Tuesday Morning Uni Watch

The Patriot helmets did look cream colored to me

Concur with the Pats helmet’s being cream or off-white. Nice touch. I might be the only one who thought the Bills white jerseys were a little blah (Not sure if they had blue pants back in the day but if so maybe that would have helped). Still their helmets’ were class too.

Only concern, sort of on the same line of this past weekends uni makeover thoughts; The off-white helmets are great. I just wouldn’t want it to become a deal where a whole bunch of teams adopt it and drown out the specialness.

In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch!

I also love the uncluttered look of the back of the helmets. I wish teams would do this for their currents helmets. We know this is the NFL so ditch the shield, and the flag decal has been there so long nobody sees it for the purpose it was put there in the first place. It’s just another decal now.

Paul, I think you meant to call out the Chargers, not the Bengals, for being Nancys though. As a Cincinnatian, I can assure you that the Bengals are indeed Nancys, but not because they have Riddell’s warning on the back of the helmet.

(For the record, though, only the Bills went the extra mile of removing the fine-print warning decal, which means the Pats, Raiders, and Bengals are officially total Nancys.)

Small typo. Bengals should be Raiders

Nice pic of the numbers on the back of a ref’s uni:
link

[quote comment=”347859″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

To paraphrase Foghorn Leghorn, there’s something a little eeeeeeyyyyhhhh about someone who’d let other people help determine his rooting interests.[/quote]

Amen – I just have no real Pro allegence (due to moving throughout life), and am done rooting for my geographical team (Houston). And to be clear, I am not letting others CHOOSE, but perhaps provide some clarity and perspective on my ultimate decision.

[quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link

I agree the Patriots uniforms looked much better than the crap they have now, I disagree about the Raiders and the Chargers. Taking any nostaglia out of it, from a design standpoint the new Chargers are superior and the black outline on the Raiders throwback looks to clunky. I much prefer the modern Raiders jersey.

The Bills look better last night but that throwback while it may be historically acurate is a disaster. The helmet stripe dosen’t match the sleeve stripe which is different than the pants stripe and still different than the socks stripe.

The rear collar memorial patch has been done before: in 2007-08 several of the ACC basketball teams used that location for their black band to memorialize the Virginia Tech shooting victims. UNC was just one of them that I remember of the top of my head. Here’s a link to a gallery showing how they used it:

link

[quote comment=”347865″]I’d like to an official with a 3-digit number in one of these throwbacks.[/quote]
I know I saw at least one 3-digit official. Cant find visual evidence though.

[quote comment=”347873″]I only saw the Pats-Bills game and it was seriously the best looking uniform game I’ve seen in some time. The biggest exception was Belichick who looked like a jackass again.

My other thought…why not some throwback more revealing uniforms for the cheerleaders?[/quote]

Fixed that for ya. :)

(sorry, I haven’t had anywhere near enough sleep today)

[quote comment=”347871″][quote comment=”347869″][quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Not to laugh at you dwight, but that was comedy. I would have to encourage rooting for the horseshoes[/quote]

That’s why I left the Browns, Saints, and Niners – and eliminated the Pats and Steelers, greatness is NOT a pre-requisite[/quote]

If greatness is not a pre-requisite, as you say, why then are you forsaking your Texans. They’re not great, but you are giving up on them for their ‘constant suckage’. Why give up one loser for another?

On another note, go with GB. Best fans, best ownership (ourselves), great uniforms, great history, awesome stadium. Can’t go wrong. Until you try and get season tickets. I’m number 56,000-some.

-Greenie

[quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

Dang Mike, we are not all like that. We have feelings you know. Some of us try real hard to move away from the BW stigma..

(I know it was a backhanded slap at the OP, but it still hurts)

/toungue-in-cheek

if you’re switching to Gmail or Yahoo from EL, Gmal and Yahoo offer a free serv called “TrueSwith” that will 1) tell everyone in add book your new add, 2) copy your add book, and 3) copy all your stored mail into corresponding new folders in the new account. FYI.

Concurring with last night’s MNF games. A ten-beller on the cool chart. Just more proof that newer isn’t always better.

You know, if the Raiders used the old “shield” on the field as their yard markers [look at old pix of Raiders games and you’ll see ’em] then it would have been perfect. It was pretty close last night … they even have a fat coach just like Madden … just reminding fans of the days of many multi-purpose stadia …Are the Raiders the only one left in the No Fun League that plays on a baseball infield this time of year?

That first ticker item about the trip to the MLB offices is highly recommendable. (I’m not going to make a splendid splinter reference).

link

[/quote]
If greatness is not a pre-requisite, as you say, why then are you forsaking your Texans. They’re not great, but you are giving up on them for their ‘constant suckage’. Why give up one loser for another?

On another note, go with GB. Best fans, best ownership (ourselves), great uniforms, great history, awesome stadium. Can’t go wrong. Until you try and get season tickets. I’m number 56,000-some.

-Greenie[/quote]

Good question – I only watch/root for the Houston team b/c i moved to houston and they are on t.v. they are certainly not “my team”. It’s not the losing per se, but rather the inability to be relevant (for better or worse), even in Houston (seem to be more cowboys fans)

re: person looking for an official that had a 3 digit number last night.

I don’t have any screengrabs, but there was a side judge who clearly wore #100 last night. He always came in to mark the spot of the ball.

As my wife asked me last night why the refs were wearing orange… I immediately wondered how many other Uni Watchers were having that same discussion.

LOVED the games last night… it was a visual orgy.

Was anyone else bothered by the fact the Pats used Flying Elvis as their field graphic? It seemed REALLY out of place. They should have used an AFL logo instead, IMHO (hey, it was on the ref’s unis, so why not?).

[quote comment=”347889″][/quote]
If greatness is not a pre-requisite, as you say, why then are you forsaking your Texans. They’re not great, but you are giving up on them for their ‘constant suckage’. Why give up one loser for another?

On another note, go with GB. Best fans, best ownership (ourselves), great uniforms, great history, awesome stadium. Can’t go wrong. Until you try and get season tickets. I’m number 56,000-some.

-Greenie[/quote]

Good question – I only watch/root for the Houston team b/c i moved to houston and they are on t.v. they are certainly not “my team”. It’s not the losing per se, but rather the inability to be relevant (for better or worse), even in Houston (seem to be more cowboys fans)[/quote]

can i honestly say (before the comments section turns into a “who’s everybodys favorite team” section) that if you’re not passionate about a team at this point, then just watch as a casual fan. root for the best team to get better. or root for the underdog. no biggie, and nobody will hate you for it.

me, on the other hand… i HATE 31 teams in the nfl and live and die by my team! lol

[quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

go with the browns… those of us in misery need all the company we can get.

[quote comment=”347886″]You know, if the Raiders used the old “shield” on the field as their yard markers [look at old pix of Raiders games and you’ll see ’em] then it would have been perfect. It was pretty close last night … they even have a fat coach just like Madden … just reminding fans of the days of many multi-purpose stadia …Are the Raiders the only one left in the No Fun League that plays on a baseball infield this time of year?[/quote]

Dolphins

Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. Likewise, changing teams for any reason is seriously frowned upon in some circles. That said, this issue often comes up in various Premier League and other Euro soccer forums, where Americans with no geographic or family history links to any team are go looking for a team to support. The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.

[quote comment=”347880″][quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

Dang Mike, we are not all like that. We have feelings you know. Some of us try real hard to move away from the BW stigma..

(I know it was a backhanded slap at the OP, but it still hurts)

/toungue-in-cheek[/quote]

heh heh……nice.

[quote comment=”347892″]re: person looking for an official that had a 3 digit number last night.

I don’t have any screengrabs, but there was a side judge who clearly wore #100 last night. He always came in to mark the spot of the ball.

As my wife asked me last night why the refs were wearing orange… I immediately wondered how many other Uni Watchers were having that same discussion.[/quote]

AFL logo was orange and black, wasn’t it?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347886″]You know, if the Raiders used the old “shield” on the field as their yard markers [look at old pix of Raiders games and you’ll see ’em] then it would have been perfect.[/quote]
Dang, you beat me to it on the yard numbers!!

I wanted to also suggest that the NFL force Bellecheck to wear suit and tie.

Baseball infield: Miami also AFAIK.

[quote comment=”347899″](the) raiders (as has been mentioned) should also have gone all the way back to their first year[/quote]

Amen, Phil. I’ll definitely take what they gave me last night, but it would have been cool to see year one.

Many are complaining about the heavy black stroke the Raiders had on their numbers. Graphically speaking, I think if it hadn’t been that strong, the silver numbers may not have been visible to those in the upper deck. The uni is more for the guy in the stands than the guy on his couch… that’s why the numbers on the front and back aren’t the tv numbers.

Most white helmets back then had a “cream” cast to them. Always figured it had something to do with sealant used. Figured it yellowed a bit over time, and the only ones on which it really showed were the whites.

—Ricko

Wait til you get a load of The Denver Broncos uni’s

Why do the Saints wear white at home in a dome? Heat obviously isn’t an issue, and the black and gold is such a classic look. I’m disappointed

______________________________________________

I was at this past Sunday’s Saints game, as I have been to every game for the past many years.

Since Jim Haslett (2000) The Saints have worn White at home about 35-40% of the time, with no real rhyme or reason.

The Saints put out very little info on why they wear what they wear, and to my knowledge do not put out a uni schedule. They wear White or Black at home, with both Gold or Black pants. You show up at the Superdome nd you never know what they are going to wear until they come out for warmups.

For the entire time from Bum Phillips’ second year (1982) through Mora and Ditka and Jim Haslett’s first year (2000) they wore Black for EVERY home game. For the Playoff game Haslett’s first year he wanted to wear White at home, and they did and they won the playoff game, so then Haslett wanted to wear White at home. They often wore Black toward the end of the season, and during the Haslett era they would start the season wearing White jerseys then switch to Black jerseys because Haslett was quoted as saying the players lobbied him to wear Black at home.

I believe that they are going to wear White at home this year, for at least the entire first portion of their schedule – its just a vibe that I have given that it is consistent with what they have done for the past 8-9 years. Plus, they have worn White jerseys for both preseason games and the home opener vs. Detroit.

More importantly, they have worn GOLD PANTS for EVERY GAME so far this season, including when wearing Black jerseys on the road this preseason. That may, just may mean that they have packed away the HORRIBLE Black unitard pants.

I truly hope that they have – FOR GOOD !!!!

[quote comment=”347873″]I only saw the Pats-Bills game and it was seriously the best looking uniform game I’ve seen in some time. The biggest exception was Belichick who looked like a jackass again.

My other thought…why not some throwback uniforms for the cheerleaders?[/quote]
Actually.. The Pats Cheerleaders WERE wearing throwback outfits last night.

Here’s a link to a pic from their Halftime Ceremony for the 50th Season Team.

link

What I find Completely strange about this is having the Old-Timer wearing the NEW uni I would have thought that they would have at least had each player in their period uni. (Thankfully Ben Coates didn’t have to wear the first Flying Elvis Jersey… link)

[quote comment=”347921″]Why do the Saints wear white at home in a dome? Heat obviously isn’t an issue, and the black and gold is such a classic look. I’m disappointed

______________________________________________

I was at this past Sunday’s Saints game, as I have been to every game for the past many years.

Since Jim Haslett (2000) The Saints have worn White at home about 35-40% of the time, with no real rhyme or reason.

The Saints put out very little info on why they wear what they wear, and to my knowledge do not put out a uni schedule. They wear White or Black at home, with both Gold or Black pants. You show up at the Superdome nd you never know what they are going to wear until they come out for warmups.

For the entire time from Bum Phillips’ second year (1982) through Mora and Ditka and Jim Haslett’s first year (2000) they wore Black for EVERY home game. For the Playoff game Haslett’s first year he wanted to wear White at home, and they did and they won the playoff game, so then Haslett wanted to wear White at home. They often wore Black toward the end of the season, and during the Haslett era they would start the season wearing White jerseys then switch to Black jerseys because Haslett was quoted as saying the players lobbied him to wear Black at home.

I believe that they are going to wear White at home this year, for at least the entire first portion of their schedule – its just a vibe that I have given that it is consistent with what they have done for the past 8-9 years. Plus, they have worn White jerseys for both preseason games and the home opener vs. Detroit.

More importantly, they have worn GOLD PANTS for EVERY GAME so far this season, including when wearing Black jerseys on the road this preseason. That may, just may mean that they have packed away the HORRIBLE Black unitard pants.

I truly hope that they have – FOR GOOD !!!![/quote]

As far back as their initial season, the Saints wore white at home.

does anyone know of a website that i can use to look up which brand is sponsoring what schools?

[quote comment=”347920″][quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. Likewise, changing teams for any reason is seriously frowned upon in some circles. That said, this issue often comes up in various Premier League and other Euro soccer forums, where Americans with no geographic or family history links to any team are go looking for a team to support. The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.[/quote]

So true Perry. Yet, there are those rare stray Cupid strikes, which happened to me, where this 8 year old boy fell in love with his team(2,700 miles away) solely because of their link, and eccentric/exciting playing style; circa 1977-78. Now, my team has had many changes, yet, I will always be devoted to them(insert anthemic music).

Don’t know what it is that makes one devoted to their team, yet, I do know it can be link[/quote]
Seriously, if you need a team to follow this year, the Bears might be a solid choice. You know, in a “horrible car crash on the expressway that you can’t help but rubberneck” type of way. Things could get very ugly and very intersting.

Unless, of course, they break out link again, in which case, you should drop them like a 497-degree spud.

[quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. [quote]

Boredome? Just need something to pay attention to on Sunday.

My one critique from last night’s game, what about the End Zones? The Patriots had the current logo. Would have been a great place to express some fun colorful designs. And last Thursday, Pittsburgh had text in one end zone and diagonal striping in the other. What gives?

[quote comment=”347933″]My one critique from last night’s game, what about the End Zones? The Patriots had the current logo. Would have been a great place to express some fun colorful designs. And last Thursday, Pittsburgh had text in one end zone and diagonal striping in the other. What gives?[/quote]

what about coaches? shouldn’t they have worn suits or button up sweaters?

Marion (Iowa) High School and Vinton-Shellsburg High School are having a breast cancer awareness
football game Friday night. Fans can buy pink t-shirts and both teams will wear pink socks.
Marion’s colors are red and yellow, so that should look ewww, and V-S’s are black and gold (not better).

Dwight, Dwight, Dwight

Here are a couple of ways you could go:
You say there “seem to be more Cowboy fans”, so pick another NFC East team to adopt as your own just to piss them off. (I wish I could recommend the Skins here, but I’m afraid you will meet with much disillusionment until they get new ownership).

Or; hold on for a year and become a charter fan of the LA Jaguars.

But what you really should do if you’re just looking for something to do on Sundays: take up golf.

[quote comment=”347933″]My one critique from last night’s game, what about the End Zones? The Patriots had the current logo. Would have been a great place to express some fun colorful designs. And last Thursday, Pittsburgh had text in one end zone and diagonal striping in the other. What gives?[/quote]

They’ve been doing that for years. They share the field with the Pitt Panthers, so while both seasons are going on they have the stripes in one endzone. As soon as the Panthers have played their last home game they take away the stripes and put “Steelers” in the endzone.

Personally, I’d love to see the stripes AND the name Pittsburgh in both endzones, then at midfield they could put the Steelers and Panthers helmets the way the Chiefs used to do at their old stadium. Don’t suppose you could whip that up, could you Phil?

[quote comment=”347938″]I may be the only one in the world, and I, as a Mainer, am a Patriots fan, but I think the Patriots’ current unis are much nicer than those throwbacks. Pat Patriot is fun nostalgia, but seems to me inappropriately cartoonish on a football helmet…I much prefer the sleek momentum of flying elvis. The red, too, just didn’t look good (maybe it was the fabric like Paul mentioned, maybe it just seemed to bright…). I know it’s borderline sacrilege on this site to say anything bad about throwbacks (esp. with sock stripes), but I want to go on record as saying that I’ll take the Pats’ current set.[/quote]
I’m not going to argue with you, but you don’t think this is link?

Which unis would you prefer if they wore the throwbacks, but they put Flying Elvis on the helmets instead of Pat Patriot?

Personally, I always hated Pat Patriot, but I’ll take him over Flying Elvis any day.

[quote comment=”347930″][quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home.
…

The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.[/quote]

I think the latter part of your philosophy doesn’t match with the first part.

As a kid I was chosen to be a fan of the Cubs despite being surrounded by Mets fans (their ’86 arrogance probably had something to do with it). In basketball, on the other hand, I support the Knicks and Jets.

Sometimes the home team pulls you in, sometimes not.[/quote]

The second part only applies, as I implied, when you have no natural geographic or other ties (as in the case of an American looking for a Premier League team). Otherwise, you really should go with the home team, although I know there are plenty of people like you who don’t, for whatever reason. I think it’s easier to do something like that now than when I was a kid in the 60s, when there was no internet or cable/satellite and before people moved around as much as they do now. You rooted for your home team because 1, they were who you saw and read about 90% of the time, and two, all your friends and family rooted for them. Nowadays you can follow any team no matter where you live, and lots of people live in cities other than where they’re from.

[quote comment=”347939″]Dwight, Dwight, Dwight

Here are a couple of ways you could go:
You say there “seem to be more Cowboy fans”, so pick another NFC East team to adopt as your own just to piss them off. (I wish I could recommend the Skins here, but I’m afraid you will meet with much disillusionment until they get new ownership).

Or; hold on for a year and become a charter fan of the LA Jaguars.

But what you really should do if you’re just looking for something to do on Sundays: take up golf.[/quote]

Now THAT’S the kind of smarmy (yet insightful) answer I expect from my fellow UWers!!!!! Unfortunately I’ve already eliminated all NFC East teams for various reasons.

[quote comment=”347922″][quote comment=”347919″]Wait til you get a load of The Denver Broncos uni’s[/quote]
Can’t wait. That’s a gorgeous color scheme, sadly unused in the pros.[/quote]

brown and yellow?!?!?!

oh, well-to each his own:

link

link

I have been lucky enough to go to both the NFL HQ and the MLB HQ (they are almost exactly across the street from each other)for work. The MLB offices really took great care to embrace the sport, even the cubiles were made with the pine to look like bats. The NFL HQ was much darker, a lot more leather…..not as impressive.

I want to apologize for yesterday. It’s simply that I am a Poli-sci major and I have to listen to partisan bickering all day, and I use this site as an escape. I didn’t mean to tell you how to run your site Paul, I just don’t want to see one of my favorite sports-related webpages turn into another political debate site.

[quote comment=”347951″] The MLB offices really took great care to embrace the sport, even the cubiles were made with the pine to look like bats. [/quote]
Ash?

Hickory?

And there had to be some leather in the MLB building, correct? (Except around the area dedicated to the White Sox.)

[quote comment=”347954″]I too add to the acolades doled out for the unis last night. I’m not in love with any of them, but I was instantly engaged by the colors. The brightness is something that is sorely missing in all sports, but especially in the NFL. All the somber tones and “tough” black in designs make it boring IMHO.

Even though the Raiders were playing, the Chargers Blue across the way and the officials in orange, made for a color soaked spectacle.

I don’t need the teams to go back to these looks, but maybe update their looks with “older” colors[/quote]
I can live with the old helmet logos, etc.

I don’t mind a few updates to the jersey stripes, etc. but IMHO yesterday’s look for both the Pats and Bills was superior to what they wear on a “normal” day.

Apparently, this guy had an issue with those AFL ref uniforms from last night:

link

I thought they were pretty sweet.

[quote comment=”347946″]
All I know is that what the Patriot Gals had on last night reminded me of this…

link

…which is a very, very good thing.

:D[/quote]

There’s at least a couple of very, very good thing(s) in that picture. :-)

No screen grabs from the Mich/USC Rose Bowl a few years ago?

[quote comment=”347944″]… but with the Chiefs, definitely. link

Annie!

Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.

[quote comment=”347966″]
“I dunno, General Custer really should lose the mullet look, I think.”[/quote]
“Abe, c’mon with the facial hair; you’ll never get elected with that beard!”

[quote comment=”347965″]Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.[/quote]

sadly, jeff…most of them have the truncated loops…although the qb and a certain high profile wide receiver do have them…

check back this weekend for my take on them

and i totally agree–those panther whites are a thing of beauty!

[quote comment=”347968″][quote comment=”347966″][quote comment=”347959″]Apparently, this guy had an issue with those AFL ref uniforms from last night:

link

I thought they were pretty sweet.[/quote]

Yeah, that’s it, they wore those officials unis for their fashion appeal and to get that numbnuts “columnist’s” opinion of the way the AFL looked during the Eisenhower administration. (See point #1, post #106)

“I dunno, General Custer really should lose the mullet look, I think.”

—Ricko[/quote]

Yeah, but come on, his Whattaburger comparison is pretty funny![/quote]

I suppose. But if someone watching a production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” concluded, “This is so stupid, they’re all dressed like the toga party in ANIMAL HOUSE.” I’d question the insightfulness and relevance of that comparison, too. Know what I mean?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347878″][quote comment=”347871″][quote comment=”347869″][quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Not to laugh at you dwight, but that was comedy. I would have to encourage rooting for the horseshoes[/quote]

That’s why I left the Browns, Saints, and Niners – and eliminated the Pats and Steelers, greatness is NOT a pre-requisite[/quote]

If greatness is not a pre-requisite, as you say, why then are you forsaking your Texans. They’re not great, but you are giving up on them for their ‘constant suckage’. Why give up one loser for another?

On another note, go with GB. Best fans, best ownership (ourselves), great uniforms, great history, awesome stadium. Can’t go wrong. Until you try and get season tickets. I’m number 56,000-some.

-Greenie[/quote]

The Green Bay Packers, founded in nineteen hundred and nineteen, is one of the most storied franchises in football history. The Pack can even trace their lineage to other semi-professional teams in Green Bay dating back to 1896. Curly Lambeau and George Calhoun started the Packers with funds given to them by their employer the Indian Meat Packing Co. The donation of $500 was given for uniforms and equipment. The Packers started with the colors Navy and Gold as an homage to Lambeau’s college, Notre Dame. Vince Lombardi changed the colors to green gold when he took over the helm in late 1959.

The Green Bay Packers have won 12 championships including three Super Bowls. They have also not changed their uniforms drastically since the Lombardi era.

The Packers are now the only publicly owned company with a board of directors in American professional sports. It doesn’t get any better than to have a team where the fans are the owners.

In conclusion, the Packers have arguably the best fans in the world. Wisconsin people are so friendly, and being at historic Lambeau Field on game day is not surpassed by anything. Greenie has me beat on the season ticket list. I fall somewhere around 66,000. The current time frame for season tickets is a shade over 30 years. When looking for a team to cheer for, and be a part of, please consider one of the greatest franchises in sports history. Come join the Cheeseheads of the Frozen Tundra.

oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Bad grass at that U2 concert in Soldier Field man….

link

[quote comment=”347892″]re: person looking for an official that had a 3 digit number last night.

I don’t have any screengrabs, but there was a side judge who clearly wore #100 last night. He always came in to mark the spot of the ball.

As my wife asked me last night why the refs were wearing orange… I immediately wondered how many other Uni Watchers were having that same discussion.[/quote]

probably too many. 2 of my friends were asking me about Orange uniforms. was proud to share my insight. not often i have people who is interested in the slightest little detail.

Question for the DIYers and Color Purists, I have a DIY project in mind, but the closest color paint I can find to my two blue choices (Navy or Royal) is a Cobalt Blue. Is this an acceptable substitution?

[quote comment=”347973″]
The Packers are now the only publicly owned company with a board of directors in American professional sports.[/quote]
Didn’t the Celtics have a stock sale a few years back?

AFAIK, the major difference for the Pack is that they’re legally set up as a not-for-profit, with that American Legion post scheduled to get any residual value.

[quote comment=”347978″][quote comment=”347976″]
That would truly be revisionist history! The real story is actually the opposite:

link

Very, very early in his career Bob Newhart did a bit on how a speechwriter would have punched up the Gettysburg Address: my comment was a bit of a takeoff on that theme.[/quote]

ABE LINCOLN’S PRESS AGENT.
“What ABOUT the beard, Abe? (pause) You’re thinking of shaving it OFF? (sigh) Abe, we’ve done studies on that and… (listening) Okay, WHAT else, Abe? (listens) You’re not wearing the shawl? What ARE you wearing? A sort of ‘caridigan”? Listen, Abe, I’m gonna have to get back to you on that…”

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Call them the Federals! Perfect, since they play at FedEx Field. Plus, they could unofficially be the Fedskins…

[quote comment=”347960″][quote comment=”347920″][quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. Likewise, changing teams for any reason is seriously frowned upon in some circles. That said, this issue often comes up in various Premier League and other Euro soccer forums, where Americans with no geographic or family history links to any team are go looking for a team to support. The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.[/quote]

So true Perry. Yet, there are those rare stray Cupid strikes, which happened to me, where this 8 year old boy fell in love with his team(2,700 miles away) solely because of their link, and eccentric/exciting playing style; circa 1977-78. Now, my team has had many changes, yet, I will always be devoted to them(insert anthemic music).

Don’t know what it is that makes one devoted to their team, yet, I do know it can be link[/quote]

I’m always interested to learn why people believe the Steelers have a lot of bandwagon fans. Now I think I see where you’re coming from. I imagine, in your case, it has something to do with all the Black and Gold in this picture:

link

Perfect example, thanks Bernard. I only wish Seahawk fans had a mere 4 hour drive to their first Super Bowl. Interestingly though, with the Steeler’s history, and the way bandwagoners cling to glory’s past(trash talking safety nets), there probably would still be a greater number of so called Steeler fans.

[quote comment=”347981″]Question for the DIYers and Color Purists, I have a DIY project in mind, but the closest color paint I can find to my two blue choices (Navy or Royal) is a Cobalt Blue. Is this an acceptable substitution?[/quote]

What medium are you using and what are you trying to reproduce? I think you will probably disappointed with cobalt blue to replace either navy or royal. It is much brighter, with more white and yellow tone. You might be able to mix cobalt with a black and burnt sienna to get an effect similar to navy. Navy is your darkest, then royal, then cobalt in terms of brightness. Feel free to email me for more info on various media. Acrylic navy will not look the same as RIT navy, etc.

[quote comment=”347988″]”What ABOUT the speech? You… you TYPED it??? How many times have we told, Abe, ON THE BACKS OF ENVELOPES. Yes, I know it makes it harder to read that way. But it makes it look like you wrote it comin’ down on the train or something.”[/quote]
Ah yes… thanks.

I mostly remembered the part about “why are you saying four score and seven….”

[quote comment=”347987″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Call them the Federals! Perfect, since they play at FedEx Field. Plus, they could unofficially be the Fedskins…[/quote]

The Sentinels. Add some silver t, and adopt, those Pats throwbacks, get Shane Falco off his boat. Definitely hire those cheerleaders….

–Ricko

[quote comment=”347986″] the Pats is why they wore Red jerseys, [/quote]
That does remind me of a image from last night, when the director cut directly from the Patriots making a play in their red jerseys to their fans celebrating in BLUE jerseys…. :-)

[quote comment=”347993″][quote comment=”347988″]”What ABOUT the speech? You… you TYPED it??? How many times have we told, Abe, ON THE BACKS OF ENVELOPES. Yes, I know it makes it harder to read that way. But it makes it look like you wrote it comin’ down on the train or something.”[/quote]
Ah yes… thanks.

I mostly remembered the part about “why are you saying four score and seven….”[/quote]

“You changed ‘four score and seven’ to ‘eighty-seven’? (exasperated). That was meant to be a ‘grabber’, Abe. Yes, I know it means the same thing, Abe. Abe, Abe…listen…that’s like Marc Antony saying, ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen…I got somethin’ I wanna tell ya.'”

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347998″][quote comment=”347991″][quote comment=”347981″]Question for the DIYers and Color Purists, I have a DIY project in mind, but the closest color paint I can find to my two blue choices (Navy or Royal) is a Cobalt Blue. Is this an acceptable substitution?[/quote]

What medium are you using and what are you trying to reproduce? I think you will probably disappointed with cobalt blue to replace either navy or royal. It is much brighter, with more white and yellow tone. You might be able to mix cobalt with a black and burnt sienna to get an effect similar to navy. Navy is your darkest, then royal, then cobalt in terms of brightness. Feel free to email me for more info on various media. Acrylic navy will not look the same as RIT navy, etc.[/quote]

I will be spray painting a Refrigerator, so i don’t have much choice in terms of availability of paint, and or mixing of colors..[/quote]

Remember, when spraying the inside, do NOT close the door behind you.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347990″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Oh I hate how this “issue” keeps popping up. They’ve been the Redskins for over 70 years. No one thinks of a “redskin” as anything other than a football player from DC. Regardless of the origins of the name, it’s been in use for so long that it doesn’t have that connotation anymore.[/quote]

doesn’t make it right tho

Being a Raider fan of some 40 years I found last night was terrific nostalgia (for watching them and the other three) — and completely agree with Paul about the fun of watching some football scrumming in infield dirt — but …

what was up with Oakland wearing white at home — in their home opener no less? (Sorry if this was already covered, I haven’t found it.) Having watched basically every Raider home game through the mid-60s to the early 80s, I never remember this happening. My pet theory is that the NFL thought the Raiders in white (with those lovely silver numbers) and Bolts in powder blue would look more “throwback-y”. Brings up a good question of throwback aesthetics vs. authenticity.

And did the Raiders helmet numbers really look like link? Looks almost, (shudder) Steeler-like.

And finally: anyone else notice link that uni for Cincy? Yow-sah! Orange jersey? Helmet stripe? Did they ever wear that?

JTH’s lambeau field review somehow got caught in the “spaminator” so i rescued it — go back up to post #116 if you missed it

[quote comment=”348003″][quote comment=”347990″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Oh I hate how this “issue” keeps popping up. They’ve been the Redskins for over 70 years. No one thinks of a “redskin” as anything other than a football player from DC. Regardless of the origins of the name, it’s been in use for so long that it doesn’t have that connotation anymore.[/quote]

doesn’t make it right tho[/quote]
No. No, it doesn’t.

And I think the argument that “no one thinks of a ‘redskin’ as anything other than a football player from DC” really misses the mark when link on the helmet.

[quote comment=”347990″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Oh I hate how this “issue” keeps popping up. They’ve been the Redskins for over 70 years. No one thinks of a “redskin” as anything other than a football player from DC. Regardless of the origins of the name, it’s been in use for so long that it doesn’t have that connotation anymore.[/quote]
I’m afraid that you can only speak for yourself on that one.

[quote comment=”348007″]JTH’s lambeau field review somehow got caught in the “spaminator” so i rescued it — go back up to post #116 if you missed it[/quote]
Post got flagged as someone impersonating me since I was saying nice things about Packers fans?

[quote comment=”347997″]I don’t understand how the helmet hats aren’t a permanent fixture. Not the originals, but maybe a New Era or Reebok version that wouldn’t turn to dust in the closet during the offseason. Surely they’d be huge sellers, at least at the stadium and team pro shops, where a lot of fans simply want to look like the team on the field. Heck, I’d probably still be a Vikings fan if I could wear a purple cap with a horn on each side. (Except I’d probably really be a Rams fan, since that is by far the coolest of the helmet hats, and like Dwight I’m at a point where something that trivial would probably be enough to secure my NFL fan loyalty.)[/quote]

Well, Reebok is too busy making strech fit trucker hats with flames, and they have an exclusive contract so nobody like New Era or twin city can get on it.

Which is, oddly enough, the reason I don’t own an NFL hat. (well, not completely true- I got a panthers adjustable wool hat as a gift the year they came into the league. I have it buried somewhere at home, the logo’s faded and the wool crown is rather fuzzy).

Until they let twin city or New Era in on it, or start making a decent real fitted hat that’s classy and stylish, I ain’t buying one.

[quote comment=”347995″][quote comment=”347987″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Call them the Federals! Perfect, since they play at FedEx Field. Plus, they could unofficially be the Fedskins…[/quote]

The Sentinels. Add some silver t, and adopt, those Pats throwbacks, get Shane Falco off his boat. Definitely hire those cheerleaders….

–Ricko[/quote]

Right now, at this very moment, I am typing on a computer at Haverstraw Middle School where one of the Phys ed teachers is one Ed Ruppert, who is the eal life human being that Shane Falco’s character is based upon.

link

so james…that you in #22 with the DIY shorts?

That rocks, Powers.

:D

JRJR and The Jeff, thanks I’ll check out the rustoleum.

[quote comment=”348016″][quote comment=”348001″][quote comment=”347998″][quote comment=”347991″][quote comment=”347981″]Question for the DIYers and Color Purists, I have a DIY project in mind, but the closest color paint I can find to my two blue choices (Navy or Royal) is a Cobalt Blue. Is this an acceptable substitution?[/quote]

What medium are you using and what are you trying to reproduce? I think you will probably disappointed with cobalt blue to replace either navy or royal. It is much brighter, with more white and yellow tone. You might be able to mix cobalt with a black and burnt sienna to get an effect similar to navy. Navy is your darkest, then royal, then cobalt in terms of brightness. Feel free to email me for more info on various media. Acrylic navy will not look the same as RIT navy, etc.[/quote]

I will be spray painting a Refrigerator, so i don’t have much choice in terms of availability of paint, and or mixing of colors..[/quote]

Remember, when spraying the inside, do NOT close the door behind you.

—Ricko[/quote]

Thanks Rick.. I’ll only be painting the outside though.[/quote]

Oh, okay. But don’t forget that for future reference. ;)

How cool would it have been if they played on this field last night?
link

All I know is for the first time ever I got the 1st post of the day.

A night owl who just happened to be up this morning.

Both games last night were fun to see. Uniform wise.

[quote comment=”348022″][quote comment=”347969″][quote comment=”347965″]Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.[/quote]

sadly, jeff…link have the truncated loops…although the qb and a certain link do have them…

check back this weekend for my take on them

and i totally agree–those panther whites are a thing of beauty![/quote]

Huh. Didn’t get to watch them much last year (and probalby this year, being at school), but a lot more of them used to have the Steve Smith style loops.

The real style with the QBs and Kickers is the best though.

As for the column, let me guess- you’ll be complaining about the helmet stripes, or rather slashes? I kind of like them, but I can see why some might not. Really the only ‘tweak’ I would make would be to relegate the black to the third or ditch it completely.[/quote]

Black was their original dark jersey. I remember thinking when they added the blue one, “Right, who wouldn’t wanna look like the Detroit Lions.” And at that time the Lions actually still won a game once in a while.

Generally, I’m with you, though. Pick one of the other, bright blue or black. Never been a big fan of the “alt jersey” mentality, anyway. Only ones that seem to work are the Broncos’ orange (because it harks back to the Orange Crush look) and Eagles’ black with green pants. Normally don’t like all-dark, but that one looks good for me, for some reason.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”347924″][quote comment=”347915″][quote comment=”347899″](the) raiders (as has been mentioned) should also have gone all the way back to their first year[/quote]

Amen, Phil. I’ll definitely take what they gave me last night, but it would have been cool to see year one.

Many are complaining about the heavy black stroke the Raiders had on their numbers. Graphically speaking, I think if it hadn’t been that strong, the silver numbers may not have been visible to those in the upper deck. The uni is more for the guy in the stands than the guy on his couch… that’s why the numbers on the front and back aren’t the tv numbers.[/quote]

Back at the start of ’63, Raider borders WERE that thick (see photos posted late last night) for exactly the reason you say. And they didn’t stay with the silver numbers, either, switching the fronts and backs to black during the season, largely because of readability issues on b&w TV.

Shouldn’t this be more about the accuracy of the recreations than about criticizing or redesigning 50-year old uniforms? I mean, that’s a real fool’s errand, isn’t it?

For example. both the Oilers (Hall of Fame Game) and Patriots socks stripes aren’t nearly as wide as the originals. Minor detail, and not making a big deal out of it, just saying I noticed.

—Ricko[/quote]

Yes, I am all for accuracy and think that throwback games should be as historically true as possible, but my point was that they are not beautiful. Design wise they are a mess. Just because they are 50 years old doesn’t mean they are beautiful. There were a lot of bad designs back in the day.

Perfect example is Ottawa 67s and their barber pole sweaters. Yesterday people were upset that they wouldn’t be wearing them anymore. But lets face it they were ugly. And if a team came out with that design now most people on Uniwatch would hate it.

[quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

As Kornheiser has often remarked: Put a potato on the helmet.

[quote comment=”348036″][quote comment=”348031″][quote comment=”348022″][quote comment=”347969″][quote comment=”347965″]Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.[/quote]

sadly, jeff…link have the truncated loops…although the qb and a certain link do have them…

check back this weekend for my take on them

and i totally agree–those panther whites are a thing of beauty![/quote]

Huh. Didn’t get to watch them much last year (and probalby this year, being at school), but a lot more of them used to have the Steve Smith style loops.

The real style with the QBs and Kickers is the best though.

As for the column, let me guess- you’ll be complaining about the helmet stripes, or rather slashes? I kind of like them, but I can see why some might not. Really the only ‘tweak’ I would make would be to relegate the black to the third or ditch it completely.[/quote]

Black was their original dark jersey. I remember thinking when they added the blue one, “Right, who wouldn’t wanna look like the Detroit Lions.” And at that time the Lions actually still won a game once in a while.

Generally, I’m with you, though. Pick one of the other, bright blue or black. Never been a big fan of the “alt jersey” mentality, anyway. Only ones that seem to work are the Broncos’ orange (because it harks back to the Orange Crush look) and Eagles’ black with green pants. Normally don’t like all-dark, but that one looks good for me, for some reason.

—Ricko[/quote]
Oh, I know the black was their original. I know it’s not BFBS, but the blue just looks much better, and certainly seems to be more popular when you see people wearing jerseys around.[/quote]
I say go with the black, because when your team is called “Panthers” and you aren’t based in Florida there’s really only link that seems fitting.

Just saw link up on the new (and loathable, even for a Boston fan like myself) ESPNboston.com.

What’s up with his planted foot? Is that shoe untied? Too big?

Looks like he usually wears link when he kicks, though he’s link in the past…

Any ideas?

[quote comment=”348014″][quote comment=”347990″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Oh I hate how this “issue” keeps popping up. They’ve been the Redskins for over 70 years. No one thinks of a “redskin” as anything other than a football player from DC. Regardless of the origins of the name, it’s been in use for so long that it doesn’t have that connotation anymore.[/quote]

The whole argument that the name “Redskins” is completely harmless fun makes a lot of sense — provided that one is entirely ignorant of the history of the football team and of English usage.

Plus, the controversy allows for the much more interesting conversation about what to call the team. I’d like Federals, if not for the USFL team of that name and the fact that burgundy and gold are very much not federal colors. And the point here should be to allow the team to retain as much of its current identity as possible, so the colors have to stay. So I fall back on Warriors, because it would allow the team to keep its colors and most of its Indian iconography. A return to the mohawk feather helmets (my favorite in NFL history) or the spear logo would be a perfect match for the Warriors name. It would tie in nicely with Washington’s significant military presence. Plus it’s alliterative, which is an underrated asset in team names.[/quote]

Why not go with Hogs?

[quote comment=”348042″]I was looking through the Patriots photo gallery someone else linked to and I noticed the team practiced in throwback pants with red stripes on the outside and a blue stripe in the middle

link

but wore pants with the stripe colors reversed last night.

link
Wouldn’t be shocked if they were using them as practice pants as well as game pants on occasion just to keep costs down a little.

How much do football pants run anyway?

[quote comment=”348033″][quote comment=”347924″][quote comment=”347915″][quote comment=”347899″](the) raiders (as has been mentioned) should also have gone all the way back to their first year[/quote]

Amen, Phil. I’ll definitely take what they gave me last night, but it would have been cool to see year one.

Many are complaining about the heavy black stroke the Raiders had on their numbers. Graphically speaking, I think if it hadn’t been that strong, the silver numbers may not have been visible to those in the upper deck. The uni is more for the guy in the stands than the guy on his couch… that’s why the numbers on the front and back aren’t the tv numbers.[/quote]

Back at the start of ’63, Raider borders WERE that thick (see photos posted late last night) for exactly the reason you say. And they didn’t stay with the silver numbers, either, switching the fronts and backs to black during the season, largely because of readability issues on b&w TV.

Shouldn’t this be more about the accuracy of the recreations than about criticizing or redesigning 50-year old uniforms? I mean, that’s a real fool’s errand, isn’t it?

For example. both the Oilers (Hall of Fame Game) and Patriots socks stripes aren’t nearly as wide as the originals. Minor detail, and not making a big deal out of it, just saying I noticed.

—Ricko[/quote]

Yes, I am all for accuracy and think that throwback games should be as historically true as possible, but my point was that they are not beautiful. Design wise they are a mess. Just because they are 50 years old doesn’t mean they are beautiful. There were a lot of bad designs back in the day.

Perfect example is Ottawa 67s and their barber pole sweaters. Yesterday people were upset that they wouldn’t be wearing them anymore. But lets face it they were ugly. And if a team came out with that design now most people on Uniwatch would hate it.[/quote]

Saying again, part of the appeal of these throwbacks IS that some of them are gruesome. You think the Broncos are wearing the brown-and-golds (including those socks) because they were classics of elegant, good-looking, universally loved uni design?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348043″][quote comment=”348042″]I was looking through the Patriots photo gallery someone else linked to and I noticed the team practiced in throwback pants with red stripes on the outside and a blue stripe in the middle

link

but wore pants with the stripe colors reversed last night.

link
Wouldn’t be shocked if they were using them as practice pants as well as game pants on occasion just to keep costs down a little.

How much do football pants run anyway?[/quote]
As much as they legs inside them are running. ;)

I will be spray painting a Refrigerator, so i don’t have much choice in terms of availability of paint, and or mixing of colors..

Not putting an orange “72” on that also, are you?

[quote comment=”348049″]I will be spray painting a Refrigerator, so i don’t have much choice in terms of availability of paint, and or mixing of colors..

Not putting an orange “72” on that also, are you?[/quote]

ummmm no.

Big blue star is the plan.

[quote comment=”348045″][quote comment=”348033″][quote comment=”347924″][quote comment=”347915″][quote comment=”347899″](the) raiders (as has been mentioned) should also have gone all the way back to their first year[/quote]

Amen, Phil. I’ll definitely take what they gave me last night, but it would have been cool to see year one.

Many are complaining about the heavy black stroke the Raiders had on their numbers. Graphically speaking, I think if it hadn’t been that strong, the silver numbers may not have been visible to those in the upper deck. The uni is more for the guy in the stands than the guy on his couch… that’s why the numbers on the front and back aren’t the tv numbers.[/quote]

Back at the start of ’63, Raider borders WERE that thick (see photos posted late last night) for exactly the reason you say. And they didn’t stay with the silver numbers, either, switching the fronts and backs to black during the season, largely because of readability issues on b&w TV.

Shouldn’t this be more about the accuracy of the recreations than about criticizing or redesigning 50-year old uniforms? I mean, that’s a real fool’s errand, isn’t it?

For example. both the Oilers (Hall of Fame Game) and Patriots socks stripes aren’t nearly as wide as the originals. Minor detail, and not making a big deal out of it, just saying I noticed.

—Ricko[/quote]

Yes, I am all for accuracy and think that throwback games should be as historically true as possible, but my point was that they are not beautiful. Design wise they are a mess. Just because they are 50 years old doesn’t mean they are beautiful. There were a lot of bad designs back in the day.

Perfect example is Ottawa 67s and their barber pole sweaters. Yesterday people were upset that they wouldn’t be wearing them anymore. But lets face it they were ugly. And if a team came out with that design now most people on Uniwatch would hate it.[/quote]

Saying again, part of the appeal of these throwbacks IS that some of them are gruesome. You think the Broncos are wearing the brown-and-golds (including those socks) because they were classics of elegant, good-looking, universally loved uni design?

—Ricko[/quote]

We seem to be arguing similar viewpoints. My point is that people keep calling these designs things of beauty. They are not. It’s fun to watch the throwbacks but I don’t get why most people here think “old” and “classic” equals “good”.

Re:Washington Redskins
Caveat:I have been a fan since 1961, but am not unsympathetic to those who find the name offensive. Here’s some history that doesn’t really “excuse” the name but can add a little perspective, I hope. We all know they were originally the Boston Braves and shared a stadium with the team of the same name (making for some great early season play with infields visible). They soon moved to Fenway Park and couldn’t play there with the name “Braves”. Hence, Redskins.

As for a potential new name, there have been several mentioned that pop up from time to time. There is a school of thought that Daniel Snyder wants to build a domed stadium within the District limits and host the Super Bowl. If this seems likely, I think we can rule out any name that even remotely could be conceived as “racial” for a team playing in a stadium on federal land. If FedEx is still one of their big backers, Federals seems likely. I also suspect “Generals” will garner attention.

I hope this was helpful. :)

[quote comment=”348053″][quote comment=”348045″][quote comment=”348033″][quote comment=”347924″][quote comment=”347915″][quote comment=”347899″](the) raiders (as has been mentioned) should also have gone all the way back to their first year[/quote]

Amen, Phil. I’ll definitely take what they gave me last night, but it would have been cool to see year one.

Many are complaining about the heavy black stroke the Raiders had on their numbers. Graphically speaking, I think if it hadn’t been that strong, the silver numbers may not have been visible to those in the upper deck. The uni is more for the guy in the stands than the guy on his couch… that’s why the numbers on the front and back aren’t the tv numbers.[/quote]

Back at the start of ’63, Raider borders WERE that thick (see photos posted late last night) for exactly the reason you say. And they didn’t stay with the silver numbers, either, switching the fronts and backs to black during the season, largely because of readability issues on b&w TV.

Shouldn’t this be more about the accuracy of the recreations than about criticizing or redesigning 50-year old uniforms? I mean, that’s a real fool’s errand, isn’t it?

For example. both the Oilers (Hall of Fame Game) and Patriots socks stripes aren’t nearly as wide as the originals. Minor detail, and not making a big deal out of it, just saying I noticed.

—Ricko[/quote]

Yes, I am all for accuracy and think that throwback games should be as historically true as possible, but my point was that they are not beautiful. Design wise they are a mess. Just because they are 50 years old doesn’t mean they are beautiful. There were a lot of bad designs back in the day.

Perfect example is Ottawa 67s and their barber pole sweaters. Yesterday people were upset that they wouldn’t be wearing them anymore. But lets face it they were ugly. And if a team came out with that design now most people on Uniwatch would hate it.[/quote]

Saying again, part of the appeal of these throwbacks IS that some of them are gruesome. You think the Broncos are wearing the brown-and-golds (including those socks) because they were classics of elegant, good-looking, universally loved uni design?

—Ricko[/quote]

We seem to be arguing similar viewpoints. My point is that people keep calling these designs things of beauty. They are not. It’s fun to watch the throwbacks but I don’t get why most people here think “old” and “classic” equals “good”.[/quote]

Ah, yes, there you go. Definitely harmonizing, not singing different songs.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348054″][quote comment=”348051″][quote comment=”348049″]I will be spray painting a Refrigerator, so i don’t have much choice in terms of availability of paint, and or mixing of colors..

Not putting an orange “72” on that also, are you?[/quote]

ummmm no.

Big blue star is the plan.[/quote]

why din’t ya just say so ;)

link and take ’em to your paint store…im sure they can match ’em

and if not, you can always go with fern green[/quote]

The problem is that from the research i’ve done, appliances take specialized paint that comes in a limited scope. if anyone has a different experience please let me know.

[quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

Not to mention Duke Basketball, Red Sox & Celtics.

[quote comment=”348060″](and when i do giants room i’ll use fern green.)[/quote]

just sayin

[quote comment=”348034″][quote comment=”347989″][quote comment=”347960″][quote comment=”347920″][quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. Likewise, changing teams for any reason is seriously frowned upon in some circles. That said, this issue often comes up in various Premier League and other Euro soccer forums, where Americans with no geographic or family history links to any team are go looking for a team to support. The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.[/quote]

So true Perry. Yet, there are those rare stray Cupid strikes, which happened to me, where this 8 year old boy fell in love with his team(2,700 miles away) solely because of their link, and eccentric/exciting playing style; circa 1977-78. Now, my team has had many changes, yet, I will always be devoted to them(insert anthemic music).

Don’t know what it is that makes one devoted to their team, yet, I do know it can be link[/quote]

I’m always interested to learn why people believe the Steelers have a lot of bandwagon fans. Now I think I see where you’re coming from. I imagine, in your case, it has something to do with all the Black and Gold in this picture:

link

Perfect example, thanks Bernard. I only wish Seahawk fans had a mere 4 hour drive to their first Super Bowl. Interestingly though, with the Steeler’s history, and the way bandwagoners cling to glory’s past(trash talking safety nets), there probably would still be a greater number of so called Steeler fans.[/quote]

I love it when people throw around the 4 hour drive, as if every fan in attendance that day drove from Pittsburgh. It looked to me like Raymond James was pretty full of Steelers fans last year too… I guess bandwagon fans don’t mind an 18 hour drive, either.[/quote]

Exactly. People forget the Rams should have had a big home field advantage for Super Bowl 14, but it didn’t happen. That game was held at the Rose Bowl. Inevitably, like any sports team with a rich tradition of winning, there will be bandwagon fans. Jealous fans of other teams fail to realize the majority of Steelers fans across the country are actually from Pittsburgh, but were forced to leave the city during the bad economic times of the 1970s and 1980s.
Have to laugh at that “clinging to the past” comment. I guess we shouldn’t remember the only franchise to win 4 super bowls in 6 years and back to back twice. Oh, and the present and future looks pretty good too. I think a 36 year old head coach, and a 27 year old quarterback who has outperformed John Elway at this stage in his career would agree.

[quote comment=”347970″]Regarding the warning labels on/not on helmets, I would imagine that they opted for cream color lettering with a clear background vs. total removal. Teams I guess have the money to remove them and purchase replacement helmets, but removing that decal voids the warranty and *may* (I\’ll look into this more) strip Riddell of any responsibility in case of injury. So, I\’d imagine that those decals were there, but I may be wrong.[/quote]
This is an interesting take, but I can’t imagine removing a sticker would a) void a warranty or 2) that NFL teams even care about a warranty. Still, I’d love to know why the hell these stupid stickers can’t be affixed INSIDE the helmet.

[quote]work filters. what is it?[/quote]

just u-tube vid…watch it when ya get home

[quote comment=”348065″][quote comment=”348034″][quote comment=”347989″][quote comment=”347960″][quote comment=”347920″][quote comment=”347902″]Dwight,
I’m not sure there’s really any excuse for rooting for anyone other than (1) the team from your original home, or (2) the team from your current home. Likewise, changing teams for any reason is seriously frowned upon in some circles. That said, this issue often comes up in various Premier League and other Euro soccer forums, where Americans with no geographic or family history links to any team are go looking for a team to support. The answer is always: You don’t choose your team, your team chooses you. It has to come from the heart, not the brain.[/quote]

So true Perry. Yet, there are those rare stray Cupid strikes, which happened to me, where this 8 year old boy fell in love with his team(2,700 miles away) solely because of their link, and eccentric/exciting playing style; circa 1977-78. Now, my team has had many changes, yet, I will always be devoted to them(insert anthemic music).

Don’t know what it is that makes one devoted to their team, yet, I do know it can be link[/quote]

I’m always interested to learn why people believe the Steelers have a lot of bandwagon fans. Now I think I see where you’re coming from. I imagine, in your case, it has something to do with all the Black and Gold in this picture:

link

Perfect example, thanks Bernard. I only wish Seahawk fans had a mere 4 hour drive to their first Super Bowl. Interestingly though, with the Steeler’s history, and the way bandwagoners cling to glory’s past(trash talking safety nets), there probably would still be a greater number of so called Steeler fans.[/quote]

I love it when people throw around the 4 hour drive, as if every fan in attendance that day drove from Pittsburgh. It looked to me like Raymond James was pretty full of Steelers fans last year too… I guess bandwagon fans don’t mind an 18 hour drive, either.[/quote]

Exactly. People forget the Rams should have had a big home field advantage for Super Bowl 14, but it didn’t happen. That game was held at the Rose Bowl. Inevitably, like any sports team with a rich tradition of winning, there will be bandwagon fans. Jealous fans of other teams fail to realize the majority of Steelers fans across the country are actually from Pittsburgh, but were forced to leave the city during the bad economic times of the 1970s and 1980s.
Have to laugh at that “clinging to the past” comment. I guess we shouldn’t remember the only franchise to win 4 super bowls in 6 years and back to back twice. Oh, and the present and future looks pretty good too. I think a 36 year old head coach, and a 27 year old quarterback who has outperformed John Elway at this stage in his career would agree.[/quote]

This is so typical, trying to make a quick counter point, whilst conveniently omitting my original point…. lol. I wasn’t denying, or, saying you shouldn’t remember the past. Only a dumbass bandwagoner would do that. I was saying, that the majority of bandwagon fans use the “glories of the past” as a safety net in their trash talking.

[quote comment=”347862″]“Nice pic of the numbers on the back of a ref’s uni:”
link

The originals were dark blue with white trim, not “Chinese Red Orange” with blue trim.

always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.

[quote comment=”348075″]always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.[/quote]

Very well put, oh generalissimo of the stirrup revolution! That reminds me, how long do I have to decide if I want a Pirates or Senators ‘rup?

Chuck Muncie, the pride of Uniontown, PA! link
Was he the inspiration for your choice of glasses? link

[quote comment=”347870″]
The Bills look better last night but that throwback while it may be historically acurate is a disaster. The helmet stripe dosen’t match the sleeve stripe which is different than the pants stripe and still different than the socks stripe.[/quote]

Amen my friend same with the pat’s throwbacks… no harmony. Just because they are old doesn’t make them good. What makes a good uniform good is consistency through out on all unis like the florida gators uniforms. The stripes match all over… cant be said for the pats and bills uni’s which are messy.

RE: The Bill Davidson memorial patches:

Since I’m lazy as hell and don’t feel like sifting through all of the comments, didn’t one of the ACC basketball teams but a black memorial stripe on the back of their necks for someone?

[quote comment=”348077″][quote comment=”348075″]always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.[/quote]

Very well put, oh generalissimo of the stirrup revolution! That reminds me, how long do I have to decide if I want a Pirates or Senators ‘rup?

Chuck Muncie, the pride of Uniontown, PA! link
Was he the inspiration for your choice of glasses? link

don’t be link, of cousre he link. i call them my chuck muncie’s, always have. when i found them in a second hand store i just about plotzed.

you have until the end of next week on stirrup orders. i want to wait until the cubs/sox come in in case anybody is hesitant.

[quote comment=”348078″][quote comment=”348077″][quote comment=”348075″]always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.[/quote]

Very well put, oh generalissimo of the stirrup revolution! That reminds me, how long do I have to decide if I want a Pirates or Senators ‘rup?

Chuck Muncie, the pride of Uniontown, PA! link
Was he the inspiration for your choice of glasses? link
Chuck Muncie was the reason I glommed onto the Chargers as a lad. I also wore my glasses when I played so he was a natural role model.

Their unis at the time weren’t too shabby, either. Y’all can keep the powder blue or the navy. link are where it’s at for the Chargers in my book.[/quote]

I love that Goggles Pizano look as well; link & Eric Dickerson preach on!!!

Living in Scotland all my life and following Celtic FC for three decades of my thirty four and a bit years, I’d say that they are “my” team and always will be for better or worse.

However, I like to watch North American sports but it would be a lie to say that there’s anything like the same strong emotional attachment with teams I favour. Until recently, I defined my viewing by teams I didn’t like… whom, without naming names, seem to be on the universal hate list.

As I’ve invested in some Seahawks gear in the last year, I’d pretty much say I’m a fan of that team. Reasons for picking them out of all others? I like the North West geographical location as it seems like some place I could live, the logo (old and new), the name and what seems from afar as a respect for their fans.

I also dig the neon green trim. That swung it.

Cool colours can’t be underestimated. When the NFL was first broadcast in the UK, the Raiders were the team of the playground!

[quote comment=”348067″][quote comment=”347970″]Regarding the warning labels on/not on helmets, I would imagine that they opted for cream color lettering with a clear background vs. total removal. Teams I guess have the money to remove them and purchase replacement helmets, but removing that decal voids the warranty and *may* (I\’ll look into this more) strip Riddell of any responsibility in case of injury. So, I\’d imagine that those decals were there, but I may be wrong.[/quote]
This is an interesting take, but I can’t imagine removing a sticker would a) void a warranty or 2) that NFL teams even care about a warranty. Still, I’d love to know why the hell these stupid stickers can’t be affixed INSIDE the helmet.[/quote]

It does on hockey helmets. They come with certification stickers, and if you take those suckers off, they’re no longer certified, and they can’t be worn in some leagues. Also, if you get a serious injury the team is liable rather then the helmet manufacturer if the helmet is defective.

Other things that void the certification include paint, stickers and tape that hasn’t been tested with the plastic of the helmet and certified with the adhesive on, and since there’s a $10,000 fee to certify any helmet configuration- yes, configuration, it’s not gonna ever be certified. And yes, configuration. Each Cage helmet combination must be tested individually if you want to certify the damned thing.

So yes, if they take them off Riddel doens’t have any responsibility for what happens. However, I’m betting that they stay on there because equipment managers decide it’s just too much trouble to take them off.

god bless america, i broke it again.
jim~
i couldn’t see the game because i don’t have cable, but this must be a generational thing, ’cause you’re nuts fella:) and what does high def have to do with anything? does dirt look different on my crap~ass set?

[quote comment=”347865″]I’d like to an official with a 3-digit number in one of these throwbacks.[/quote]

Look at this video and pause it at the 54 second mark. It’s a little blurry, but it’s the best I’ve found so far… link

link

[quote comment=”348093″][quote comment=”347865″]I’d like to an official with a 3-digit number in one of these throwbacks.[/quote]

Look at this video and pause it at the 54 second mark. It’s a little blurry, but it’s the best I’ve found so far… link

nice!

screen grab

1. link (performed by Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera of Chicago)

2. Chad Ocho Cinco was twittering about the unis last night. As he put it, “Man I’m more intersted in the damn uniforms the bills and pats have than the game”

3. This is a long shot, but does anyone recognize the hat Norm Borlaug is wearing in link? It was probably taken after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. Might be a non-sport had, but it looks familiar.

Idiot on ESPN’s Sports Nation just went off about how horrible the AFL unis were on the officials Monday night. Said officials are “symbols of authority” blah blah blah, and should never dress like that.

Well, thank god he’s on the case. Let’s send a strong letter to Joe Foss and back date it 50 years. Get this abhorrant sitation rectified.

Then also asked, “What did fans think of those new Bills uniforms?” They were new?

What a knothead. Totally doesn’t get it. His clear and thorough understanding (eyeroll)is what should be “rectified”.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348099″]1. link (performed by Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera of Chicago)
[/quote]
One of my friends who made the trip up to Green Bay with me this past weekend was trying desperately to pull up that clip on his iPhone but apparently the network coverage was a bit lacking up there.

[quote comment=”348094″][quote comment=”348090″][quote comment=”348088″]Paul,

Could not disagree with you more about the baseball diamond at Oakland last night. It makes the entire franchise look amateurish to me. With so many people having High Def TV’s and the game being on a national primetime stage, I’m flabbergasted the NFL chose that game for the first MNF night of the season.

i couldn’t see the game because i don’t have cable, but this must be a generational thing, ’cause you’re nuts fella:) and what does high def have to do with anything? does dirt look different on my crap~ass set?

It was so hidious to me, I had trouble watching it. I’m not exaggerating either.[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, it probably is a generational thing, because my buddies also all remarked at hating seeing the infield on the gridiron.

The HD does make a difference to me, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an HD snob ever since getting one last year. Seeing beautiful grass in HD is awesome, seeing tampered baseball dirt is not in its place is not. Many of the teams who play in artificial turf stadiums look bad in HD too, the St. Louis Rams come to mind.[/quote]
but when it rains or snows…awesome on dirt!!

[quote comment=”348094″][quote comment=”348090″][quote comment=”348088″]Paul,

Could not disagree with you more about the baseball diamond at Oakland last night. It makes the entire franchise look amateurish to me. With so many people having High Def TV’s and the game being on a national primetime stage, I’m flabbergasted the NFL chose that game for the first MNF night of the season.

i couldn’t see the game because i don’t have cable, but this must be a generational thing, ’cause you’re nuts fella:) and what does high def have to do with anything? does dirt look different on my crap~ass set?

It was so hidious to me, I had trouble watching it. I’m not exaggerating either.[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, it probably is a generational thing, because my buddies also all remarked at hating seeing the infield on the gridiron.

The HD does make a difference to me, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an HD snob ever since getting one last year. Seeing beautiful grass in HD is awesome, seeing tampered baseball dirt is not in its place is not. Many of the teams who play in artificial turf stadiums look bad in HD too, the St. Louis Rams come to mind.[/quote]

Still don’t see the big deal with HDTV. Then again I like a little hissing and popping on my records (kids, just picture a giant black CD), as long as they don’t skip. I also like listening to ball games on AM radio and my VCR’s still running fine. Although I’m not totally buried in the past – the iPod I got from Santa is pretty cool.

Just to clarify, the Raiders ARE amateurish, no matter where they play. Actually, it was a great choice of venues, because kids, that’s the way the game used to be played. Teams had to (shudder) share fields instead of gouging the taxpayers for their own special stadium that sits idle most of the year. Maybe I’m biased because a muddy field made things a little more even for slowpokes like me, but why do today’s brats have to play on a pristine field? Yes, it’s fun watching speedsters, but it’s also fun watching a guy with good moves and balance staying on his feet while his defender slips to the ground, or vice versa.

Man, I sound as old as Ricko. ;)

[quote comment=”348107″][quote comment=”348094″][quote comment=”348090″][quote comment=”348088″]Paul,

Could not disagree with you more about the baseball diamond at Oakland last night. It makes the entire franchise look amateurish to me. With so many people having High Def TV’s and the game being on a national primetime stage, I’m flabbergasted the NFL chose that game for the first MNF night of the season.

i couldn’t see the game because i don’t have cable, but this must be a generational thing, ’cause you’re nuts fella:) and what does high def have to do with anything? does dirt look different on my crap~ass set?

It was so hidious to me, I had trouble watching it. I’m not exaggerating either.[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, it probably is a generational thing, because my buddies also all remarked at hating seeing the infield on the gridiron.

The HD does make a difference to me, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an HD snob ever since getting one last year. Seeing beautiful grass in HD is awesome, seeing tampered baseball dirt is not in its place is not. Many of the teams who play in artificial turf stadiums look bad in HD too, the St. Louis Rams come to mind.[/quote]

Still don’t see the big deal with HDTV. Then again I like a little hissing and popping on my records (kids, just picture a giant black CD), as long as they don’t skip. I also like listening to ball games on AM radio and my VCR’s still running fine. Although I’m not totally buried in the past – the iPod I got from Santa is pretty cool.

Just to clarify, the Raiders ARE amateurish, no matter where they play. Actually, it was a great choice of venues, because kids, that’s the way the game used to be played. Teams had to (shudder) share fields instead of gouging the taxpayers for their own special stadium that sits idle most of the year. Maybe I’m biased because a muddy field made things a little more even for slowpokes like me, but why do today’s brats have to play on a pristine field? Yes, it’s fun watching speedsters, but it’s also fun watching a guy with good moves and balance staying on his feet while his defender slips to the ground, or vice versa.

Man, I sound as old as Ricko. ;)[/quote]

What is going to be interesting around here, with the Gophers back outdoors and the Twin soon to be, is if kids start understanding the weather doesn’t have to be perfect. Coaching over the years since the Metrodome was built, I have noticed that more and more kids thought a sprinkle should cancel Little League practice. Phone call: “It’s raining a little and kinda cloudy, Mr. Pearson. Are we still gonna have practice?” or worse “…my mom wants to know if we’re still gonna have practice.”

Yes, lady, we are. Your kid won’t rust.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348098″][quote comment=”348093″][quote comment=”347865″]I’d like to an official with a 3-digit number in one of these throwbacks.[/quote]

Look at this video and pause it at the 54 second mark. It’s a little blurry, but it’s the best I’ve found so far… link

This one is the same clip but much clearer…anywhere in there from the 1:00 to 1:03 mark… link

Phil: Thanks for putting the link to a screen grab from that first video link I posted; can you do that again for this second link? The numbers are much, much clearer on this one. Thanks!

[quote comment=”348106″]Oh, swell, Mr. Sports Nation just went off on how if you’re Einstein or someone you should leave you brain to science, not if you’re just a football player.

Will someone please tell this schumck the reason players like Matt Birk are doing it is so that scientists/doctors can study, among other things, the affect of repeated concussions.

Jesus, is this guy a loser. Do some homework, for Christ’s sake.

—Ricko[/quote]

Yea, agree Mr.Sports Nation’s clueless.

I also find it very interesting in that Lofa Tatupu, who was one of the players who agreed to do this, started off his career wearing the newer technology(extended lower jaw shell) Riddell Revolution helmet, then, switched to the older model Riddell(VSR-4) and has used it ever since? There’s even the newest tech. helmet out by Riddell called the Speed(w/more anti concussive tecnhnology). Yet, Lofa still chooses to use the older model VSR-4? If he feels so strongly about football players and their concussions, what does this say on how feels about the newer technology helmets that are supposed to help eliminate them?

[quote comment=”348099″]1. link (performed by Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera of Chicago)
[/quote]

I definitely thought that was a spoof and that it was will ferrell

[quote comment=”348115″][quote comment=”348099″]1. link (performed by Bryan Griffin of the Lyric Opera of Chicago)
[/quote]

I definitely thought that was a spoof and that it was will ferrell[/quote]
Did you think he was lip syncing or did you think that was him actually singing?

[quote comment=”348116″][quote comment=”348114″][quote comment=”348111″][quote comment=”348098″][quote comment=”348093″][quote comment=”347865″]I’d like to an official with a 3-digit number in one of these throwbacks.[/quote]

Look at this video and pause it at the 54 second mark. It’s a little blurry, but it’s the best I’ve found so far… link

This one is the same clip but much clearer…anywhere in there from the 1:00 to 1:03 mark… link

Phil: Thanks for putting the link to a screen grab from that first video link I posted; can you do that again for this second link? The numbers are much, much clearer on this one. Thanks![/quote]

link

i don’t think that second vid was different from the first … cuz it happened in the same time (0:55 seconds) as the first

do you have another link?[/quote]

At the 55 second mark it’s still blurry; just past that at the 1:00 mark it’s slower and clearer. Thanks.[/quote]

Think I found the problem…sorry about that, Phil. Try this link at the 1:02 mark. Thanks.

link

[quote comment=”348109″]Coaching over the years since the Metrodome was built, I have noticed that more and more kids thought a sprinkle should cancel Little League practice. Phone call: “It’s raining a little and kinda cloudy, Mr. Pearson. Are we still gonna have practice?” or worse “…my mom wants to know if we’re still gonna have practice.”

Yes, lady, we are. Your kid won’t rust.

—Ricko[/quote]
I’ll tell you from experience that if there’s even a drop of rain and you’ve got kids in some kind of outdoor activity, CALL TO CONFIRM.

It’s happened to me more than once on days that no reasonable person would have cancelled practice. I leave work early, fight traffic, pick up my kid and take him to practice only to find out that it’s cancelled.

The cream tint to the Patriots white helmet has a very simple explanation.

The team was wearing (non-painted) white color impregnated helmets.

[quote comment=”347925″][quote comment=”347921″]Why do the Saints wear white at home in a dome? Heat obviously isn’t an issue, and the black and gold is such a classic look. I’m disappointed

______________________________________________

I was at this past Sunday’s Saints game, as I have been to every game for the past many years.

Since Jim Haslett (2000) The Saints have worn White at home about 35-40% of the time, with no real rhyme or reason.

The Saints put out very little info on why they wear what they wear, and to my knowledge do not put out a uni schedule. They wear White or Black at home, with both Gold or Black pants. You show up at the Superdome nd you never know what they are going to wear until they come out for warmups.

For the entire time from Bum Phillips’ second year (1982) through Mora and Ditka and Jim Haslett’s first year (2000) they wore Black for EVERY home game. For the Playoff game Haslett’s first year he wanted to wear White at home, and they did and they won the playoff game, so then Haslett wanted to wear White at home. They often wore Black toward the end of the season, and during the Haslett era they would start the season wearing White jerseys then switch to Black jerseys because Haslett was quoted as saying the players lobbied him to wear Black at home.

I believe that they are going to wear White at home this year, for at least the entire first portion of their schedule – its just a vibe that I have given that it is consistent with what they have done for the past 8-9 years. Plus, they have worn White jerseys for both preseason games and the home opener vs. Detroit.

More importantly, they have worn GOLD PANTS for EVERY GAME so far this season, including when wearing Black jerseys on the road this preseason. That may, just may mean that they have packed away the HORRIBLE Black unitard pants.

I truly hope that they have – FOR GOOD !!!![/quote]

As far back as their initial season, the Saints wore white at home.[/quote]

True. The reason given back in 1967 was that there was an actual study conducted with the players wearing both the Black and White jerseys at noon on a sunny summer day, and the White jerseys were SEVEN DEGREES cooler for the players than the Black jerseys. (The Saints played outdoors at old Tulane Stadium until 1975, with early season games regularly played in 90 plus degree weather)

There was also a mention by then-owner John Mecom at some point in 1968 or 1969 that he wanted the fans to se the other teams’ colors when they would come to New Orleans. Still, the Saints would wear Black jerseys for the last 2-3 home games, even back then.

That is a lot more info than you ever hear from the Saints now regarding their uni choices.

HERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A GOOD JERSEY POLICY …

Every team wears White jerseys at home to allow fans to see the other terams’ uni colors up close and in person, except against Division Rivals – who you play home and home – thus wearing dark at home vs those teams, who your fans should be thoroughly familiar with due to the annual televised road games.

This way, you get variety, your get familiarity, and you get to see the greatest diversity of unis, without the monotony.

[quote comment=”348085″][quote comment=”348078″][quote comment=”348077″][quote comment=”348075″]always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.[/quote]

Very well put, oh generalissimo of the stirrup revolution! That reminds me, how long do I have to decide if I want a Pirates or Senators ‘rup?

Chuck Muncie, the pride of Uniontown, PA! link
Was he the inspiration for your choice of glasses? link
Chuck Muncie was the reason I glommed onto the Chargers as a lad. I also wore my glasses when I played so he was a natural role model.

Their unis at the time weren’t too shabby, either. Y’all can keep the powder blue or the navy. link are where it’s at for the Chargers in my book.[/quote]

I love that Goggles Pizano look as well; link & Eric Dickerson preach on!!![/quote]
hells yeah, link was kick ass too!!!

[quote comment=”347957″][quote comment=”347954″]I too add to the acolades doled out for the unis last night. I’m not in love with any of them, but I was instantly engaged by the colors. The brightness is something that is sorely missing in all sports, but especially in the NFL. All the somber tones and “tough” black in designs make it boring IMHO.

Even though the Raiders were playing, the Chargers Blue across the way and the officials in orange, made for a color soaked spectacle.

I don’t need the teams to go back to these looks, but maybe update their looks with “older” colors[/quote]
I can live with the old helmet logos, etc.

I don’t mind a few updates to the jersey stripes, etc. but IMHO yesterday’s look for both the Pats and Bills was superior to what they wear on a “normal” day.[/quote]

I totally agree. The only improvement I would make is to tighten the space on the Bills sleeve stripes to make it more like the late 1960s-early 1970s. They would fit better on modern jerseys and the wide spacing looks too crappy given the thinness of the stripes.

The Pats throwbacks are a 10,000 times better than the videogame unis they currently wear.

[quote comment=”348130″][quote comment=”347995″][quote comment=”347987″][quote comment=”347975″]oh my… and if the courts DO think Redskins is defaming… what would their new mascot be?

link

Call them the Federals! Perfect, since they play at FedEx Field. Plus, they could unofficially be the Fedskins…[/quote]

The Sentinels. Add some silver t, and adopt, those Pats throwbacks, get Shane Falco off his boat. Definitely hire those cheerleaders….

–Ricko[/quote]

Definitely the cheerleaders. By the way, whatever happened to the cute bartender cheerleader that was Shane Falco’s love interest? I never saw her in anything else again. am I wrong, or just watching the wrong TV?[/quote]

Brooke Langston. Apparently been on Friday Night Lights lately….

link

[quote comment=”348033″]
Yes, I am all for accuracy and think that throwback games should be as historically true as possible, but my point was that they are not beautiful. Design wise they are a mess. Just because they are 50 years old doesn’t mean they are beautiful. There were a lot of bad designs back in the day.
[/quote]
But in the old days whenever a team came out with a mistake (Denver 1960) they had the decency to retire it after a year or two. Plus, do you really mean to say that there were “a lot of bad designs” in the 1960s? In the AFL/NFL I could count the bad ones on one hand easily. If you think the ones from last night were bad design (in their original form) then we just don’t see eye-to-eye.

Just picked up one of those link from the July 20 Astros game. VERY nice cap.

[quote comment=”347869″][quote comment=”347866″][quote comment=”347856″]In light of the Texans’ constant suckage, I am recruiting a new team to root for. I have narrowed down the selections to:

Bears
Packers
49ers
Saints
Browns
Colts

I have eliminated all others for various reasons, unis being a key factor. Please provide pros/cons as to why I should make your team “my team”. Thanks uniwatch![/quote]

I would seriously suggest one of these three teams for you; Patriots, Cowboys, or, Steelers. You would fit right in with most of link[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Not to laugh at you dwight, but that was comedy. I would have to encourage rooting for the horseshoes[/quote]

Saints. It’s not far from you, no bandwagon issues, and most of all, you’ve just got to link link link.

I have to admit that I miss the character of the old municipal stadiums like Cleveland, Baltimore, Fulton County, Metropolitan, etc. There was something cool about the shared venues, even though it usually ended up being not so great for viewing either sport. You could always look forward to the early season games on the infield dirt, and could usually tell where it was just by the configuration if nothing else. They had a warmth and charm that the new, bland antiseptic football stadiums utterly lack. And I know the modern buildings have more bathrooms, luxury suites, better sightlines, etc., but I don’t give a shit about that since I’d never pay to go sit in one to begin with. My point is that, on t.v., I think the new places look like crap. Give me infield dirt through October over plastic fields any day. And think how much better it would be in January if we could get some snow and mud!

[quote comment=”348136″][quote comment=”347900″][quote comment=”347886″]You know, if the Raiders used the old “shield” on the field as their yard markers [look at old pix of Raiders games and you’ll see ’em] then it would have been perfect. It was pretty close last night … they even have a fat coach just like Madden … just reminding fans of the days of many multi-purpose stadia …Are the Raiders the only one left in the No Fun League that plays on a baseball infield this time of year?[/quote]

Dolphins[/quote]

Yeah, forgot about the Fish. Usually when I see the Jets at whatever the stadium is called now the Marlins season is over and the infield is filled with turf. Guess the Oakland-Alameda County Mausoleum will be the only one left with a baseball infield, soon.[/quote]

And the Rogers Centre, in a sense (not the full dirt infield but the sliding pits). Not too many multi-use stadiums left.

[quote comment=”348077″][quote comment=”348075″]always loved when people get upset about “bandwagon” fans, as if anyone has the right to sanction if someone else can root for a team. when i was a kid, in addition to bert jones and my bawlmer coats, i rooted for the buccs and browns, i guess because i liked orange, still do. as i grew older, in addition to my geographic home teams i rooted for lots of teams here and there because they were compelling, or had players i liked like chuck muncie. don’t know if i would have called myself a fanatic, but i rooted for them. EVERYONE jumped onto the wagon of a team at some point since none of us owned pennants before our birth. it’s silly for anyone to try to qualify who gets to root for any team, or count years and notches like badges. dwight, root for whomever you want, but if the reason you are abandoning the texans is because they loose, you’re a big pussy.[/quote]

Very well put, oh generalissimo of the stirrup revolution! That reminds me, how long do I have to decide if I want a Pirates or Senators ‘rup?

Chuck Muncie, the pride of Uniontown, PA! link
Was he the inspiration for your choice of glasses? link

Chuck Muncie from Uniontown, Pa. That is the area of SW Pa my parents were from. Brownsville area.

How did Chuck end up at Cal anyhow?

[quote comment=”348037″][quote comment=”348036″][quote comment=”348031″][quote comment=”348022″][quote comment=”347969″][quote comment=”347965″]Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.[/quote]

sadly, jeff…link have the truncated loops…although the qb and a certain link do have them…

check back this weekend for my take on them

and i totally agree–those panther whites are a thing of beauty![/quote]

Huh. Didn’t get to watch them much last year (and probalby this year, being at school), but a lot more of them used to have the Steve Smith style loops.

The real style with the QBs and Kickers is the best though.

As for the column, let me guess- you’ll be complaining about the helmet stripes, or rather slashes? I kind of like them, but I can see why some might not. Really the only ‘tweak’ I would make would be to relegate the black to the third or ditch it completely.[/quote]

Black was their original dark jersey. I remember thinking when they added the blue one, “Right, who wouldn’t wanna look like the Detroit Lions.” And at that time the Lions actually still won a game once in a while.

Generally, I’m with you, though. Pick one of the other, bright blue or black. Never been a big fan of the “alt jersey” mentality, anyway. Only ones that seem to work are the Broncos’ orange (because it harks back to the Orange Crush look) and Eagles’ black with green pants. Normally don’t like all-dark, but that one looks good for me, for some reason.

—Ricko[/quote]
Oh, I know the black was their original. I know it’s not BFBS, but the blue just looks much better, and certainly seems to be more popular when you see people wearing jerseys around.[/quote]
I say go with the black, because when your team is called “Panthers” and you aren’t based in Florida there’s really only link that seems fitting.[/quote]

link link

[quote comment=”348145″][quote comment=”348037″][quote comment=”348036″][quote comment=”348031″][quote comment=”348022″][quote comment=”347969″][quote comment=”347965″]Hmm. How about the Panthers? While I don’t like the black either, the whites and blues are things of beauty, and they’re the only NFL team that has full shoulder loops rather then the truncated crap, at least for most players.[/quote]

sadly, jeff…link have the truncated loops…although the qb and a certain link do have them…

check back this weekend for my take on them

and i totally agree–those panther whites are a thing of beauty![/quote]

Huh. Didn’t get to watch them much last year (and probalby this year, being at school), but a lot more of them used to have the Steve Smith style loops.

The real style with the QBs and Kickers is the best though.

As for the column, let me guess- you’ll be complaining about the helmet stripes, or rather slashes? I kind of like them, but I can see why some might not. Really the only ‘tweak’ I would make would be to relegate the black to the third or ditch it completely.[/quote]

Black was their original dark jersey. I remember thinking when they added the blue one, “Right, who wouldn’t wanna look like the Detroit Lions.” And at that time the Lions actually still won a game once in a while.

Generally, I’m with you, though. Pick one of the other, bright blue or black. Never been a big fan of the “alt jersey” mentality, anyway. Only ones that seem to work are the Broncos’ orange (because it harks back to the Orange Crush look) and Eagles’ black with green pants. Normally don’t like all-dark, but that one looks good for me, for some reason.

—Ricko[/quote]
Oh, I know the black was their original. I know it’s not BFBS, but the blue just looks much better, and certainly seems to be more popular when you see people wearing jerseys around.[/quote]
I say go with the black, because when your team is called “Panthers” and you aren’t based in Florida there’s really only link that seems fitting.[/quote]

link link[/quote]
Oh, you just know they wanted to go with pink and didn’t have the balls to do it so they settled for the “more manly” plum color.

[quote comment=”348055″]Re:Washington Redskins
Caveat:I have been a fan since 1961, but am not unsympathetic to those who find the name offensive. Here’s some history that doesn’t really “excuse” the name but can add a little perspective, I hope. We all know they were originally the Boston Braves and shared a stadium with the team of the same name (making for some great early season play with infields visible). They soon moved to Fenway Park and couldn’t play there with the name “Braves”. Hence, Redskins.

As for a potential new name, there have been several mentioned that pop up from time to time. There is a school of thought that Daniel Snyder wants to build a domed stadium within the District limits and host the Super Bowl. If this seems likely, I think we can rule out any name that even remotely could be conceived as “racial” for a team playing in a stadium on federal land. If FedEx is still one of their big backers, Federals seems likely. I also suspect “Generals” will garner attention.

I hope this was helpful. :)[/quote]

link

link

link

[quote comment=”348144″][quote comment=”348143″]How did Chuck end up at Cal anyhow?[/quote]

from the always reliable link:

“Muncie was born and raised in a coal-mining Pennsylvania town, as one of six children in a football-playing family. Muncie played during his sophomore year in high school, before an injury halted his career and he turned to basketball. Muncie got a scholarship to Arizona Western Junior College. While there, the coach of the football team was sufficiently impressed by Muncie’s talent that he convinced him to try out for football as well. Muncie did so, and made the team. He never played basketball for the school but was recruited by the University of California, Berkeley after one year.”

so there you go[/quote]

It also came out, many years later, well beyond the time anyone could do anything about it, that Muncie had told Cal coaches, “I’ll play for you as long as I didn’t have to go to class.”

Munice never denied the story.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348125″]

True. The reason given back in 1967 was that there was an actual study conducted with the players wearing both the Black and White jerseys at noon on a sunny summer day, and the White jerseys were SEVEN DEGREES cooler for the players than the Black jerseys. (The Saints played outdoors at old Tulane Stadium until 1975, with early season games regularly played in 90 plus degree weather)[/quote]

Somewhat related to this topic: was there any reason (besides televison) that the Buccaneers played at noon last Sunday? I think Jax will play at noon this Sunday too.

Not good for the players, not good for the fans… silly IMHO. Those should be 3:00 games.

[quote comment=”348065″]

Exactly. People forget the Rams should have had a big home field advantage for Super Bowl 14, but it didn’t happen. That game was held at the Rose Bowl. [/quote]

Here’s the huge difference: DETROIT SUCKS AT ANY TIME OF YEAR BUT ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. Tickets for the Ford Field game were available because nobody is going to party in Detroit in winter; sponsors, other teams, etc. stayed away in droves. Anyone could get a ticket cheap.

No tickets available for LA because, well, PEOPLE WANT TO GO THERE IN THE WINTER BECAUSE IT’S WARM AND THEY CAN GOLF.

Sorry. If you put the game in a place where nobody goes in the winter, tickets won’t be in demand. That’s the reality. If I want to go tobogganing, I can do it here-I don’t need to go to Detroit.

Don’t put the game in Minnesota, don’t put the game in Detroit or Indy. Do that and you just might end up with a Steelers home game.

[quote comment=”348157″]it really, REALLY should be changed…like yesterday (despite what the courts have thus far ruled) and it shouldn’t take a lawsuit to make them do it[/quote]

As noted, if it was so hateful, etc. that society demanded that it be changed yesterday, it would have been done. Money talks.

The elected representatives of society haven’t seen it as so hateful that they won’t be seen supporting the name.

It hasn’t been changed. Yesterday or today. What does that tell you?

[quote]was there any reason (besides televison) that the Buccaneers played at noon last Sunday? I think Jax will play at noon this Sunday too.

Not good for the players, not good for the fans[/quote]

WTF are you talking about…the bucs game was at 1:00 EDT…and raymond james is in the eastern time zone

sucks for teams from the western zone (like the cards coming to jax this coming week) but how was that a big deal for dallas?

do the bears ever play 12:00 (central) home games?lions, chiefs, pack, vikes? how is that any different? teams from the west come there don’t they?

Somewhat related to this topic: was there any reason (besides televison) that the Buccaneers played at noon last Sunday? I think Jax will play at noon this Sunday too.

Dude, turn that clock forward. Standard time doesn’t start until November 1.

[quote comment=”348160″]WTF are you talking about..[/quote]

See the “Sunny Summer Day” part of the comment. THAT’S WTF I’m talking about.

[quote comment=”348160″]do the bears ever play 12:00 (central) home games?lions, chiefs, pack, vikes? [/quote]Why yes; yes they do.

Thanks for asking. Always glad to share.

[quote comment=”348160″]how is that any different?
[/quote]
Ninety degree days in September are slightly more rare here in Chicago than they are in either New Orleans, Tampa or Jacksonville this time of year. Not as taxing for players or fans (usually) in the Northern climes.

Okay, my time for “Undies in a bunch Day” here at Uniblog is just about up. See ya later everyone.

About only way it could happen at the team’s volition without a ton of downside PR, would be when a new ownership group came in.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

[quote comment=”348164″]Plus, as I noted, the owner who named them was an admitted racist, and southern proud of it.[/quote]

Yeah, but Ricko-which owner of the earlier era wasn’t a something-ist and/or a something-phobe?

Read the books on Halas. His favorite insult of the day wouldn’t go over big today with… well a lot of people; but Elton John in particular.

This just seems like a reach to me. If the guy (we’re talking George Preston Marshall, correct?) was contributing to the Black College Fund, does that change your opinion on “Redskins”?

[quote comment=”348166″]WOW…307 posts on a Tuesday…impressive!

Anyway, this should make you all laugh…just got home from my daughters’ “Back To School Night” and me and a few other dads gave the principal, William Lee, a new nickname:

link
And I’m sure it was the first time he’s heard that particular one, right?

[quote comment=”348170″]
ok, now you’re just being stupid[/quote]

Seriously, WTF are YOU talking about?

When they were at Sun Devil Stadium, Arizona would have started their games at night in September if they could. They couldn’t. Only one time slot available for them. THEY KNEW THE HEAT OF THE DAY MADE A DIFFERENCE TO THE TEAM AND THE FANS.

Tampa has two time slots available. They can go early or late, unless TV dictates otherwise.

I’m sorry if you’re not understanding this. I simply can’t dumb it down any more for you.

OK, so society hasn’t demanded that the Redskins’ name be changed. Does that mean “separate but equal” and the Jim Crow laws were just fine and dandy until the 1960s because that’s when society finally demanded that those practices become a thing of the past?

[quote comment=”348170″]christ, i thought your point was about the unfairness of making a team from the west coming east to play the early game[/quote]

And how did you get this impression?

Did you read the post? Did I mention west coast teams? Did you see the part about sun, heat, temperature differences?

Enough with the “WTF” and “now you’re being stupid” stuff. Nobody needs that.

[quote comment=”348175″]OK, so society hasn’t demanded that the Redskins’ name be changed. Does that mean “separate but equal” and the Jim Crow laws were just fine and dandy until the 1960s because that’s when society finally demanded that those practices become a thing of the past?[/quote]
No, everyone is entitled to their opinions on this issue. People didn’t like those laws before the 50’s/60’s. Same here.

I’m just saying that when society does demand a change here (either thru the free market or elected officials) then it will get done.

JTH, check out where I started here. It was in response to someone who referenced “society”.

[quote comment=”348169″][quote comment=”348164″]Plus, as I noted, the owner who named them was an admitted racist, and southern proud of it.[/quote]

Yeah, but Ricko-which owner of the earlier era wasn’t a something-ist and/or a something-phobe?

Read the books on Halas. His favorite insult of the day wouldn’t go over big today with… well a lot of people; but Elton John in particular.

This just seems like a reach to me. If the guy (we’re talking George Preston Marshall, correct?) was contributing to the Black College Fund, does that change your opinion on “Redskins”?[/quote]

I just know he stubbornly clung to not employing black ahletes long after his fellow owners had changed—and publicly proclaimed it as his personal policy.

Baseball isn’t quite the same. Yes, it took the Red Sox a long time to bring Pumpsie Green up to the big club, but they at least had blacks in their farm system. Marshall couldn’t bring himself to pay money to a black athlete.

There was a TON of coverage of Marshall’s attitude (which he never denied) when the ‘Skins had the first overall draft choice, and speculation was they’d actually pass on Syracuse’s Ernie Davis because of Marshall’s views.

That was the 1962 draft, considerably later than 1947.

Granted, they did take him with choice, and subsequently traded him to Cleveland (without signing him) for a package that included Bobby Mitchell, which broke the color barrier for the team. But the whole affair widely publicized Marshall’s stiff-spined aversion to the idea of a black player on the ‘Skins. Remember following the story in the papers before and after the draft.

—Ricko

link

helmet hat?

[quote comment=”348173″][quote comment=”348170″]
ok, now you’re just being stupid[/quote]

Seriously, WTF are YOU talking about?

When they were at Sun Devil Stadium, Arizona would have started their games at night in September if they could. They couldn’t. Only one time slot available for them. THEY KNEW THE HEAT OF THE DAY MADE A DIFFERENCE TO THE TEAM AND THE FANS.

Tampa has two time slots available. They can go early or late, unless TV dictates otherwise.

I’m sorry if you’re not understanding this. I simply can’t dumb it down any more for you.[/quote]

while i will give you that a shaded field (which may be more likely at 4:00 than at 1:00 pm) is also likely to be cooler for approximately half the stadium, your knowledge of the weather is not quite correct

it is frequently warmer at 4:00 pm than it is at 1:00, due to such things as dirunal heating, or, to put it in simpler terms for you “the hottest part of the day” is usually NOT at noon

and i wasn’t arguing about sun devil stadium…i was speaking of florida, which, you may not be aware, frequently has THUNDERSTORMS in the later hours (not quite so much in the late summer and fall, but they still occur), again, due to dirunal heating and thermodynamics, neither of which are exactly conducive to the fans or the players

i assume you have heard how the marlins “need” a dome and why the rays have one

please don’t argue florida weather with me when discussing the start of football games

again, you had a valid point when discussing west coast teams having to come east to play the early game; your point about florida start times in september carries no weight due to weather concerns

if weather were such a big deal, every december game should either be played in a dome or below the 39° 43′ n parallel (that’s the mason-dixon line for you non east-coast centric folks)

that’s not gonna happen either

Speaking of accent walls. Here’s the answer to last night’s burning question.

link.

Oh, wait. It’s link.

link?

link?

Bonus points to anyone who can name that thing hanging from the shower head.

[quote comment=”348187″]Speaking of accent walls. Here’s the answer to last night’s burning question.

link.

Oh, wait. It’s link.

link?

link?

Bonus points to anyone who can name that thing hanging from the shower head.[/quote]

FISH!

[quote comment=”348146″]My 2 cents on the Steelers and bandwagon fans. I know for afact that many of the Steeler fans in my area are bandwagon fans.

My dad grew up in SW Pa and he always loved the Steelers. So as young kid because of my dad so did I. I have posted a picture of me and my Steeler yellow helmet with single black stripe and black jersey with yellow stripes. I got those for Christmas around 1961 or so.

The Steelers stunk for over 40 years. Never even winning a division crown. My buddy was a huge Browns fan but he was a bragging big mouth kid so that turned me off to the Browns. It was not until later that my Ohio pride kicked in and I became a Browns fan. Of course a long time Buckeyes fan too.

I am mile from the Pa line. And near Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown is halfway between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. When Pittsburgh stunk they dod not have the fans in my area. I know guys who began liking the Steerlers because of the 1970’s

I have to say I hate seeing Steeler flags and fans from Ohio.

So the Browns came into the NFL and dominated from the beginning. The Steelers sucked. But now and I hate to say it. The Steelers have one of the best organizations in the NFL. The Browns had a moron up and move the team to Baltimore. Now the Browns are still trying to build a good team.

For the longest time I never thought the Steelers would take the series lead. It was not until the move of the Browns and recent Steeler dominance that that has happened.

Pro sports is all about who has good management and organization. I follow the NFL some. But to me it does not compare to college football.

Anyhow in my area for sure the Steelers got a ton of new bandwagon fans.[/quote]

LarryB, it’s time you faced the truth.Having been a Browns fan for many years, you fell into a trap of misinformation common to those Ohio teams who have never reached even a single Super Bowl. I can tell you’re bitter, the fact that Cleveland has gone since 1964 without a sports title is incredible, even worse than the Pirates losing streak. Bitter Ohio NFL fans always become bandwagon Ohio State fans, I guess you have to find a winner somewhere. Hey, this just in: winning a Super Bowl is a little more impressive than a mythical national title.
Your first error was saying the Steelers were bad for over 40 years. Actually, it’s closer to 30 years, before the 1972 breakthrough season.It won’t be long before the Steelers surpass the Browns overall winning percentage, either. Bottom line, no one can make the argument that the Browns franchise can match what Pittsburgh has done. Six Super Bowls definitely trumps four regular NFL titles. And there has never been a Browns title team called one of the best ever. Since the 1970s, the Steelers’ accomplishments are more impressive than the New York Yankees in baseball because they haven’t had the huge advantage of outspending everyone else.
Sorry LarryB, someone had to tell you the truth, I think Cleveland and Cincy are in for another bad decade. Sorry.

I am no M. Princip, but I know helmets.

In the fourth picture of this Forham/Rhode Island photo gallery, offensive lineman #53 is wearing an Schutt Air Advantage facemask on a DNA helmet…It looks incredibly strange.

link
link

It reminds me of a pic that I sent of an Iona Prep High school player wearing a DNA mask on a Riddell VSR-4.

link

[quote comment=”348124″][quote comment=”348109″][quote comment=”348107″][quote comment=”348094″][quote comment=”348090″][quote comment=”348088″]Paul,

Could not disagree with you more about the baseball diamond at Oakland last night. It makes the entire franchise look amateurish to me. With so many people having High Def TV’s and the game being on a national primetime stage, I’m flabbergasted the NFL chose that game for the first MNF night of the season.

i couldn’t see the game because i don’t have cable, but this must be a generational thing, ’cause you’re nuts fella:) and what does high def have to do with anything? does dirt look different on my crap~ass set?

It was so hidious to me, I had trouble watching it. I’m not exaggerating either.[/quote][/quote]

Yeah, it probably is a generational thing, because my buddies also all remarked at hating seeing the infield on the gridiron.

The HD does make a difference to me, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am an HD snob ever since getting one last year. Seeing beautiful grass in HD is awesome, seeing tampered baseball dirt is not in its place is not. Many of the teams who play in artificial turf stadiums look bad in HD too, the St. Louis Rams come to mind.[/quote]

Still don’t see the big deal with HDTV. Then again I like a little hissing and popping on my records (kids, just picture a giant black CD), as long as they don’t skip. I also like listening to ball games on AM radio and my VCR’s still running fine. Although I’m not totally buried in the past – the iPod I got from Santa is pretty cool.

Just to clarify, the Raiders ARE amateurish, no matter where they play. Actually, it was a great choice of venues, because kids, that’s the way the game used to be played. Teams had to (shudder) share fields instead of gouging the taxpayers for their own special stadium that sits idle most of the year. Maybe I’m biased because a muddy field made things a little more even for slowpokes like me, but why do today’s brats have to play on a pristine field? Yes, it’s fun watching speedsters, but it’s also fun watching a guy with good moves and balance staying on his feet while his defender slips to the ground, or vice versa.

Man, I sound as old as Ricko. ;)[/quote]

What is going to be interesting around here, with the Gophers back outdoors and the Twin soon to be, is if kids start understanding the weather doesn’t have to be perfect. Coaching over the years since the Metrodome was built, I have noticed that more and more kids thought a sprinkle should cancel Little League practice. Phone call: “It’s raining a little and kinda cloudy, Mr. Pearson. Are we still gonna have practice?” or worse “…my mom wants to know if we’re still gonna have practice.”

Yes, lady, we are. Your kid won’t rust.

—Ricko[/quote

Those are some strange connections to make from my original comments. Not sure playing pee wee football in the rain really has much to do with my personal visual distate for seeing a baseball diamond on a football field.

As for not seeing what the big deal about HD is, we’re clearly not operating on the same wavelengths at all.[/quote]

It’s just an evolving conversation.

[quote comment=”348188″][quote comment=”348181″]I just know he stubbornly clung to not employing black ahletes long after his fellow owners had changed—and publicly proclaimed it as his personal policy.

Baseball isn’t quite the same. Yes, it took the Red Sox a long time to bring Pumpsie Green up to the big club, but they at least had blacks in their farm system. Marshall couldn’t bring himself to pay money to a black athlete.

There was a TON of coverage of Marshall’s attitude (which he never denied) when the ‘Skins had the first overall draft choice, and speculation was they’d actually pass on Syracuse’s Ernie Davis because of Marshall’s views.

That was the 1962 draft, considerably later than 1947.

Granted, they did take him with choice, and subsequently traded him to Cleveland (without signing him) for a package that included Bobby Mitchell, which broke the color barrier for the team. But the whole affair widely publicized Marshall’s stiff-spined aversion to the idea of a black player on the ‘Skins. Remember following the story in the papers before and after the draft.[/quote]

Sure. That’s fine. FWIW, I never compared him specifically to baseball or said anything about 1962 or 1947. (Hey, Marge Schott isn’t a big favorite with a lot of people and she was in the 1980’s. I don’t think that has anything to do with today either.)

I’m just saying that throwing this out as a reason to talk about “Redskins” here in 2009 is a bit of a reach. If Marshall was the owner of the Bears, Giants, etc. his attitude about employing minorities would have been the same: someone else would have owned the Redskins and (IMHO) the odds are good that the nickname would be the same today.

-Marshall started/stayed with the name.
-The incredibly rich guy with the weird wraparound glasses (father of Ralph and John) stayed with the name.
-Snyder is staying with the name.

People don’t like the name; fine. But that idea stands or falls on its own here in the year 2009. Going back 2-3 owners (and over 30 years) doesn’t make it any better or worse of a nickname. JMHO.

BTW: if he didn’t want black players, then he “paid the price” on the field by losing, right? It’s roughly the same thing today. Adopt/keep an unpopular nickname and you’ll pay the price at the box office or in the owner’s meetings.[/quote]

You’re right, it was ME who compared 1962 to 1947, to show that some people evidently learned nothing in 15 years.

The background of the nickname and people behind it aren’t relevant in 2009? No, not legally. But that isn’t what I said.

All I was getting at was that Marshall’s background puts some extra “eyeroll” into discussion of the nickname.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”348197″]
All I was getting at was that Marshall’s background puts some extra “eyeroll” into discussion of the nickname.[/quote]
Yeah, but that’s the limit for me.

Interesting-ultimately of no relevance.

(And that probably sums up my entire evening on UniWatch.)

[quote comment=”348158″][quote comment=”348157″]it really, REALLY should be changed…like yesterday (despite what the courts have thus far ruled) and it shouldn’t take a lawsuit to make them do it[/quote]

As noted, if it was so hateful, etc. that society demanded that it be changed yesterday, it would have been done. Money talks.

The elected representatives of society haven’t seen it as so hateful that they won’t be seen supporting the name.

It hasn’t been changed. Yesterday or today. What does that tell you?[/quote]
The society that does matter has objected. And filed several lawsuits.

I’m sorry, but because a majority decides it doesn’t sound racist to them it makes it not racist? I guess that made ‘nigger’ perfectly acceptable in the 50’s, just because the majority decided it didn’t offend them?

I’m sorry, the “society has deemed it acceptable” line is about the weakest I’ve ever heard. If history teaches us anything at all- anything- it’s that societies as a whole are a pretty poor judge of character and morality. Hell, it was only in the 1940s that a huge society deemed it perfectly acceptable to eradicate an entire religion. And a decent sized portion of our society agreed with them.

[quote comment=”348146″]My 2 cents on the Steelers and bandwagon fans. I know for afact that many of the Steeler fans in my area are bandwagon fans.

My dad grew up in SW Pa and he always loved the Steelers. So as young kid because of my dad so did I. I have posted a picture of me and my Steeler yellow helmet with single black stripe and black jersey with yellow stripes. I got those for Christmas around 1961 or so.

The Steelers stunk for over 40 years. Never even winning a division crown. My buddy was a huge Browns fan but he was a bragging big mouth kid so that turned me off to the Browns. It was not until later that my Ohio pride kicked in and I became a Browns fan. Of course a long time Buckeyes fan too.

I am mile from the Pa line. And near Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown is halfway between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. When Pittsburgh stunk they dod not have the fans in my area. I know guys who began liking the Steerlers because of the 1970’s

I have to say I hate seeing Steeler flags and fans from Ohio.[/quote]

Well, some aren’t bandwagoners, so don’t assume – just fly your Browns flag and let others do what they want.

My parents grew up in SW PA, near Chuck Muncie’s Uniontown. I traveled there every year as a kid and had lots of fun playing with my cousins who still live there. That, and the fact that I need to have SOMETHING I can agree on with my dad is why I am a Steelers fan, win or lose. I stuck with them in the David Woodley/Bubby Brister years, even when the Browns beat them 51-0 at home.

Not that I need to explain myself. After all, as I said earlier, this is a free country, and you can root for any team, wherever you live. I don’t owe the Browns my allegiance just because I live in Ohio. I don’t even owe Akron U. my allegiance just because I went to school there. They gave me an education, I paid my tuition in full, we’re even. If I want to root for Penn State now, then God bless America I will.

[quote comment=”348201″]

I guess that made ‘nigger’ perfectly acceptable in the 50’s, just because the majority decided it didn’t offend them?

[/quote]
No.

But it changed (in general usage in language) when it did.

We’re talking about a legal remedy. IMHO, Congress is the best place for that.

[quote comment=”348203″][quote comment=”348146″]My 2 cents on the Steelers and bandwagon fans. I know for afact that many of the Steeler fans in my area are bandwagon fans.

My dad grew up in SW Pa and he always loved the Steelers. So as young kid because of my dad so did I. I have posted a picture of me and my Steeler yellow helmet with single black stripe and black jersey with yellow stripes. I got those for Christmas around 1961 or so.

The Steelers stunk for over 40 years. Never even winning a division crown. My buddy was a huge Browns fan but he was a bragging big mouth kid so that turned me off to the Browns. It was not until later that my Ohio pride kicked in and I became a Browns fan. Of course a long time Buckeyes fan too.

I am mile from the Pa line. And near Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown is halfway between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. When Pittsburgh stunk they dod not have the fans in my area. I know guys who began liking the Steerlers because of the 1970’s

I have to say I hate seeing Steeler flags and fans from Ohio.[/quote]

Well, some aren’t bandwagoners, so don’t assume – just fly your Browns flag and let others do what they want.

My parents grew up in SW PA, near Chuck Muncie’s Uniontown. I traveled there every year as a kid and had lots of fun playing with my cousins who still live there. That, and the fact that I need to have SOMETHING I can agree on with my dad is why I am a Steelers fan, win or lose. I stuck with them in the David Woodley/Bubby Brister years, even when the Browns beat them 51-0 at home.

Not that I need to explain myself. After all, as I said earlier, this is a free country, and you can root for any team, wherever you live. I don’t owe the Browns my allegiance just because I live in Ohio. I don’t even owe Akron U. my allegiance just because I went to school there. They gave me an education, I paid my tuition in full, we’re even. If I want to root for Penn State now, then God bless America I will.[/quote]

Wow, a David Woodley reference, Todd Blackledge was also a Steeler in that era. 1985-86 and 1988 were extremely rare losing seasons, but 1989 was one of my favorite Steeler teams. You’re right, the Steelers lost big to Cleveland that year, and the Bungles blew them out the following week, 42-10. Incredibly, Chuck Noll righted the ship, and Pittsburgh earned a Wildcard playoff berth. Then, they upset Houston at the Astrodome, and came within two points of beating eventual AFC champ Denver at Mile High Stadium. Merril Hoge ran for over 100 yards in bothe playoff contests.

[quote comment=”348205″][quote comment=”348201″]

I guess that made ‘nigger’ perfectly acceptable in the 50’s, just because the majority decided it didn’t offend them?

[/quote]
No.

But it changed (in general usage in language) when it did.

We’re talking about a legal remedy. IMHO, Congress is the best place for that.[/quote]

Congress already did speak. They said you can’t have a trademark if it is disparaging or defamatory (I forget the exact words). Now its up to the courts to decide. Congress isn’t in the business of deciding individual disputes, just making the rules.

In fact, the courts did decide (in 1999) that the Redskins trademark is disparaging, but threw the case out because the plaintiffs took too long to bring it.

No court is being asked to change the name of the team, the only issue is whether they can keep the trademark. If they lose the trademark they can keep the name but they can’t prevent anyone else from using it. Everyone and their dog can make and sell Redskins merchandise and the team and league don’t get a cut. Which is a pretty good incentive to change the name, though not a legal requirement.

[quote comment=”348139″]I have to admit that I miss the character of the old municipal stadiums like Cleveland, Baltimore, Fulton County, Metropolitan, etc. There was something cool about the shared venues, even though it usually ended up being not so great for viewing either sport. You could always look forward to the early season games on the infield dirt, and could usually tell where it was just by the configuration if nothing else. They had a warmth and charm that the new, bland antiseptic football stadiums utterly lack. And I know the modern buildings have more bathrooms, luxury suites, better sightlines, etc., but I don’t give a shit about that since I’d never pay to go sit in one to begin with. My point is that, on t.v., I think the new places look like crap. Give me infield dirt through October over plastic fields any day. And think how much better it would be in January if we could get some snow and mud![/quote]

great post! I could not agree more. I loved the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium!

[quote comment=”348158″][quote comment=”348157″]it really, REALLY should be changed…like yesterday (despite what the courts have thus far ruled) and it shouldn’t take a lawsuit to make them do it[/quote]

As noted, if it was so hateful, etc. that society demanded that it be changed yesterday, it would have been done. Money talks.

The elected representatives of society haven’t seen it as so hateful that they won’t be seen supporting the name.

It hasn’t been changed. Yesterday or today. What does that tell you?[/quote]

tells me people are dumb.

[quote comment=”348211″][quote comment=”348139″]I have to admit that I miss the character of the old municipal stadiums like Cleveland, Baltimore, Fulton County, Metropolitan, etc. There was something cool about the shared venues, even though it usually ended up being not so great for viewing either sport. You could always look forward to the early season games on the infield dirt, and could usually tell where it was just by the configuration if nothing else. They had a warmth and charm that the new, bland antiseptic football stadiums utterly lack. And I know the modern buildings have more bathrooms, luxury suites, better sightlines, etc., but I don’t give a shit about that since I’d never pay to go sit in one to begin with. My point is that, on t.v., I think the new places look like crap. Give me infield dirt through October over plastic fields any day. And think how much better it would be in January if we could get some snow and mud![/quote]

great post! I could not agree more.

I loved the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium![/quote]

Ditto, almost as nice as the old Coliseum!