what happened to the Bullets. I refuse to call them by their current name — they will always be the Bullets to me.

    Back on topic, if my hand was forced, I would go with Washington Warbirds. It’s military-ish and sounds dope.

  3. StetSportsBlog

    May 19, 2009 at 4:03 PM

    Warhawks ain’t a bad idea. Would be a smooth transition for when Mike Holmgren snatches Zorn’s job.

  4. Jamie Mottram

    May 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM

    Despite going to Marshall and hating Madison quite a bit, I kinda like Warhawks; they could keep the colors and logo too.

  5. Some Redskins Fan

    May 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM

    Bring back the bullets, but as a football team. It could work

  6. Ryan

    May 19, 2009 at 5:17 PM

    The Redskins could become the Senators for an extra dose of same city, different sport, different era swapping.

  7. jg284481-37-5

    May 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM

    How about leave the name as is, and instead of wasting all the time and money on name change, use the time and money to actually try and improve the lives of the people supposedly offended by this.

  8. Terps77

    May 19, 2009 at 8:42 PM

    “Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.””

    In a way I guess he does own us.

    What about the Washington Agents?

  9. Thomas

    May 19, 2009 at 9:42 PM


  10. ThisGuy

    May 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM


  11. Jeff V

    May 20, 2009 at 7:12 AM

    From Silver’s article:

    You can spare me the protestations about how the name is actually a tribute to Native Americans, or how other allegedly similar groups (Vikings? Really?) are also consigned to mascot status. You can skip the talk about the importance of the team name to its fans or the tradition that would be compromised were it to be changed.

    Because I don’t want to back up my point of view! I want to go on a rant.

    Also whoever said that thing about investing money in the communities supposedly offended by this rather then enriching lawyers was pretty spot on.

    Especially in light of that survey that the Mottram boys linked to a while back that said something like 95% of Native Americans are not offended.

  12. supermassiveblog

    May 20, 2009 at 8:45 AM

    We all know it’s gonna be warriors

  13. effyeahterps

    May 20, 2009 at 9:20 AM

    I would suggest the name of Washington’s other pro football team (no, not the Federals).

    The Washington Presidents were a charter member of the Dixie League and kicked ass from Baltimore to Norfolk from 1936-1940.

  14. Diceshooter

    May 20, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    It seems that Washington Football, Inc. (a Daniel Snyder operating entity) has favored the Warriors moniker for a number of years now. A review of the US Trademark Office database shows applications filed by that entity for registration of both “Warriors” and “Washington Warriors” back in 2000, most recently re-filed in 2007 due to abandonment of the prior applications due to lack of actual use. No applications for any other names have been filed.

  15. Jamie Mottram

    May 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM

    Thanks for the suggestions, folks, and that’s a helluva note about the Warriors trademark, Diceshooter.

    Another idea I just had for the upcoming poll, in honor of Riggo: Washington Diesel.

    What else ya got?

  16. Freezer

    May 21, 2009 at 3:57 AM

    Just should just call themselves the Reds and bring back the cool “Circle R” logo from the Over The Hill Gang era.

  17. CamLwalk

    May 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM

    How about the Washington Tamperers!

  18. Pingback: DMV: 'Redskins' It Is, For a While Longer | Mr. Irrelevant

  19. sniksstan

    November 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    The only think offensive about the REDSKINS is the owner.. According to the Examiner, the team was renamed “REDSKINS” in 1933 after coach William Henry “Lone Star” Dietz took over, who’s an American Indian. The people who have a problem with the name should probably be scalped.

  20. notennishoes

    February 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM

    While the R-word is not always meant as hurtful, positive results always matter. There is more to honor and joy in life than a hurtful nickname. This team should be named Blackhawks, Braves, or Utes. They can maintain both their beautiful color scheme and their history of being named after American Indians. Plus, other hurtful names (the n-word, the k-word) would rightfully gain criticism if teams were named that way. STOP THIS DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Redskins