Welcome your Washington Commanders

[mooby]

Originally Posted by MTK

Wright was on with Kevin Sheehan this morning and apparently they are open to changing the years on the crest. Personally I could care less, they went with commemorating the year they won vs what season the team is associated with, but if it helps straighten out some panties out there than just do it.

I think both sides have a valid point - the games were played in the following year but they represent the culmination of the previous season.

So we were champs following the 1982, 1987, and 1991 seasons, but the games were in the following years. I lean 60/40 towards honoring the season that was played vs. the day the title was won but honestly the argument is a little irrelevant to me as I didn't witness any of it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mooby

I think both sides have a valid point - the games were played in the following year but they represent the culmination of the previous season.

So we were champs following the 1982, 1987, and 1991 seasons, but the games were in the following years. I lean 60/40 towards honoring the season that was played vs. the day the title was won but honestly the argument is a little irrelevant to me as I didn't witness any of it.

If they had just gone with 82, 87, 91 nobody would be complaining right now, so I get it. But I also see what they were going for. The decision as to what years to put on there should have been vetted more thoroughly that's for sure.

[irish]

Originally Posted by MTK

If they had just gone with 82, 87, 91 nobody would be complaining right now, so I get it. But I also see what they were going for. The decision as to what years to put on there should have been vetted more thoroughly that's for sure.

The dates on the rings are 82, 87, 91. That's the dates I'd have used.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by MTK

If they had just gone with 82, 87, 91 nobody would be complaining right now, so I get it. But I also see what they were going for. The decision as to what years to put on there should have been vetted more thoroughly that's for sure.

83, 88, and 92 jumped out at me immediately as WRONG. This inattention to detail is an insult to long-time fans who know better. Pro Football Reference is the definitive reference for players, teams, and seasons of the NFL - they have it correct: 82, 87, and 91. When discussing all-time great teams, you never hear mention of the 86 Bears, do you? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

83, 88, and 92 jumped out at me immediately as WRONG. This inattention to detail is an insult to long-time fans who know better. Pro Football Reference is the definitive reference for players, teams, and seasons of the NFL - they have it correct: 82, 87, and 91. When discussing all-time great teams, you never hear mention of the 86 Bears, do you? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

Yes I get it, they should have used 82, 87, 91. But technically, the years they used aren't wrong, they just aren't the commonly accepted way we refer to those teams.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

83, 88, and 92 jumped out at me immediately as WRONG. This inattention to detail is an insult to long-time fans who know better. Pro Football Reference is the definitive reference for players, teams, and seasons of the NFL - they have it correct: 82, 87, and 91. When discussing all-time great teams, you never hear mention of the 86 Bears, do you? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

Agree…these guys can’t get out of their own way.