Monday Morning Uni Watch

David WRIGHT, not David “Weight.”

link

Looks like the other team in this picture stole the K-State helmet logo too.

I finally managed to catch up and watch the first 3 parts of the Full Color Football AFL documentary thing… and I’m really not that impressed by it.

It’s interesting and they have mentioned a few tidbits I wasn’t aware of, but it feels kinda incomplete and sloppy to me. For example, while they’re talking about how awesome the 1964 Bills defense was, they’re showing footage vs the Chargers which is -obviously- from ’66 or later. Or when talking about the Broncos, they show the burning of the brown and yellow, but then fail to mention what the new uniforms were. It would have been the perfect opportunity to show off a color photo proving the blue or brown issue, and they completely skip it.

I guess it’s not bad, but I think it really could have been better.

Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

Week 1
——–

link

Week 2
——-

link

Week 3
——-

link

Week 4
——-

link

[quote comment=”352066″]Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

Week 1
——–

link

Week 2
——-

link

Week 3
——-

link

Week 4
——-

link

The Patriots don’t use the C patch at all. No one wears it.

[quote comment=”352066″]Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

Week 1
——–

link

Week 2
——-

link

Week 3
——-

link

Week 4
——-

link

2009 captains

apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches

little typo here

And speaking of Adisas logo creep

Looks like the stupid Louisville black out uni also had a facemask switch – from red to black

the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them

[quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]
If you want to snag a shirt at the show, get there when the doors open. Otherwise, you have no chance. F’rinstance, I went to both Chicago shows and got there before the opening band (Bad Religion) took the stage and did not see a single show-specific shirt.

That reminds me, I still have not seen what the August 24th shirt looks like. Was it the link with a 24 on the back or was it completely different? Jeremy Lewis? Anyone?

Matt Bradley for the Capitals was wearing the hockey Gazoo helmet at the home opener on Saturday. Here is a pic from the white version he wore in Boston. The home version is blue and was noticeably different….at least to me…

link

[quote comment=”352079″]So I guess the Pats season ticket holder in the ticker would be an SOB (Section On Back)?[/quote]

I suggested LoNOB (Location Name On Back)

don’t have a screen capture but a Notre Dame player had a TON of gold paint come off his helmet in the game Saturday. surprised it didn’t get a mention in today’s ticker. did it get mentioned yesterday?

[quote comment=”352063″]And while Tiger Stadium had a rich history, it was no Yankee Stadium.[/quote]

Ha…good one. People keep forgetting that the original Yankee Stadium was destroyed in ’73.

[quote comment=”352075″]I think the Seahawks missed an opportunity to pair their neon green with pink accessories (call it the Delta Zeta look…).[/quote]

Or a small dinner salad. In Chernobyl.

—Ricko

re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.

[quote comment=”352084″]don’t have a screen capture but a Notre Dame player had a TON of gold paint come off his helmet in the game Saturday. surprised it didn’t get a mention in today’s ticker. did it get mentioned yesterday?[/quote]

I noticed this. Probably four layers of gold paint at one go. Isn’t it some sort of tradition that students repaint the helmets after every game?

[quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
link on the link.

link…

[quote comment=”352094″][quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
link on the link.[/quote]

thank goodness…

[quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
Don’t know about this year, but when they were first introduced in 2007, about a third of the teams opted not to wear them.

The Packers haven’t worn them in the regular season, because they chose captains on a game-by-game basis. They do wear them in the postseason, because they chose one set of captains for the entire postseason.

Of course, that’s the old policy. Don’t know what they will do if and when they make the playoffs this year.

I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).

The Indiana Pacers do something like this in that their ABA Championship banners all have the old hand-and-ball logo on them.

[quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

It’s just not right.

1. I LOVE the custom chinstraps…Henry, you should give one to your local paper’s Behgals beat writer and have him present it to Ocho Pinko!

2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.

3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.

and 4. I EFFING LOVE THE PEARL JAM TEES. I want to purchase a few of them…any help?

[quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

The marquis de SOD

[quote comment=”352106″]
3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.[/quote]

I agree 100% with your wife. I know breast cancer exists. I know we all have moms, sisters, wives, aunts, friends, and co-workers who have been affected by breast cancer. I know that we should do everything we can to help save the lives of these women.

Do I show up to work in pink shoes to show my support? No. I donate cash. Why? It goes much further.

As Phil pointed out in the comments yesterday, people that were watching the game around him had no clue as to why the players were wearing pink. So the NFL’s message isn’t really as far-reaching as they may think.

Yes Paul…the pink looks bad in sports uniforms. But how about nixing your bitching for ONE month? It’s for a fantastic cause, whether or not you think it’s “appropriate” to showcase it in that way or no.

[quote comment=”352106″] I EFFING LOVE THE PEARL JAM TEES. I want to purchase a few of them…any help?[/quote]
link

[quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

Alright, UWers. If these tees are out of the question availability and price wise…the DIY machines need to get cranked up. The Trailblazers and Canuck versions are smokin!

[quote comment=”352115″][quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL[/quote]

1. it was Citi-Field and
2. if it was Camden Yards, then yes:

link

[quote comment=”352118″][quote comment=”352115″][quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL[/quote]

1. it was Citi-Field and
2. if it was Camden Yards, then yes:

link

I was kidding, Matt. I know you’re the shoe guru in this arena. I wouldn’t have even noticed had you not said anything. ;o)

[quote]3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.[/quote]

have mrs. powers come to the next UW gathering at sheep station

i’ll give her a free breast cancer screening

[quote comment=”352068″]The Patriots don’t use the C patch at all. No one wears it.[/quote]

I’ve been a Patriots fan for years but never noticed this until I specifically wanted to point out the pink “C” patch to my mother…but it wasn’t there.

And in fact, in going back and looking at game photo’s from yesterday, I also noticed the Ravens don’t wear them, which someone has already pointed out here.

I honestly had no idea they were optional and I never noticed they were missing from the Patriots uniforms since they began using them in the league.

[quote comment=”352081″]I think, technically, you’re hiking “on” Staten Island. Thoughts?[/quote]

When I saw this in the ticker, I had the same thought. However, I think the usage is correct, given that the author was referring to the borough and not the physical island. In other words, you would say I went hiking in Queens or Brooklyn.

[quote comment=”352126″][quote comment=”352081″]I think, technically, you’re hiking “on” Staten Island. Thoughts?[/quote]

When I saw this in the ticker, I had the same thought. However, I think the usage is correct, given that the author was referring to the borough and not the physical island. In other words, you would say I went hiking in Queens or Brooklyn.[/quote]
Was thinking “in Manhattan” would be a better analogy since it’s also a borough and an island. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “on Manhattan” once.

[quote comment=”352121″][quote comment=”352119″]
It’s advertising, gang. Serves a purpose and doesn’t come free. Apparently every year in the weeks following MLB’s powder blue Father’s Day event, the number of men coming in for prostate screening goes way, way up.

That’s what “awareness” means, and why they don’t call it “CURE Breast Cancer”. Secondarily it’s about money. Primarily it’s about “Have Yourself Checked” or “Make Sure Someone You Love Has a Check Up.”

Get it now?

—Ricko[/quote]

You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

Not necessarily. Not if one of your overall goals—in addition to finding a cure–is to save the lives of people already afflicted with the disease.

Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.

—Ricko

How come only products were in pink…the reebok letters were not?

Does go against branding?

[quote comment=”352123″]Not only did the alternating colors look cool for KC’s yard lines, I liked that the numbers were every five yards. I’d rather see that than the bigger numbers with the arrows. I also liked when the Chargers and Raiders used little shields with the yard line numbers in them.[/quote]Some of the fun things with the AFL 50 year celebration!

Regarding Pitt, the Mick Williams thing is a mystery to me. I can only guess that when he got to Pitt there was another Williams with a first name that started with M. That being said, I don’t recall another Panther with FNOB.

Now, even though there isn’t another M. Williams on the team, maybe he is superstitious and doesn’t want to let it go.

Regarding Friday’s uni matchup, first off Louisville. I guess if you’re forced to play football on Friday night, you should go for the High School look right? Black out and “THE VILLE” just sucked so bad, they deserved to get the ass kicking they got.

As for Pitt, I actually thought the all-white was a nice look. I’m guessing they did this in response and counteract the blackout, who knows?

[quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]link…[/quote]

I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

Anyone else feel thay way?

(P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

—Ricko[/quote]

Agreed! I thought that the first time I saw the current uni set. Need that Orange Crush.

[quote comment=”352130″]
Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.[/quote]

My thoughts about the entire pink-out yesterday…how much did it cost to put pink brims on the coach’s caps? Or pink accents on some of the players caps? I just don’t see them selling enough of those caps to even come close to recouping costs. I would have given each coach a pink NFL cap and been done with it: those one-offs are just not “cost effective” IMHO. Donate the money you used to produce those to breast cancer; live with just the ribbons, towels, etc. as your sideline representation. I think that would have given more money to the charity in the long run.

And pink REFEREE’S caps?? Same thing-they don’t pass the cost/benefit analysis.

Off this part of the rant: Did we have a throwback game in Pittsburgh yesterday with the new, winter referee gear?

A) Messes up the throwback look even more (but that was also kind of blown with the pink cleats).

B) It’s not winter yet.

[quote comment=”352135″]I think it’s on page 2 of those AP images from the Cowboys-Broncos game.[/quote]

it was…so i did a grab

sorry about the AP watermarks

Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?

The hot pink gloves and shoes on the Steelers throwback unis looked EXCELLENT last night. The hot pink brims on the coaches’ baseball caps were also similarly excellent. This particularly nifty shade of pink looked far superior to the standard pastel tint i seem to remember seeing in the past. My compliments to the chef.

[quote comment=”352125″]Regarding the Pitt/’Ville game:
“I’m Calling It A Blech-out.”[/quote]

My attornies will be contacting you!
Blech @2009
:)

[quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]link…[/quote]

I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

Anyone else feel thay way?

(P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

—Ricko[/quote]

I vote for or what.

[quote comment=”352137″][quote comment=”352130″]
You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

Not necessarily. Not if one of your overall goals—in addition to finding a cure–is to save the lives of people already afflicted with the disease.

Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.

—Ricko[/quote]

If early detection is the end to their marketing campaign – and I support that message since it is vitally important to get treatment as soon as possible – they need to start marketing that message clearly and directly.

As I said, the people surrounding Phil on the weekend in New York had no idea why the players were wearing pink. None. Despite it being in the news all week long.

I’m not saying that the campaign isn’t important whatsoever. I’m saying that the marketing wasn’t as effective as it should or could be. Personally, have the players wear highly-noticeable ribbons and pink captain’s patches. People will notice them.

But the cost of producing shoes, sweatbands, towels, gloves, coins, and special footballs could have been used more effectively since people didn’t know why the NFL was doing it. That’s what I’m saying.[/quote]

Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352144″]Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?[/quote]

Players are not (I think) required to wear a helmet in warm-ups. All players must wear a helmet when entering the playing surface during a game. The last veteran player grandfathered into no helmet was Craig MacTavish in 1997. But favorite helmet free player was The Secretary of Defence, Rod Langway.
link

But favorite helmet free player was The Secretary of Defence, Rod Langway.
link…

No Bronze and blue bullshit on that uni!
thanks for the post

[quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.

Not a Ranger fan whatsoever but I think my fav non helmut guy was Ron Duguay and his fro.

link

[quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.

[quote comment=”352159″]
I understand what you’re saying, but that same argument was brought up before players wore helmets, and then Bill Masterton died. As far as field of vision is concerned, NFL players said the same thing back in the day, and they’ve adjusted very easily. NHL players are notorious for resisting change, and it will inevitably take someone losing an eye, or life threatening injury for this change to occur. It’s amazing to me that rich NHL players would rather suffer broken noses, loss of teeth, etc.
I think a big reason former college players don’t keep their helmets is the macho sttitude of team sports. I’ve heard NHL players back in the day talk about the reluctance to don a helmet for this reason. The NFL was the same way, until players realized the smaller face masks failed to offer sufficient protection.
The other reason is simply the speed and evolution of the NHL game, it’s far more athletic now than decades ago. When you watch the NHL Network replays of 1970s hockey, the difference is startling, even more so than the NFL. Today, more players are hitting the ice, which also increases the chances of a blade injury, too. It’s inevitable, and just pure luck we have not seen another death on the ice. I recall that playoff game when Kevin Stevens fell flat on his face, causing massive facial injuries, they actually had to remove his entire face to fix the damage. What about Al McGinnis and the needless eye injury?
I suggest people read “Saving Face”, I believe this site has mentioned this book before, it’s great. History repeats itself, and the same arguments against my proposal were the same for resisting goalie masks. Certainly, we have the technology to design a full protection helmet without limiting field of vision.
Reducing injuries would obviously increase the quality of play, and that benefits everyone. I think we’ll look back in the future at the idea of NHL players without full helmet protection, the same way we look back today at players from the 1970s with no helmets at all, or goalies from the 1950s with no masks. It’s inevitable.[/quote]

Masterton died in 1968 from his on-ice accident. The NHL instituted the helmet rule in 1979. That’s 11 years of hand-wringing and second-guessing. And with the NHLPA being much stronger than it was in 1979, the NHL will have a hard time convincing players to wear these new helmets.

They have tried to enforce a visor rule in the past, and it was killed by the ‘PA. The AHL mandated a rule after Jordan Smith, an Anaheim Ducks’ prospect, lost an eye after being struck by a puck while playing with the Portland Pirates. The CHL in Canada has mandatory visors and cages as well, and the OHL has mandatory neck guards as well. The reasons for these changes was because both leagues are developmental leagues trying to get players to the next level. Once you hit the NHL, though, you can wear whatever you want as long as it falls into the NHL’s uniform policies.

AHL President David Andrews had this comment after Smith’s devastating eye injury: “From our point of view, it was completely a safety issue. Over the last 10-12 years, we’ve had six or seven players who have had their careers ended by eye injuries. Obviously there has been a discussion on and off for years about mandating it, but we just felt it was time. We couldn’t have gone ahead without the support of the general managers of the NHL.”

The ‘PA argues that players get more careless because of visors as they become slightly more invincible. Because of it, they cling to their “player’s preference” idea when it comes to visors.

I wrote link about making visors mandatory, and I think they should be. But I have no sway with the ‘PA, and they’re the ones who are holding the NHL back.

As for the goalies, it took them almost 30 years before Dave Dryden came up with hybrid mask that offers both protection and the greatest field of vision. Cages for hockey players have been around for about 40 years, and no one has improved upon them. That might be a dead idea.

[quote comment=”352155″](P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

Apparently, some fucking dumb-ass with the redskins didn’t think so. 2nd worst trade in their history (after paul krause for marlin mckeever).[/quote]

Don’t remind me… portis is a jack-ass

[quote comment=”352161″]

Ah, yes, the old cost-benefit-analysis, that’s how to judge everything.

It’s a PROMOTION. If it isn’t having the results they’re after, they’ll stop doing it. And so far they haven’t stopped.

Valid conclusion? In their eyes it’s passing the cost-benefit-analysis test. And they’re in a far better position to judge that than we are.

Aren’t they?

—Ricko[/quote]
Yeah, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m in a valid position to give an opinion. ;-)

They money spent on one-offs like those hats would have been better spent dotated to the cause. The added “promotional” value of those hats compared to the overload of (standardized) stickers, ribbons, pins, towels, sweatbands and all the rest was negligible. Hell, get a embroidery machine set up and stitch a pink ribbon on the side of each coach’s hat where the ugly “World Series” logo goes for baseball. Less costly, you might sell just as many hats (and either way, the answer there is not many at all); and the cause gets just as much promotional benefit with the added value of a monetary benefit.

Seriously: how will anyone judge if this promotion is “having the results they’re after“?? Last year, did someone at the NFL office look around and say “gee, this isn’t having the results we’re after; let’s try pink referee hats in 2009 and see how much more of an effect we get”?

(IMHO, that is.)

As we discussed last week, this is just another “everyone’s doing it” thing to start, and the pink coaches and refs hats are a part of that taken to the extreme.

[quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.

Similar to the Pearl Jam tees, I noticed at the recent U2 show at Giants Stadium they were selling Giants and Jets colored varsity styled jackets. No pics, unfortunately.

“Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.”

…or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.

[quote comment=”352144″]Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?[/quote]

Ovechkin, Green and a bunch of other Caps were helmetless during wwarmups the other night, are are without helmets most warmups. I can’t remember seeing Ovechkin wearing his at ahome game.

Also, noticed the new refs gear at the Caps-Leafs game on Saturday. The new orange band trailing down the arm looks pretty good….overall, they look more like the NFL refs.

[quote comment=”352179″]
Derrick Mason seemed to be promoting prostate screening with his touchdown pose: link
Same facial reaction too.

[quote comment=”352176″]”Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.”

…or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.[/quote]
My fingers would be toast after the mandolin phase.

[quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

And in the case of baserunning and overall baseball smarts, I think this Powers is more knowledgable than the major leaguer in question:

link

[quote comment=”352173″][quote comment=”352164″][quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.[/quote]

So, you don’t think that something like “Support Breast Cancer Research and Awareness” in a cicle, around the NFL-logo-on-pink-ribbon at midfield would be a better way to promote the message than “why the hell is that guy wearing pink shoes”?[/quote]

No, because, once again, it isn’t close to the conversation starter that pink shoes, etc. are. Not saying it wouldn’t be more dignified, just saying it wouldn’t create the same amount of buzz…and that’s what this is about…creating buzz. Plain and simple.

As far as “who’s to judge”? The people at American Cancer Society (or whoever’s on that end), working with the NFL, that’s who. It’s their deal. They know what they’re after and I guarantee you they have some means of measuring the effectiveness of things.

Now, do I think it’s heading toward overkill, with all the other leagues and colleges doing it, too? Absolutely.

But, if their perspective shows that despite than apparent excess it’s still achieving the desired results…then I guess they know better. And are in a far better position to say than we are.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.

[quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

—Ricko[/quote]

Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.

[quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily agree that a ‘safer’ helmet really IS safer. Car manufacturers will tell you that the best way to survive a car accident is to not be in one in the first place. Same thing with hockey helmets/face masks. I know from my own playing days that the less I had on my head the better I could see and the more aware I was of what was around me. That helped me avoid contact in most cases. Everyone who plays arrives at a different balance for themselves regarding the protection/awareness issue. For me it was a helmet (CCM HT2 for most of my years) and an Itech (later Oakley) half shield. For a lot of other guys it was no face mask at all.

[quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

—Ricko[/quote]

Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
No.
Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

—Ricko[/quote]

He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

[quote comment=”352150″][quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]link…[/quote]

I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

Anyone else feel thay way?

(P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

—Ricko[/quote]

I vote for or what.[/quote]

I vote for 86’ing the navy jerseys. Bring back the Orange Crush. The navy swooshes on the pants and jerseys look better (all things being relative) than the orange swooshes.

[quote comment=”352197″][quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

—Ricko[/quote]

Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
No.
Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

—Ricko[/quote]

He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?[/quote]

For one thing, it can be to some extent self-detected…or at least the reason for a checkup can be discovered on your own. So early detection truly is an issue. And worth being publicized.

I don’t disagree on how the messages are worded. They certainly could mention a regular colonoscopy, etc., if you’re a certain age.

The Cancer groups do seem have segmented themselves a bit too much, yes.

But I was talking only about its avowed purpose, methods and possible means of gauging success…strictly as a promotion. Not judging the merits of the issue itself.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352202″]

How about making NBA players wear eye goggles…we all know prevention is the key…[/quote]

What the hell could would that do? Goggles don’t prevent a broken nose.

[quote comment=”352175″][quote comment=”352071″]Love the homemade chips Paul! I used to make those all the time, just may have to start em up again. those store chips suck, get a shiny bag half full of air for $4… gimme a break[/quote]

Second that! As a fellow uni-watcher-foodie I’d even extol you to make Culinary Corner a regular feature … talk about aprons or something if you need a uni angle.[/quote]

+1. I always enjoyed Paul’s food writings & pics. Man can’t live on uni watch info alone.

[quote comment=”352195″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily agree that a ‘safer’ helmet really IS safer. Car manufacturers will tell you that the best way to survive a car accident is to not be in one in the first place. Same thing with hockey helmets/face masks. I know from my own playing days that the less I had on my head the better I could see and the more aware I was of what was around me. That helped me avoid contact in most cases. Everyone who plays arrives at a different balance for themselves regarding the protection/awareness issue. For me it was a helmet (CCM HT2 for most of my years) and an Itech (later Oakley) half shield. For a lot of other guys it was no face mask at all.[/quote]

Valid point, I think you see reckless players who don’t have that awareness you spoke of. I believe at the current NHL level, even the most gifted, careful player can’t prevent the inevitable. When you add the sticks,blades, pucks, and physical play, accidents are just going to happen. I think when you look at any sport when equipment changes come in, there is a resistance in the fear it would somehow hamper performance. I remember hearing from a MLB catcher about the throat protector that was instituted after the Steve Yeager incident, and he felt it would reduce his agility around the plate. Of course, players at the highest level can adjust pretty easily to minor equipment changes, so I think it’s a slam dunk we could design a full protection helmet with sufficient field vision.
It’s only a matter of time before we see a horrific injury, whether its to a reserve player or superstar. At the end of the day, it’s in the best interests of the game. Less injuries and longer, more productive careers for players. The quality of play would also improve. I recall the Flyers lost a quality player in the playoffs this past season when his visor failed to stop a puck. Obviously, there are thousands of examples like this, you would hope the NHL players would be more proactive.

[quote comment=”352151″]I was at the jags/titans game yesterday with some friends from Jacksonville (I live a few hours away) and said to one of the guys “you know they changed their uniforms this year, whats the feeling here in Jacksonville?”

He said nobody really cared.

I think we just have to accept the uniwatch crowd is just a small niche of folks who pay alot of attention to deatil, I’d say a good 75% of the folks out there just don’t share our interests when it comes to what this site is about.[/quote]
Maybe….but the people in Jacksonville don’t even care about the team much less the unis. Less than 50k for an NFL game? Possibilities of playing in Orlando just to improve your attendance? Bad.

[quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

However, there will be people who resist such change.

Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

That is caveman mentality![/quote]

Amen. That reminds me: does anyone think NBC upgraded its NFL coverage by adding that thug Rodney Harrison? I don’t.

A small part of me thinks new equipment is futile, because it just enables guys like Harrison or Ray Lewis to get even more lethal. Of course, I know you have to increase safety. One freak accident is too many, so yes, keep improving the gear.

BUT, the key is the officiating. The major sports leagues have to take the lead on this, becasue you know those Pop Warner kids were emulating what they see on TV. Get even stricter on leading with the head or leaving your feet (or flying at a guy who’s already down instead of just tapping him). It’s called tackle football…not fly like a missle and try to kill someone football.

It would also help if the leagues and the networks stopped producing “The Greatest Hits Of (fill in your sport)” videos. Sure they’re moneymakers, but grow a pair and take a stand. The game is exciting enough without the jaw-dropping hits we sometimes see.

JimV: RE: Exciting Hits

One of the keys of my success when I played football, was that I hit hard…and I mean I meant to put someone down,(not injure but put a good jolt into them).

I’m not trying to hurt someone, because improper tackling also could have & has hurt me. I wanted to put a fear into someone or at least “oh shit, I don’t want to get hit again by this guy”…

I recently joined an adult hockey league (hip checking is allowed, but extremely closely monitored, so it’s almost pointless, but a clean bump IS acceptable)…

The Hits are important to the game, and I would hate to see it soften to almost touch status…

[quote comment=”352211″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]

BUT, the key is the officiating. [/quote]
Actually, I think the key is coaching. I think the key is having young athletes instilled from the very beginning with a sense of responsibility for themselves and others playing the game. I know, I know… hard to do in mite hockey where the coach is a dad/volunteer, etc etc etc…

[quote comment=”352212″]”A small part of me thinks new equipment is futile, because it just enables guys like Harrison or Ray Lewis to get even more lethal.”

That sort of paraphrases something the Redskins’ trainer mused about to me in’83 when I working on that Redskins tabloid…
“Maybe it was better when the guys had a layer of fat and weren’t launching themselves at each other on artificial turf.”

—Ricko[/quote]

Yeah, now the “skill” positions have almost no fat, while the lineman have several layers…

Along with better equipment, I’d like to see some kind of weight limit…that is, follow the standard height-weight ratios that doctors and insurers use. There’s no reason a human being should have to bulk up to 350-400 pounds just to play a game, even if it’s his livelihood.

I don’t want the players turned into freaks of nature just so we can have a stronger, faster, harder-hitting game. If you appreciate the sport for what it is, then size shouldn’t matter.

[quote comment=”352214″]what’s the injury rate of rugby players?[/quote]

Excellent point. I’d like to know that, too.

In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.

why don’t we just have logo’s for every goddamn match up

“TieBreaker” / GAME 3 ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT BROUGHT TO YOU BY NIKE / MLB NETWORK PRESENTS PITTSBURGH PIRATES OFF NITE!!

it’s really out of hand…

[quote comment=”352221″]In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.[/quote]

I really wouldn’t call it too innovative. They just took the ALDS logo and replaced it with “TIEBREAKER”

link

Wonder how long it will take the shirts to be printed up and available in the metrodome?

[quote comment=”352182″][quote comment=”352179″]
Derrick Mason seemed to be promoting prostate screening with his touchdown pose: link
Same facial reaction too.[/quote]
Man, if you’re going to perform all these over-the-top celebratory dances, you really ought to make sure your team wins the game.

Shorpy Charlotte Hall 1905 basketball

link

The NFL raises awareness for testicular cancer every game.

They only play with one ball.

link

I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.

as we prepare to enter the all-out blitz on all things Favre this evening I have been noticing that he seems to wear a jersey with an elastic waist band, almost like some jackets people wear. it doesn’t appear he tucks his jersey into his pants but it instead has virtually no “tail” and ends in a tight drawstring or elastic band. the shirt then hangs normally, covering the band, but certainly not tucking into his pants. is that NFL uni policy legit or are they cutting a superstar a pass? how long has Brett worn it like that?

here are a couple of pics

link

link

maybe others will have better pics or know more about this.

If a :30 second spot every quarter would be more effective, why doesn’t Nike do that instead of wasting money putting their logo all over everything?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352138″][quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]link…[/quote]

I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

Anyone else feel thay way?

(P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

—Ricko[/quote]

Agreed! I thought that the first time I saw the current uni set. Need that Orange Crush.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve been voting a return to orange jerseys full time for a decade now! Why Denver ran from their history in that way I have no idea. I don’t like their uni design and would like to see them go back to the early Elway years look, but that ain’t happening any time soon, so the least they can do is make the orange shirt the designated home jersey. PLEASE.

[quote comment=”352236″][quote comment=”352233″]I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.[/quote]
And a #4 at that.
Coincidence?[/quote]

Good call Mike… that should have been added to the list.

[quote comment=”352109″][quote comment=”352104″][quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

It’s just not right.[/quote]

Aw, hell, everybody knows if you don’t like history, just change it. The WHA never existed, remember? Was just a figment of our collective imaginations. Or take the Oakland Raiders. Nothing before 1963, when Al Davis got there. No life til the Great Al reached out and touched them. Black and gold Raiders unis? Never happened.

—Ricko[/quote]

Good point about the WHA. There is little, if any, type of recognition of the WHA as a whole by the NHL. I realize the two leagues duked it out legally during the WHA’s exisitence, but isn’t it time the NHL got past all that? High salaries aside, the NHL owes a lot to the exisitence of the WHA.

You’d think seeing the NFL celebrate the anniversary and existence of the AFL, a light bulb would go off over someone’s head down at NHL HQ’s. (Hello….major mechandising opportunity alert!!!)

2011-12 will be the 40th Anniversary of the birth of the WHA. Let’s see.

[quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

However, there will be people who resist such change.

Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

That is caveman mentality![/quote]

I agree with this at the pop warner/pee wee level. However sometimes at the NFL level the officiating goes too far. Case in point yesterday Kyle Orton was hit cleanly just after releasing the ball, and the was slight contact as the defensive players helmet rose into Orton’s helmet. Not a spear, not leading with the helmet but a 15 yard penalty none the less. That is a let them play situation.

Spearing at the junior levels should be taken seriously, and those dad’s who don’t thinks so will after it’s their son with a neck injury.[/quote]

Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
This is my second year as a football official and I am finishing up my first as a baseball/softball umpire and I see that defiant attitude IN PARENTS, way too much. I have witnessed MAYBE 3 or 4 kids that were difficult to deal with.

However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

What did the coach He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable!

BuckeyeMark,

Roy Williams of the Cowboys had a similar jersey yesterday. You could see it on the sidelines after he got drilled and had to sit out.

[quote comment=”352232″][quote comment=”352226″]in re: link about folks watching the g-men vs. chiefs;

i got the impression that a) not only did then not realize why the players were wearing pink, but b) they didn’t care even after they were made aware

small sample size, to be sure, but i got the impression that the nfl failed to raise awareness in the majority of viewers; if ONE person decided to get a mammo, then i guess you could call this whole thing a success, since that’s one more possible cancer recognized and treated before it becomes serious/fatal

my point then, as now, is i think there are far better ways (like, say, a straight cash donation to komen or whatever charity they chose) than to have (or let) players debase the uni

several readers suggested better alternatives (for example a hugh-jass ribbon at the 50, and again at the 25s; what about replacing all the ads with bc-awareness ribbons)…just keep the pink off the uns

here’s a better thought — if the NFL REALLY wanted to raise awareness, how about give free airtime (like, say a 30 second spot twice a quarter, or even more often) to the various breast cancer orgs out there? surely an in your face “LADIES 35 and OVER: DID YOU GET YOUR YEARLY MAMMOGRAM THIS YEAR” would be far more effective than ocho cinco wearing a pink chin strap, no?

but no, the NFL chose to play “LOOK AT US” first, just to make sure everyone knows how much they care…but for the small viewing sample i observed, it not only didn’t do a damn bit of good, their reaction was decidedly NOT what the nfl was hoping for

good cause…TERRIBLE execution[/quote]

A commercial or a logo on the field, people see.
Pink shoes, they talk about.
That’s the difference.
Not saying I like it. Saying from an ad guy’s point of view, “talk about” is better. Far more buzz. Light years better retention.
And a :30 spot every quarter better than pink shoes every second for creating such buzz? Never.

—Ricko[/quote]

I get where you’re coming from, Ricko…my only concern is this: marketers think all buzz is good buzz, but that’s not always the case.

I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.

The same can apply to awarenesss raising and fundraising. If the buzz generated is too annoying, some people will tune it out, no matter how well-intentioned the cause is.

[quote comment=”352196″]Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
No.
Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.
[/quote]
Or perhaps there is evidence that high-profile events like this help the fundraising efforts of breast cancer research and prevention groups.

That certainly seems a lot easier to prove.

Not that they are mutually exclusive, only saying that all parties can have an interest in this event beyond the stated goal of “raising awareness.”

3 pieces of good news that are over due!

1)after more then a week of temps in the 50’s, the thermometer in my drafty studio hit 60 degrees today, woo-frigin-hoo!

2)after nearly a month of going to a neighbors to check email everyday, i will finally have internets by 9pm tuesday. can’t wait to read this with my morning joe again.

3) after kicking ass and taking names with tck friday, i got the call today, stirrups are FINALLY in the mail. i should get them wednesday at the latest, and turn them around thursday at the latest. y’all should be getting them friday-next wednesday depending on where you live in relation to chicago.

[quote comment=”352245″][quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable![/quote]

No problem. Keep up the good work!

To Bill Jones,

Excellent job on the gumball helmets at the Division II level. I was gald to see that you got the weird Cardinal of my alma mater Saginaw Valey State University. I can tell you (as a manager and then a student SID) they had that logo from 1983-unitl the early 80’s. And there were a bitch to get onto the helmets.

[quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

—Ricko[/quote]

If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ – i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

—Ricko[/quote]

Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
No.
Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

—Ricko[/quote]

Folks, as a 4-1/2 years and counting cancer survivor, I can assure you that early detection is key in survival of almost any type of cancer.

Ricko is right, you need to check yourself regularly. If this promo succeeded in getting an additional 10% of women to check their breasts, or men to check their boys for that matter, then the program is successful.

Don’t take for granted that the little bump or bruise that doesn’t go away is simply that, a bump or a bruise. My cancer started as an ulcer on the side of my tongue, that I initially thought was just that, an ulcer. It wasn’t until I was getting my teeth cleaned a couple months later that I asked my dentist about it. He immediately saw that I had a lateral squamous cell carcinoma. In layman’s terms, a skin cancer on my tongue. I don’t smoke or chew so this is indeed a rare occurence. While this type of cancer in highly cureable when caught at an early stage, I was lucky. In the short period of time, roughly 6 weeks, from diagnosis to surgery. The tumor more than doubled in size.

I’m happy to report that while I still have a few more months to go before I’m declared cured, everything is going very well.

Cancer these days is not a death sentence like it once was. Mario Lemieux and Phil Kessel are perfect examples of men who were detected early, went through the treatment, and have led very productive lives to say the least.

My hope is that the wearing of the pink has given you all cause to pause and reflect. Do a self exam, or have your doctor check you out. Do it for yourself and your loved ones.

[quote comment=”352253″]3 pieces of good news that are over due!

1)after more then a week of temps in the 50’s, the thermometer in my drafty studio hit 60 degrees today, woo-frigin-hoo!

2)after nearly a month of going to a neighbors to check email everyday, i will finally have internets by 9pm tuesday. can’t wait to read this with my morning joe again.

3) after kicking ass and taking names with tck friday, i got the call today, stirrups are FINALLY in the mail. i should get them wednesday at the latest, and turn them around thursday at the latest. y’all should be getting them friday-next wednesday depending on where you live in relation to chicago.[/quote]
Just curious, which batch is this?

Is this really jersey worthy?

link

Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
I like the PJ ones even less.

[quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
So you opted for link instead?

I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.

RE: 10/4 Thread …

[quote comment=\”351932\”]Ricko, you have USFL games on VHS? Let\’s talk…[/quote]

I got all three title games on Beta. Was a huge fan of the Philly Stars. I grew up in L.A., and still got the tix stubs from the Express-Gamblers slugfest with Young and Kelly.

-Chris

[quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

—Ricko[/quote]

Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again!

[quote comment=”352271″][quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

—Ricko[/quote]

Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again![/quote]

And that’s the curse of such things. We tire of the same ads—or the same style ads—but the reasons we keep seeing them are because we’re watching what their target market is watching…and the ads are working.

The primary reason for a commercial is not to entertain, or even to be liked. It’s to sell stuff or motivate action.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352271″][quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

—Ricko[/quote]

Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again![/quote]

I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.

Ricko has a point – annoying ads can be effective…just not with me. You want my business, entertain me.

[quote comment=”352275″]Ricko has a point – annoying ads can be effective…just not with me. You want my business, entertain me.[/quote]Oldest marketing story in the world, goes back to the 1940’s or 50’s and a marketing class in that era of all-male colleges; the prof passes around a calender page from a nudie calendar of the day. When the page finally comes back to the teacher he asks “so what month was that?” Nobody knows, of course.

Don’t let the ad distract from the intended action.

[quote comment=”352275″]I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.[/quote]
That’s something I’ve been thinking about now that my kids are starting to get older. I’m definitely not looking forward to the day when they understand what those commercials are for. I absolutely dread the thought of sitting down with them to watch a game and having them bust out laughing about 4-hour boners. Or even worse, if they start asking me how often it happens to me.

[quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
So you opted for link instead?

I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
“PJ sucks”
Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

Accurate words.
Most bands do.
Kind of like uniforms these days.

[quote comment=”352280″][quote comment=”352273″]And that’s the curse of such things. We tire of the same ads—or the same style ads—but the reasons we keep seeing them are because we’re watching what their target market is watching…and the ads are working.[/quote]
So the target market for BOTH breast cancer awareness AND boner pills is what is percived as the typical NFL fan?

I don’t know, I just don’t see that many “women of a particular age” when I go to Soldier Field. Maybe I don’t understand the target.[/quote]
But the target is the multi-million person TV audience, not just the realively few who attend in person. The abuelitas I work with all watch at least the Bronco game and some others.

[quote comment=”352281″][quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
So you opted for link instead?

I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
“PJ sucks”
Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

Accurate words.
Most bands do.
Kind of like uniforms these days.[/quote]
OK, you got me. To be fair, you did not explicitly state that you think they suck. You just denigrated them as compared to another band.

For the record, both bands are in my personal top 5. I consider Wilco to be the better studio band and PJ the better live band.

[quote comment=”352064″]I finally managed to catch up and watch the first 3 parts of the Full Color Football AFL documentary thing… and I’m really not that impressed by it.

It’s interesting and they have mentioned a few tidbits I wasn’t aware of, but it feels kinda incomplete and sloppy to me. For example, while they’re talking about how awesome the 1964 Bills defense was, they’re showing footage vs the Chargers which is -obviously- from ’66 or later. Or when talking about the Broncos, they show the burning of the brown and yellow, but then fail to mention what the new uniforms were. It would have been the perfect opportunity to show off a color photo proving the blue or brown issue, and they completely skip it.

I guess it’s not bad, but I think it really could have been better.[/quote]

That is always a big gripe of mine. In watching film histories or even sometimes in books.

To have the wrong dates for the game action being used.

[quote comment=”352286″][quote comment=”352281″][quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
So you opted for link instead?

I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
“PJ sucks”
Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

Accurate words.
Most bands do.
Kind of like uniforms these days.[/quote]
OK, you got me. To be fair, you did not explicitly state that you think they suck. You just denigrated them as compared to another band.

For the record, both bands are in my personal top 5. I consider Wilco to be the better studio band and PJ the better live band.[/quote]

To each his own. And I mean that.
But…
Wilco blew me away when I saw them. Tweedy is a brilliant writer, and I’m proud that Uncle Tupelo is from my metro area. However, I still don’t think they even crack my top 20.
Pearl Jam? I can’t even tolerate. Vedder’s “moanan”(sp?) voice really irritates me.
We should end this discussion before we get in trouble.
I’ll say it again.
To each his own.

That Viking helmet is pretty. Big time.
I am not a big fan of purple. Never have been.
But that helmet looks fantastic! And as I’ve always said, every league needs a little purple.
I just wish the jersey matched.

vikes in throwbacks…

fuckin sweet

Percy Harvin is wearing a regular Riddell helmet. I believe he usually wears one of those Revolution monstrosities.
Is he doing it for the throwback?
Are other Viking players doing the same?

[quote comment=\”352176\”]\”Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.\”

…or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.[/quote]

Or until the oil explodes and burns your house down.

[quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

fuckin sweet[/quote]
I’d rather the Vikes not burn the throwbacks when they’re wearing the pink shoes. Better to wait … or just change back for good, though that’s not going to happen.

[quote comment=”352083″][quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

PJ has been UNI centric back to the Mookie Blaylock Band days…even TEN was named for his UNI number.

Wish they were coming to NY, that would have made a great uni-band shirt Using the Rangers OR the Knicks logo

(kind of makes up for the ho-hum Backspacer)[/quote]

Saw Pearl Jam here in Salt Lake last week. They put on a good show, I’m glad I went. I saw the Utah shirt and liked the customization, I’m just not much of a concert t-shirt guy.

On to Favre – something is not right with his alignment of his NOB and number. Am I the only one seeing this or does anyone else?

Ryan Grant in the high whites as well, but at least his pants look like actual pants.

I just got an e-mail from the Mets linking to a link with Jeff Wilpon and his opening line was, “On behalf of everyone at the Mets, thank you for sticking with us through this painful and disappointing season.” Methinks there’s a correlation between the lack of pinstripage and the “painful and disappointing season”.

[quote comment=”352305″]Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?[/quote]Stop making sense.

[quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

—Ricko[/quote]

Are you referring to Fred Ricart? I moved from Columbus nearly 20 years ago and I still recall that turd’s name! His shtick obviously worked on me.

[quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]link…[/quote]

I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

Anyone else feel thay way?

(P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

—Ricko[/quote]

Yes , fully agree. Instead of being one of four or five teams that wear dark blue (Houston, Buffalo, Chicago, New England – maybe missing one or two), Denver becomes unique again. I think having a unique color help creates an identity and also adds to the passion the fans have with their team. After all – how many “dark blue outs” do you see, but with the colour orange, fans will inevitably wear it in droves in the stands.

In general their should be more unique colors in the NFL – why can’t the Ravens be a really dark shade of purple, or say plum shade, something to distinguish it from the Vikings? How about burnt orange?

[quote comment=”352313″][quote comment=”352310″][quote comment=”352305″]Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?[/quote]Stop making sense.[/quote]

Only “once in a lifetime”…[/quote]

“It’s a once in a lifetime thing that happens every so often.”
– Randy Moss

Boy, those pom-poms really stick out in this picture: link

You know, if they really wanted to throwback, they could have played at the Gophers’ stadium. Then the Twins could have played tonight.

Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

Benjamin Johnson

[quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

link

link

[quote comment=”352322″][quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

link

link

Were they blank blue, or blue with a blue pony on them? ;)

[quote comment=”352319″]
Well, I did say entertain me, not “raise my awareness”…so to speak.[/quote]

Ricko’s “awareness” is raised by a well-turned… uniform stripe.

:-)))

[quote comment=”352316″]

Only “once in a lifetime”…[/quote]

[/quote]
I saw those guys a “lifetime ago” in Chicago. I can’t say I remember much about the concert.

Youth is wasted on the young.

[quote comment=”352325″][quote comment=”352324″][quote comment=”352322″][quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

link

link

Were they blank blue, or blue with a blue pony on them? ;)[/quote]

Were gonna go wth a brown horsey to “honor” the brown and gold, but decided against it.

That’s a preseason game, btw. Broncos ever wore those jerseys with that helmet in reg. season. Back then teams often saved their new sets til the opening game. They’d wear the new helmets for played to get used to hew headgear, though.

—Ricko[/quote]

That reminds me, Ricko…during the UW hiatus I thought I found your all-blue Indians unis. I was watching This Week in Baseball’s coverage of the ’81 All-Star Game. I had the tape going while I was doing something else, and out of the corner of my eye I coulda sworn I saw it. When I rewound the tape I realized it was just a girl in the stands wearing a blue jersey and blue jeans. I was hoping, man.

[quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

fuckin sweet[/quote]

Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.

[quote comment=”352112″]Yes Paul…the pink looks bad in sports uniforms. But how about nixing your bitching for ONE month? It’s for a fantastic cause, whether or not you think it’s “appropriate” to showcase it in that way or no.[/quote]

When is the NFLook-At-Me gonna do special games for Prostate Cancer, Colon Cancer, Lung Cancer, et al…?

[quote comment=”352333″][quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

fuckin sweet[/quote]

Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

They look better than their normal uniforms… but I hate gray facemasks and helmets that don’t match the jersey colors. A white mask would look so much better, and the helmet is too dark.[/quote]

Check Giants and Michigan State, to name two. There’s an epidemic of that this year.

And the gray facemask is true to that era of the Vikings. For the most part, anyway.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

fuckin sweet[/quote]

Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

Absolutely true. Those look so much better than the contemporary version.

They were my first favorite football team, oh, 1970 or so…strictly due to the helmet design. And I didn’t know til YEARS later it was a Viking helmet horn. I didn’t know WHAT it was.

speaking of the WHA…
One of the best logos EVER..IMO.
link

[quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. link

A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

—Ricko[/quote]

I’m not saying I would buy one, but I bet a lot of people in Dairyland would.

I stopped paying attention a long time ago (even though I used to be a Favre fan), so what came first – did the Pack side with Rogers because Brett was wishy-washy, or did Brett become wishy-washy because the Pack were leaning towards Rogers?

[quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. link

A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

—Ricko[/quote]
The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s link.[/quote]

Certainly. Especially among those who don’t let facts interfere with their opinion.

Oh, shit…that encompasses most of America.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. link

A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

—Ricko[/quote]
The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s link.[/quote]

Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? link

[quote comment=”352346″][quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. link

A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

—Ricko[/quote]
The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s link.[/quote]

Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? link

Wow, a horny ugly cheesehead woman.
Scary.

[quote comment=”352348″][quote comment=”352346″][quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. link

A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

—Ricko[/quote]
The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s link.[/quote]

Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? link

Wow, a horny ugly cheesehead woman.
Scary.[/quote]

Think this guy’s related to her? link

Not sure if this has already been brought up, and I don’t have the ability to get a screen grab, but tonight Packers coach Mike McCarthy had a little extra piece of fabric sewn into the back of his hat (like a belt loop turned sideways) for holding a Sharpie.

[quote comment=”352353″]Off the subject a bit, but check out this story on retired baseball uniforms: link

No one’s going to read this since it’s only an hour or two from the next blog going up…. but I really don’t like retired numbers.

I don’t mind seeing player names and numbers up around a stadium, but I think the numbers should stay available. I think by not retiring numbers, you can give new players a goal to make a number “theirs” after it’d been worn by a legend previously.