Moving to the game room.
Nothing silly about it - in fact, isn’t that exactly what Chicago’s NHL team did (changing their name from the Blackhawks, a reference to the tribe, to Black Hawks, a reference to the bird, even though they never changed the mascot)?
The problem is, what do you change it to? There isn’t anything normally called “Red Skins” or even “Red-Skinned (something)”. Even “Red Men” is objectionable; St. John’s University had to change from that to “Red Storm.”
The NHL team name went from Black Hawks to Blackhawks, not the other way round. It has always been a reference to a military unit named for a Native American, never a bird (a bird figure has been a mascot, never a logo).
Most importantly, for most people, the name is not inherently a slur (as for the Redskins), and the logo is not obviously a subhuman cartoon caricature (as for the Cleveland Indians).
Apart from the potatoes.
I keep sayin…
That would be a good compromise. It smacks of plausible deniability.
Reinventing the nickname to refer to a peanut or potato probably wouldn’t go over well but maybe they could use a more generic Indian name, akin to Indians/Chiefs/Braves/Warriors, etc. Eliminate the race-based logo; Cleveland baseball needs to do the same.
Suggesting that they change to “a more generic Indian name” misses the point. This presupposes that the Redskins organization really do want to “honor” Native Americans, and they think naming their sports team for them is a good way to do that. None of that is true. The name “Redskins” is the whole thing. That’s what they have circled their wagons around. It was appropriated at a time when it was OK to be openly racist. Times have changed and you can’t do that anymore, which has become inconvenient for the team and their fans.
“Redskin” in its purely derogatory sense however doesn’t seem to get much use anymore. (It never made much sense to begin with. A flushed or sunburned white person is redder than any Native American.) I’d wager that if it wasn’t for the team, the word would just be one of those many off color anachronisms gathering, happily for us all, dust in the attic of our vernacular past. So, maybe the team should just take it, redefine it entirely away from its Native American reference, and let the new meaning eclipse the old.
Once more, if Dan Snyder starts telling people that the Washington Redskins now honors the peanut, we will still be left with a team that everyone knows is still named for a racist slur. That gimmick won’t fool anyone.
You are also missing the point. Redefining the word away from a racist slur and towards a reference to the team and fans* would not be an attempt to “fool” anyone. Fooling people is what they are attempting and failing completely to do now by sticking with the obviously self serving contention that “Redskins” honors Native Americans. Redefining the word would require admitting that it is offensive * when used in reference to Native Americans*. And discontinuing that reference by changing their logo and such would be pretty much admitting that they have been perpetuating that offensive meaning of the word. It could also be seen, and if done with sincerity rightfully so, as an attempt to reappropriate the word in a nonoffensive way and thereby, perhaps, help relegate to an historical footnote that that word was a racist slur in American English.
*If you go back and read the OP this is what I suggested. The redskin peanut, while I think if used adroitly it could be a very effective PR vehicle, is obviously a nonstarter as an official NFL mascot.
On the other hand the Washington Nuts does have a ring to it.
The Goober Peas! Eureka!
Saw this in an email today:
Despite what the e-mail says, there is a difference between the terms.
Tomahawk is a short ax. Because it’s used as a projectile weapon, it makes sense to name a type of missile after it.
Apache and Lakota are the names of tribes. There’s nothing derogatory about calling someone an Apache or Lakota.
“Geronimo” is the name of an Apache leader who held off the American and Mexican armies for nearly 30 years. Again, there’s nothing inherently derogatory about the name.
Redskin, on the other hand, is a raw term that rudely refers to the skin color of Native Americans. It’s often used disrespectfully.
And you believe most people first think of those denotations when they hear or read those words? Bet you want me to pull the other one (the one with bells on it), too.
The Washington Geronimos? Kind of like the Chicago Blackhawks.
Washington Americans.
The Washington Carjackers
Once when they were getting their asses kicked by the Steelers, Myron Cope suggested the “Redfaces”. 
(Snyder wasn’t too thrilled)
Why not Washington Americans? After all, Washington is the capitol of “America” and what a better way to honor native Americans than recognizing they are the original Americans? In addition, what true patriotic Redskins fan would protest that name without being called a commie?
I just thought of one today (I’m a bit slow) while commenting on NFL week 5. I called them the Washington NeedANewNames.
Take the capital letter of each word NANN add ies to pularlize and we have the Washington Nannies 