Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

More NFL News


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, KillerKat said:

I like Warriors but they would have to do a slight modification to the logo. They may want to stay away from anything native and instead of the spear, maybe a medieval sword or something like that have a knight as a mascot. On the other hand, the Chiefs use an arrowhead on their logo. I guess they would have to have discussions about the spear.

It wasn't the logo but the name itself that was objectionable.  I figure as long as the depiction of the elderly Indian isn't the logo they could even use the old feather logo too, just with a 'W' encircled instead of an 'R', if they went with Warriors.

Chiefs stadium is literally Arrowhead stadium, Atlanta still uses the Braves in baseball and FSU uses the Seminoles name.  Referencing Indians in sports isn't offensive to most as long as it's done with integrity.  I get were Redskins was the most offensive nickname is sports, but it doesn't mean that DC should have to steer 100% away from Indian theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

It wasn't the logo but the name itself that was objectionable.  I figure as long as the depiction of the elderly Indian isn't the logo they could even use the old feather logo too, just with a 'W' encircled instead of an 'R', if they went with Warriors.

Chiefs stadium is literally Arrowhead stadium, Atlanta still uses the Braves in baseball and FSU uses the Seminoles name.  Referencing Indians in sports isn't offensive to most as long as it's done with integrity.  I get were Redskins was the most offensive nickname is sports, but it doesn't mean that DC should have to steer 100% away from Indian theme.

yeah it would be sweet to go back to the old uniforms. Ive thought of other names:


Warriors - With the original spear or some other form of pointy object and could keep the current W as secondary or primary.


Warthogs - Self explanatory.


Calvary - Would be a good option as a throwback to the older forms of the military. Could use the old calvary sword as a logo along with the current W as secondary or primary.

Reds - Shortened version for the Redtail Hawks. Could easily use the bird as the logo with the W as secondary, but they may think there are already too many bird names in the league. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Commanders name was just another insult to Native Americans, granted I don’t speak for them. But it felt like doubling down on the insult instead of changing the name to something like The Warriors or The Natives that would at least attempt to honor and put a positive light on them. 

Edited by OneBadCat
  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, OneBadCat said:

I thought the Commanders name was just another insult to Native Americans, granted I don’t speak for them. But it felt like doubling down on the insult instead of changing the name to something like The Warriors or The Natives that would at least attempt to honor and put a positive light on them. 

Might as well own speaking for them, that’s how we got here to begin with. How many Native Americans did you see on ESPN banging the drum for the name change? 

And oh lawd “The Natives” would have been lambasted lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

I remember growing up RB was the most popular position to play. I played it in highschool. Now it seems like the worst position to play less money and you take the most hits on the team.

 

I can understand why these RB's feel a certain way. That position is no joke. Imagine taking the most hits on offense yet you're the lowest paid player.

And you're taking on difficult blocks when you aren't physically running into a wall of 300 pound guys. Unlike the receivers who can just kinda pretend to block db's when they aren't the read

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until a QB pay scale gets worked out. Or the Cap goes up to account for those larger salaries. I'm afraid teams are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Last year the WRs got lesser contracts, and this year it's the RBs. 

 

The Cap was supposed to help level out the field. All it has really done is muddy up the waters.

 

Putting a Cap on the QB pay scale would make it easier to even out the spoils. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it happening.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to detract from the convo going on in here but I’ve been exposed to Bears twitter this week….man those are some of the most delusional fans ever. I know we have some delusional people in our fanbase but they be trippin over there lol. 
 

I get that they have our pick next year and want us to do bad but the way some of their fans talk you’d think they didn’t earn the #1 pick and that we did lmao. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gerry Green said:

Until a QB pay scale gets worked out. Or the Cap goes up to account for those larger salaries. I'm afraid teams are going to have to find ways to cut costs. Last year the WRs got lesser contracts, and this year it's the RBs. 

 

The Cap was supposed to help level out the field. All it has really done is muddy up the waters.

 

Putting a Cap on the QB pay scale would make it easier to even out the spoils. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it happening.

For the good of the players as a whole, a QB cap would be a great thing. Or just a max contract stipulation, period. But for competitiveness the current system is best. Want that MVP caliber QB? It's gonna cost you a big chunk of your cap. Put a cap on contracts and that handful of teams that has a legit MVP caliber QB on the roster is gonna have an even bigger competitive advantage than the huge one they already have. 

 

  • Beer 2
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.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...