English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As in the nickname has really nothing to do with the city or state.. heck just tell me who has the WORST nickname.....

2007-06-15 08:35:14 · 47 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Football (American)

47 answers

I'll have to third the Packers for two reasons

1) Team names are designed behind something ferocious, majestic, noble or strategically named for location (ie: Houston Texans). Packers? Okay, so alot of the people back then worked in a factory, but you name your team after a blue collar worker?

2) Just to stay politcally correct, I wont mention why this is also a bad name...just use your imagination

2007-06-15 09:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by Daddy-o 5 · 1 1

As a Packer fan, I'm not thrilled with the nickname but it has historical context because the team when formed in 1919 was sponsored by a local meat packing plant. So the name makes historical sense.

The Houston Texans is a bow to the first Dallas AFL team called the Dallas Texans so the nod to honor that first team is sort of neat and doesn't bother me. I like the nickname the ESPN page 2 guy gives the Tennessee Titans "The Flaming Thumb Tacks". Tennessee owners probably chose Titans for the alliteration and because Titans are supposed to be giants and superior forces.

The name I hate the most is the Indianapolis Colts. Owner Robert Irsay moved the team in the middle of the night from Baltimore to Indianapolis but retained the Colts name. Contrast that to when Art Modell moved the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore but agreed to give up the name and the history of the Browns to the city of Cleveland and its fans.

The Indianapolis Colts are NOT the colts. They are some team moved in the middle of the night by an owner who treated the long-time fan base of the Baltimore Colts like TRASH.

Sure, other teams have moved but no owner has done it so nastily as Irsay.

2007-06-16 17:12:38 · answer #2 · answered by zoomcurly 2 · 1 0

The Buffalo Bills, because it refers to a man who has nothing to do with the East coast, and when you use it as a nickname -- the "Bills" -- it doesn't make sense.

Therefore, I propose that if they want to be witty, they should change their name to the Buffalo Wings.

In the NFL's favor though, at least all their nicknames are plural, so you don't have any teams like the Orlando Magic and the Utah Jazz. Players can be a Patriot, or a Cowboy, or a 49er, instead of a "Member of the Jazz", or a "Player for the Magic".

(Ironically, I hail from New England, where we have the Revolution, but at least we can call them the Revs.)

2007-06-15 10:51:09 · answer #3 · answered by Greg C 2 · 1 0

Browns, tell me how many people KNOW what the name means? Great nickname as far as the HONOR, but doesn't work when no one knows that it is honoring someone.

A BILL IS NOT A TYPE OF BUFFALO. Man what a dork. It WAS for Buffalo Bill Cody. What next you want to say a Sabre is a type of Buffalo because the NHL team uses a slug(that is supposed to like like a buffalo somehow) as a logo? A sabre is a form of sword(well actually not a type of sword because a sword is a type of sword if I'm not mistaken but yeah you get the idea). On top of that it probably isn't even a Buffalo as an emblem. It is probably a AMERICAN BISON(which people mistakenly call Buffaloes but there are NO BUFFALOES in the U.S.)

2007-06-16 04:28:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think the worst nickname would have to be the Chargers (Bolts).

However, in response to what many of you have said about various team names, most of them were named in reference to a baseball team already located in that area. NY Giants(now SF) - NY Giants, Boston Braves(now ATL) - Boston Redskins, Chicago Cubs - Chicago Bears, Detroit Tigers - Detroit Lions (lions & tigers & bears). The reason the Redskins haven't changed their name yet is because even though it isn't politically correct, Americans still love the idea of watching a match between Cowboys and Indians (Redskins).
Also the Cardinals were originally from Chicago, where cardinals do actually live.

2007-06-17 02:44:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well as far as I know (except for in zoos) there are no Panthers in Carolina, or Jaguars in Florida, or Bears in Chicago , or Lions in Detroit for that matter. So you see, that names which actually fit the city or state that the team represents are probably less common.
You guys also need to consider the history of these teams to understand names like the Packers and the Browns.

So I guess if I had to pick I'd go with Titans because what the hell is it, and what the hell does it have to do with Tennessee ???

Great question ,by the way.

2007-06-15 08:49:51 · answer #6 · answered by Cabrõn 4 · 0 1

The Browns are named after Paul Brown who founded and coached the team (egotistical, but at least there's a point).
Packers are named after the meat Packers which was a big industry in Green Bay.
Bills are a kind of Buffalo, which is why there's a buffalo on the side of the helmet.

2007-06-15 09:35:55 · answer #7 · answered by roary 2 · 1 0

To pick up after where Kris left off, there are bears in Illinois, panthers in the Carolinas, and jaguars in and around Florida. Although Cardinals is a fine name for a team, they aren't an indigenous species of Arizona. Rams aren't associated with Cleveland, Los Angeles, or St. Louis.

Ironically, my answer would be the Bills.

2007-06-15 09:12:50 · answer #8 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 4 0

As a Bills fan, I would have to say the Buffalo Bills. They were named after Buffalo Bill Cody who has NOTHING to do with Western NY. The entire team doesn't even acknowledge the connection with Buffalo Bill Cody. There is no reference to him at the stadium or anything.

2007-06-15 08:44:24 · answer #9 · answered by chiefokeefe1980 2 · 4 0

Titans

2007-06-17 17:26:36 · answer #10 · answered by JB 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers