Cutting Goalies Down to Size

“Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm – discuss.”

I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned…

Supposedly the original “yellow and brown” Broncos had a sock burning after their first season. The “horror” picture reminded me of that and kind of made me wish there was something like that for this round just to rekindle that story.

I don’t care if the NFL fines players for uni infractions. I do care whether a team’s coaches and player-leaders have the balls to insist that players dress like members of a team. You show your pride in and commitment to your team by wearing your uniform properly; you show contempt for your team and your teammates by screwing with your uni. I just can’t imagine Vince Lombardi or Bud Grant putting up with the kind of uni crap NFL players pull these days. Same for baseball, really: it’s a failure of leadership to let players screw with their unis.

Re: bourbon in your syrup, there’s honestly very little that isn’t better with bourbon. Especially where pork products are involved. For dessert, try melting a shot of bourbon into caramel sauce, then pouring that over ice cream with pecans. Mmmm-good.

[quote comment=”353852″]did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i link…

was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?[/quote]

clever, Phil.

I, for one, do not care for the red trimmed UNC unis.

Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

link

[quote comment=”353852″]did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i link…

was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?[/quote]

Yeah, really.
Putting Jordan’s name on a 100 yr throwback-WTF?
And those bustin’-a-sag shorts? I suspect a century ago shorts looked more like Daisy dukes.

These are dopey anachronisms.

The Yellow Menace apparently to be mothballed for tomorrow night:

link

[quote comment=”353864″]http://www.duhancreative.com/images/portfolio/01_product_launch/02_frozen_coke.jpg

link
The decades dont seem to match up with those helmets and the pics I find.

[quote comment=”353866″]Did someone mention rabbit ears?

link

what are you people? on dope?

[quote comment=”353858″][quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

link

pro combat cleats?

are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?[/quote]

The McDavid hex pads, which are very similar to Nike Pro Combat, is the first thing that I thought of as well.

As of now, there are only a few types of spats that go over cleats, but this doesnt seem to be any of those.

Nike Str8 jacket:
link

Spatz:
link

[quote comment=”353849″]”Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm – discuss.”

I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.[/quote]
Mr. Hull notes that the NHL limits “the size of a goalie pad to 38 inches high”. However, it isn’t clear if goalies can use pads smaller than 38 inches high. If they can, and the smaller goalies choose to go with the higher pads, then I would consider this unfair.

What is wrong with setting maximum dimensions for the pads and allowing goalies to choose any size up to and including that maximum?

[quote comment=”353871″][quote comment=”353849″]”Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm – discuss.”

I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.[/quote]
Mr. Hull notes that the NHL limits “the size of a goalie pad to 38 inches high”. However, it isn’t clear if goalies can use pads smaller than 38 inches high. If they can, and the smaller goalies choose to go with the higher pads, then I would consider this unfair.

What is wrong with setting maximum dimensions for the pads and allowing goalies to choose any size up to and including that maximum?[/quote]

Some smaller goalies can cover more net with larger pads. That’s why it’s unfair. Chris Osgood has no five-hole whatsoever because of the extensions.

That would explain why shooters go high and to the lower corners for the majority of his goals against.

[quote comment=”353867″][quote comment=”353866″]Did someone mention rabbit ears?

link

what are you people? on dope?[/quote]
Go ask Alice…

Not surprised about the bourbon thing – I see maple-infused bourbon cocktails all the time; this is just a change in emphasis.

[quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.

Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

—Ricko

I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.

Seems like football pants are creeping up higher on players. They’re abandoning their knee and thigh pads for less compression i guess. Sooner or later they’re gonna wear boyshorts along with their tank top jerseys (Amani Toomer style). I always see it with Ronnie Brown too. I’ve taken a helmet shot to the knee, or acutally my knee impacted a player while he was on the ground and I always wondered how bad that would have stung if i didn’t have my knee pads in place.

By the Way…Does anyone think the 80s were significant enough to have a year dedicated to them?

[quote comment=”353876″]I don’t get the “subtle” tag on the Dolphins photo. Are you just commenting on the garish orange outfits*, or is there something else?

*true, they are garish, but they’re not new, are they?[/quote]

I wondered about the “subtle” tag myself. And now, they’re not new. I know they wore them at least last year.

But then again, and I’m wondering if it was just me, do it look the Miami HURRICANES were playing rather than the Dolphins? On the same note, I think the Hurricanes wore green jerseys last Saturday (yes, I know it’s not aqua, but close enough).

Braylon Edwards isn’t wearing double striped socks. He just has two pairs of socks with one on top of the other. The inner sock is pulled high, and the outer sock has some slack, making both pairs of stripes visible.

[quote comment=”353881″][quote comment=”353879″][quote comment=”353877″][quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.[/quote]

Woodford Reserve or Makers Mark[/quote]
Both are better than Jim Beam[/quote]
For drinking straight up, absolutely (Rebel Yell would be another good call), but I wouldn’t use the top shelf stuff to mix with syrup or coffee.

[quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?

[quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

There is a complaint amongst training staff that tinted visors make seeing an injured player’s eyes much more difficult. In a neck/head injury situation, you want to be sure that a player’s eyes can focus and follow a moving object with ease to test brain function. A tinted visor prevents that from happening when the helmet cannot/should not be removed.

That’s the only complaint I can think of at this time.

We’ll Powers answer that form an official’s point of view.

But I’d guess involves things like…

If I’m playing defense in just about any sport, I want to be able to watch my opponent’s eyes. Hide them and he has a significant advantage.

There’s also the matter of being able to check someone’s pupils, both in an injury situation and, in this day and age, for signs of “augmentation”.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353884″]Seems like football pants are creeping up higher on players. They’re abandoning their knee and thigh pads for less compression i guess. Sooner or later they’re gonna wear boyshorts along with their tank top jerseys …..
[/quote]

link

[quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

I actually don”t know…but I have to enforce it!
luckily, I haven’t come across any in the two years that I have been officiating, although some of my colleagues have.

[quote comment=”353882″]I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.[/quote]

You may be correct. Photo of Lee at “I’m calling it Shea” (win #5) sans button link

[quote comment=”353899″]Goalie Equiptment – I think the league wants to do this to get goal scoring up. But I don’t think it will work. One of my friends plays in a “beer” league and is a big Martin Brodeur fan (in fact he has the same equiptment and plays a similar style) but his GGA isn’t as good as Marty’s so it isn’t the equiptment that makes the goalies good.[/quote]

NHL goalies are able to combine extraordinary skill with an unfair advantage. If your pads go up to your hips, you’re already cheating everytime you drop to the ice because you have no five-hole. The extensions block the opening.

Martin Brodeur is one guy who has rarely changed the style of his pads over the course of his career. Look at a guy like Osgood who is shorter and not as skilled (arguably), and he’s had the same (or more) success than the greatest goaltender statistically that the game has ever seen.

Skill factors in for sure, but larger pads will close the chasm between the real star goalies and the so-so goalies.

[quote comment=”353903″][quote comment=”353902″][quote comment=”353882″]I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.[/quote]

You may be correct. Photo of Lee at “I’m calling it Shea” (win #5) sans button link

Button probably screws with reception of signals from the mother ship.

Oh, wait…that would be BILL Lee.

—Ricko[/quote]
Nice shout out to the Spaceman, Ricko.

Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353885″][quote comment=”353883″][quote comment=”353880″]Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

—Ricko[/quote]

there’s a good reason for that

and…there’s gonna be a MAROON OUT (i shit you not) tonight at ULM

/sweet[/quote]

Ah, marooned in Monroe, eh?
What a bunch of maroons?

(There, I got the two obvious ones out of the way quickly)

—Ricko[/quote]
Having broadcast several games from link (the second deck facing the pressbox didn’t exist back then), “Marooned in Monroe” is especially apt… Arkansas State will likely be wearing link, while ULM will likely be wearing link… not quite as “colorful” as link, eh?

[quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

—Ricko[/quote]

There has been some scrutiny over those players as well, Ricko. However, being that lacrosse is a fringe sport, safety always wins over entertainment. Personally, they look like cartoon superheroes: link.

[quote comment=”353899″]Goalie Equiptment – I think the league wants to do this to get goal scoring up. But I don’t think it will work. One of my friends plays in a “beer” league and is a big Martin Brodeur fan (in fact he has the same equiptment and plays a similar style) but his GGA isn’t as good as Marty’s so it isn’t the equiptment that makes the goalies good.[/quote]
That’s an effect the might like to see, but it’s not the point at all. What they want to do is stop goalie equipment from being made just to stop pucks and make it so it’s there primarily to protect the goalie- in short, they want to make it fair.

Brodeur is one of the very few goalies that does not use the maximum size pads BTW- His are 34″ IIRC. They’re fitted to him.

His chest protector on the other hand… there are pillows on the arms of that thing.

[quote comment=”353912″][quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

—Ricko[/quote]

There has been some scrutiny over those players as well, Ricko. However, being that lacrosse is a fringe sport, safety always wins over entertainment. Personally, they look like cartoon superheroes: link.[/quote]

And those shoulder pads!
Looks like they cut a hole dead center in the bottom of a canoe and stuck their head through it.

Not bitching, just get a kick out of it.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353917″][quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

—Ricko[/quote]

Field hockey has equally strange looking equipment (at least to an ice hockey goalie like me). Look at the pads on this goalie, especially the glove: link
Transformers indeed!

Now this is what a real goalie looks like: link

Field hockey was reduced from what it used to look like as well. The Beijing Olympics were the first major look at the new equipment standards, and it really didn’t lower the level of play.

Most of the changes happened in 2007 that reduced the size of the chest protectors and goalie pads. In doing so, the FIH allowed the goaltenders to join the play if they so desired.

Because they made the equipment smaller, they realized that players could move better. Therefore, the inclusion to allow the goaltenders to join the play made the transition to smaller pads easier since teams could now use them as an additional defender or “point man” in their offensive schemes.

cliff lee with button link.

[quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

Whoa.[/quote]

I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.

[quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

Whoa.[/quote]

I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]
Ugh. That should be “visors are easy to remove.”

[quote comment=”353872″][quote comment=”353869″][quote comment=”353858″][quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

link

pro combat cleats?

are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?[/quote]

The McDavid hex pads, which are very similar to Nike Pro Combat, is the first thing that I thought of as well.

As of now, there are only a few types of spats that go over cleats, but this doesnt seem to be any of those.

Nike Str8 jacket:
link

Spatz:
link

Aside from asking Skiba, I am going to e-mail these guys the pic and ask them, because I am befuddled:

Doug West – Equipment Manager
Ronnie Bill – Assistant Equipment Manager
Chris Valenti – Assistant Equipment Manager[/quote]

If it’s any consolation, I’m pretty sure the player in question is Broncos punter Brett Kern, who was the holder for the kick. My guess is he’s wearing some type of soccer shoes, hence they look different than “football” cleats…no spats or anything, besides I think you can see a very small hint of a white logo on his right show (viewer’s left).

[quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

Whoa.[/quote]

I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

I wasn’t angry at all when I posted that, was just saying I started thinking about it and realized it certainly wasn’t what I’d want to do. Wasn’t criticizing TheJeff at all. Was meaning we’d probably all not want to lie their while they farted around with anything before they could start checking us out.

Nope, nor rancor intended. Sorry about that.

–Rocik

And sorry a few minutes late, here is the best pic I can find of shoes Broncos punter Brett Kern could possibly be wearing…link appears on his wikipedia page and is dated Oct 4, 2009.

[quote comment=”353929″][quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

Whoa.[/quote]

I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

I wasn’t angry at all when I posted that, was just saying I started thinking about it and realized it certainly wasn’t what I’d want to do. Wasn’t criticizing TheJeff at all. Was meaning we’d probably all not want to lie their while they farted around with anything before they could start checking us out.

Nope, nor rancor intended. Sorry about that.

–Rocik[/quote]

No worries RickO… Rocik?… Rocky… whatever

Text does a poor job of conveying tone of voice at times.

I too miss the Raiders shield yard markers. Did the Chargers do that as well, or did they use diamonds?

think they used barcodes

[quote comment=”353936″][quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

it’s all becoming very clear now, jim[/quote]

Tomorrow, Diet Coke over Lucky Charms.
(or Red Bull if you really need to get going in a hurry).

[quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.

[quote comment=”353937″][quote comment=”353936″][quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

it’s all becoming very clear now, jim[/quote]

Tomorrow, Diet Coke over Lucky Charms.
(or Red Bull if you really need to get going in a hurry).[/quote]

You get me, you really really get me!

That sounds almost as good yesterday’s lunch of canned tuna and cheddar chex mix. Add a little cracked black pepper and when it all soaks together it’s goooood.

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.

Never bothered this guy:

link

Ahh yes…memories of my mom bribing me with a white cherry frozen coke if I behaved myself at Target.

Interesting work from LI Phil and JTH on Sunday.

The poll made me wonder what the results did reveal about the Uniwatch group that we didn’t already know. I don’t think it was exactly a secret that most here would call themselves “traditionalists” and everyone knew this blog had a majority male readership. If there’s been any prior polls, how was the response rate then? Has the readership changed “locations”? I for one was a little surprised to see that the readership wasn’t as East Coast-centric as I gathered from reading the comments here.

The other thing brought to mind was whether this blog has ever led the conversation: we’ve read interviews with team and league officials about what will happen in the future, but has anyone ever consulted the writers about a decision before it’s made?

Try Again

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.

Never bothered this guy:

link

[quote comment=”353934″]Damn, I just inadvertently revealed my name back on my home planet. Now Bill Lee and I may have to leave. Rickey Henderson, too.[/quote]
So they’ve let you know that you’re free to return now?

;-)

[quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

—Ricko

Oops,

That should be this link uni picture for my preferred Dolphins at home uniforms (in post #100).

Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.

[quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.

“If I remember correctly, when the Dolphins first introduced the orange alts, there was lots of speculation that they wanted to remind people of the Hurricanes. And therefore get Cane fans to become Dolphin fans too. ”

LOL. I can practically guarantee you no conversations like that ever took place with the Dolphins. That’s bloggers trying to imagine what it’s like on the inside of a pro sports organization. Don’t buy into it. Dolphins chose orange simply because the only other option for an alt would be navy. Nothing more than that.

Given the popularity of the NFL and the Dolphins, I simply cannot imagine them feeling the need to focus time and money on Hurricane fans as a market segment. Just…no. Would be like saying, “Let’s target the Methodists”. If they target all football fans, that’ll capture Hurricane fans in the process.

And I wasn’t supporting that navy jersey. Said if they absolutely feel the need to have one, navy would be a look they could own in South Florida, not one they’d share with the Hurricanes. That’s all.

—Ricko

No Mas made the list!
link
And what a horrible list it is…

[quote comment=”353964″]Phil,

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

The mystery of Brett Kern solved:

link

link

oops, here it is:

link

Ronaldhino’s signature boots:

link

link

[quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

link

link

It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.

[quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

link

link

It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

They look to be in nearly identical areas of the crease but Kipprusoff is more upright and inflated whereas the other tender is hunched over and is just in terrible posture for a goalie. Granted he obviously doesn’t have much for chest protection compared to Kipper.

[quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they link

iggles link, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

jets should never wear green pants…BUT…at least they have the good sense to link, AND they link

dolfish, on the other hand, should NOT wear link

they should have worn link with that getup[/quote]

Those green pants are great.

[quote comment=”353972″][quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

link

link

It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

So was Rogie Vachon an anorexic midget? Because the net in his picture is HUGE compared to him. And I’m saying that Vachon’s height and weight are no different than, say, link.[/quote]

To be fair, the first pic is taken from an “above the bar” aspect compared the second pic which is taken from a lower angle. Not saying the first goaltender is the same size, but it is probably closer than it looks.

I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get!

If you really want to compare the difference in pads beingfit for a player and pads being big for being big sake compare Brodeur and Fleury in this photo. Keep in mind Brodeur is 6’2″ 216 lbs one of the bigger goalies in the league. Fleury is 6’1″ 180 pounds. Yet Brodeurs gear is much smaller. Also compare the chest and arm protectors in the background.
link

[quote comment=”353972″][quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

link

link

It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

So was Rogie Vachon an anorexic midget? Because the net in his picture is HUGE compared to him. And I’m saying that Vachon’s height and weight are no different than, say, link.[/quote]

I picked Vachon for the “old school” picture because, in my head anyway, he’s the icon for looking tiny in the net with his exaggerated crouch.

[quote]Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.[/quote]

so, basically, year round then

[quote comment=”353968″]I think something we’re missing here in the pad debate is that the game itself has changed. The style of goaltending has changed dramatically, the speed, size, and capabilities of today’s players far outweighs that of yesteryear. I highly doubt that any goalie prior to the late 80’s would want to face a slapper from one of today’s players with his old equipment.

I do think that goalie pads are a tad oversized, but not by as much as people would think. In the end I think this may force smaller goalies to change their style of play as the butterfly style of today is very equipment dependent. Although most sports favor larger players these days so I guess that’s not a big deal.[/quote]

Goalies from the 60’s and 70’s were much tougher then goalies today, their pads were pillows taped to their legs and many wore no mask at all and plenty of players could hit a puck just as hard as players today. Todays gear is specially designed and tested to provide as much protection and be as lightweight as possible.

Changing the size of the gear won’t change the style of play, smaller goalies will still be able to use the butterfly they just might not cover as much but it’s bit just about size, some of the better goalies in the league are smaller. Tim Thomas won the Vezina trophy last year and is 5’11”. Playing goalies is more about, quickness, reflects, anticipation, and awareness then size.

[quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

Choosing to use larger pads is slightly different than being short or tall. Short people don’t choose to be short; they are. To make up for their competitive disadvantage, they are using larger padding to cover up holes that may be exposed. How is that not cheating?

If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.

And safety isn’t compromised because you are receiving the correct amount of padding for your height.

[quote comment=”353956″][quote comment=”353924″]link just doesn’t “get it.”[/quote]

“Some 1700s long-snapper.” Brilliant writing. I guess the “D” in his name is for Dope.[/quote]

I haven’t read the article but it may be best to keep in mind that DJ Gallo is a sports satirist.. everything should come with a grain of salt.

[quote comment=”353971″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they link

iggles link, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

jets should never wear green pants…BUT…at least they have the good sense to link, AND they link

dolfish, on the other hand, should NOT wear link

they should have worn link with that getup[/quote]

Those green pants are great.[/quote]

Dark pants are to football the equivalent of what dark jerseys are to baseball. Those who prefer the former are probably more amenable to the latter.

[quote comment=”353919″]Does La-Monroe have a pharmacy school?

link
What gave that away?

[quote comment=”353985″][quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

Choosing to use larger pads is slightly different than being short or tall. Short people don’t choose to be short; they are. To make up for their competitive disadvantage, they are using larger padding to cover up holes that may be exposed. How is that not cheating?

If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.

And safety isn’t compromised because you are receiving the correct amount of padding for your height.[/quote]

Teebz hit it just right, think about this argument for positions players, Martin St. Louis is 5’9″ and Zdeno Chara is 6’9″ so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.

Plus goalies pads are designed to protect them and nothing more, they aren’t supposed to be designed to help stop pucks or give the goalie an advantage. A 5’11” goalie wearing 38 pads has nothing to do with safety or protection.

so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.

If he can be effective with it, then yes. They didn’t make Jimmy Wynn hit home runs with a 26 inch bat.

(reslly sorry if I’m butting into a great argument-you guys keep it up) :)

Re: cooking/breakfast tips

Try putting your cereal bowl in the freezer the night before. A frozen bowl keeps the milk REALLY cold and delicious!

Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

Pretty simple analogy to me.

[quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]
So EVERY team that doesn’t have those colors in their color scheme should only wear white on white?

That’s boring as hell.

And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.

link

I think he started wearing the dark visor when he was with the Chargers.

[quote comment=”354004″][quote comment=”353996″][quote comment=”353988″]
Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?[/quote]

I’d take the more talented goalie over the less talented goalie any day of the week.

But I’d also take the more talented goalie with giant net-filling padding over the very same goalie with tiny pads.[/quote]

Right, therefore…

Cheating + skill = goalie who appears better than he actually is. These are the guys who will suffer when the new rules are in place. The guys who have been working on mostly skill will only have to adjust slightly.

[quote comment=”354004″][quote comment=”353996″][quote comment=”353988″]
Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?[/quote]

I’d take the more talented goalie over the less talented goalie any day of the week.

But I’d also take the more talented goalie with giant net-filling padding over the very same goalie with tiny pads.[/quote]

It’s not giant net filling padding, all goalies will be under the same rules current rules only allow for pads to be 38″ high and 11″ wide. The only change the NHL is making is the height sizing for the height of the goalies.

The best example for pads size meaning nothing is Martin Brodeur, arguably the greatest goalie to ever play the game uses much smaller pads most goalies even those much smaller then him. It’s al about skill, some of the best goalies to ever play were smaller guys. If it’s just about size why is Stephen Valiquette who is the tallest goalie in the league at 6’5″ is a backup to Henrick Lundqvist who is 6’1″.

Speaking of the Phillies blue button, anyone else think it should white instead of blue? I always found that to be one of the most oddest button choices in MLB. I think the Phillies would look better if they went to an all red & white scheme.

One More:
link

[quote comment=”354010″][quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

—Ricko[/quote]

I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

Duh,

link

link

Forgot about Jim McMahan after he left the Bears, going to a dark visor, he wore it with the Chargers, too. Don’t remember him wearing a dark visor while in Chicago, clearly his peak years. Of course, you remember why you saw him with shades in those interviews, he had a childhood accident with a fork which injured one of his eyes, making that eye sensitive to light.

Couple things I’d like to add to this goalie pad debate:

1) Brodeur wasn’t a pure butterfly goalie, the larger pads would actually have hurt his style of play, not everyone can play his style just like he wouldn’t have been as successful as a butterflier. Same thing with Hasek.

2) In the end size will become a bigger advantage/disadvantage as skill sets of NHL goaltenders aren’t wildly out of whack. Given nearly identical skill sets of a 5’9″ goalie vs a 6’2″ goalie with the new rules, the 6’2″ goalie will win in every case. Size will play a part in the future. Especially if smaller goalies continue to trend toward the butterfly style.

[quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]

But then we’d never have these beauties:
link
link
link
link
link
link

Not saying I want every team in colorful pants, but I wouldn’t want every team in white or gray, either.

[quote comment=”354016″]Couple things I’d like to add to this goalie pad debate:

1) Brodeur wasn’t a pure butterfly goalie, the larger pads would actually have hurt his style of play, not everyone can play his style just like he wouldn’t have been as successful as a butterflier. Same thing with Hasek.

2) In the end size will become a bigger advantage/disadvantage as skill sets of NHL goaltenders aren’t wildly out of whack. Given nearly identical skill sets of a 5’9″ goalie vs a 6’2″ goalie with the new rules, the 6’2″ goalie will win in every case. Size will play a part in the future. Especially if smaller goalies continue to trend toward the butterfly style.[/quote]

It’s not a disadvantage being short! Stop calling it that! You play the cards you were dealt, or you walk away. It’s that simple.

If a 6’2″ goalie was the norm in the NHL, guys like Curtis Joseph (5’11”), Jose Theodore (5’11”), and John Vanbiesbrouck (5’8″) wouldn’t have stood a chance against guys like Sean Burke (6’4″) and Martin Biron (6’3″).

The average height of today’s goaltenders is about 6’1″. There are shorter guys and there are taller guys. Changing the HEIGHT of their pads only makes them more honest in their trade. Instead of letting the taller pads do the work in covering the five-hole and the wider chest protectors cover the holes under the arms, they will have to adapt or they will lose their jobs. Short goalies will now have to earn their jobs purely through skill rather than a combination of ginormous padding and some skill.

It’s not unfair that anyone is short. That’s genetics. If you want to complain, take it up with science.

Pads are there to protect the goaltender, not make the save for the goaltender. That’s what this new rule change is about.

[quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

so…none of these then?

(except for the white over white)

[quote comment=”354022″][quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

so…link?

(except for the white over white)[/quote]
You could almost make a case for the red over yellow, with the link.

ALMOST.

I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
inGoal Magazine

[quote comment=”354026″]I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
inGoal Magazine[/quote]

Pads are supposed to be there for protection only, the fact that they have become tools for stopping pucks is the problem. And to your argument the other way how is it fair that a shorter goalie should get pads that fit him much bigger then others. What the NHL is doing is making it fair and level. That your pads will fit your the way they should to protect you and nothing else. Why should a shorter goalies get a 5 inch thigh rise and a taller goalie only get a 1 inch thigh rise.

[quote comment=”354026″]I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
inGoal Magazine[/quote]

So why doesn’t an NHL team simply sign a piece of plywood that stands 5′ tall and 6′ wide, and cut tiny slots in it to give the appearance that goals can be scored on it?

Do larger people buy the same size clothing as smaller people? Do you think that Andre the Giant would shop at the same store as Charlie Chaplin?

So why does Charlie Chaplin get to wear padding that only Andre the Giant could wear? Because he can?

Just because a goalie can wear larger equipment doesn’t give him the right to.

[quote comment=”354029″][quote comment=”354014″][quote comment=”354010″][quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

—Ricko[/quote]

I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

Duh,

link

link

Forgot about Jim McMahan after he left the Bears, going to a dark visor, he wore it with the Chargers, too. Don’t remember him wearing a dark visor while in Chicago, clearly his peak years. Of course, you remember why you saw him with shades in those interviews, he had a childhood accident with a fork which injured one of his eyes, making that eye sensitive to light.[/quote]

Here is a great article on Jimmy Mac wearing a Bear’s jersey when he went to visit the White House as part of the Super Bowl Champion Packers in 1997. Anyways… the picture in the article shows Jimmy Mac with a tinted visor with his stint with the Packers. How many other players have won a Championship with the Packers and Bears?

link

Here is another link from Packers.com. You can clearly see Jimmy Mac wearing his dark visor at the top, but in the bottom banner pic., he is not wearing one.

link

Jimmy Mac in a Cards uni.. weird:
link

Bah, I deleted the end of my post on accident. While I’ve grown up with nothing but oversized pads for the majority of my playing/coaching career I don’t notice as much as some people would. I can agree with those of you that are saying that the pads have become the tool of the save in some areas rather than the tool of safety.

[quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
link

Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.

“Teebz hit it just right, think about this argument for positions players, Martin St. Louis is 5′9″ and Zdeno Chara is 6′9″ so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.”

I think you have the argument 180 degrees from what it should be. The point is that St. Louis and Chara have to use sticks that conform to standard NHL size rules. (Not sure if there are length rules. I know there are blade rules.) The league does not say: “Chara, you are tall, you get to use a stick this size. St. Louis, you are short, you don’t get to use the stick that Chara uses.” Each player is free to choose the stick that best suits his needs, so long as it meets the league standard. One standard for all players.

Imagine if MLB had a rule that Freddy Patek could only use a 29″ bat while George Theodore or Dave Winfield could use one 36″ long. If the league had such a rule, we would laugh at them.

There should be one set of rules for all players. This lets skill show through.

[quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
link

Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.

“The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.

No screen shot, but in the pats-broncos game I saw a patriots player with sleeves on his arms that had stripes to match the red socks. I saw it on tv just before a commercial when a timeout was called with 13 min left in overtime. I’ve never seen this, has anyone else?

[quote comment=”354018″][quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]

I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties. B-O-R-I-N-G.
Do you eat the same thing for breakfast everyday. Wear the same charcoal grey suit to the office everyday?

[quote comment=”354042″]”The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.[/quote]

Okay, the one rule for everyone is that every goalie must wear pads that are fitted so as to only serve as protection as intended and not as an aid for stopping the puck.

Got it? Pads are not supposed to be about stopping the puck. They’re supposed to be for protection.

Since we’re talking about hockey (for once!) I’ll take this opportunity to plug the team I coach for and look for your opinions on our Unis. I sent them to Paul a few days ago for his take and I nailed it on the head in regards to what he’d say (except I didn’t expect the word gewgaws).

Northwood University Timberwolves located in Midland, MI.

link and link

link and link
link and link

Couple of things of note. Our logos are reversed by design. The home has had the script and the road, the logo, since the program’s inception in the early 80’s. Also, the columbia’s were donated by one of the families because their kids always said we should have a columbia alt. As bad as they are with their extras the kids love em.

[quote comment=”354042″][quote comment=”354042″]”The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.[/quote]

There is one rule for everyone. You wear pads that fit your body, or you don’t play. Short goalies abused the 38″ rule, so now they will wear what fits.

Tall or small, everyone will play according to their inseam measurement.

[quote comment=”354053″]i miss the days when garth snow link

stop making sense teebz[/quote]

Garth Snow: below-average GM, average goalie, talented dresser.

[quote comment=”354051″][quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
link

Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.[/quote]

The Chiefs-Cowboys discussion nothwithstanding I, too, would have excluded the Dolphins and Bengals. The plain truth is, they simply were not there at the beginning, and ostensibly that’s what this is all about.

In fact, I’d have mandated that the original 8 wear their 1960 unis, no exceptions. They aren’t recognizing the entire 50 years, they’re recalling Year One.

That way everyone finally could have seen the three-cornered-hat Patriots, loopless Titans, royal & silver Bills, correct Oilers (their Legacy roads have a couple pretty glaring mistakes), blue-bolt Chargers and black & gold Raiders, all of which—like the Broncos’ gold & brown until last Sunday—have never seen live in color on TV. And still haven’t been.

That’s if they were more than half-assed serious about their own history, of course.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”354055″]link for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details link. And the team’s link has already made the switch.

In case you’re wondering, here are a few link link[/quote]

Those old Zephyrs looked more like Bephyrs.

[quote comment=”353980″][quote]Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.[/quote]

so, basically, year round then[/quote]
They’ve got all three seasons in Quebec: July, August and winter.

[quote comment=”354055″]link for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details link. And the team’s link has already made the switch.

In case you’re wondering, here are a few link link[/quote]
I’m still surprised that they kept the Dikeou family’s chosen team name when they moved the Zs from Denver. Seventeen seasons in NO and still named after a Denver train.

[quote comment=”354059″]
Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but link. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.

[quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they link

[/quote]

If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.

[quote comment=”354063″]
In one word? No.

Why move to make a save if you’re short? Just let the pads do all the work.

In all seriousness, it would make them slower to a degree, but that would be made up for in spades with the bigger pads. The larger pads would cover more of the holes they are forced to cover with smaller pads.[/quote]
Okay, so doesn’t this just lead to a war of pad height? Even the guy who’s 6-6 would want the tallest pads possible, wouldn’t he?

If everyone is free to go up to their own personal limit of “dexterity” with the height of their pads then everyone will be equal I’d say.

[quote comment=”354059″][quote comment=”354056″][quote comment=”354051″][quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
link

Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.[/quote]

The Chiefs-Cowboys discussion nothwithstanding I, too, would have excluded the Dolphins and Bengals. The plain truth is, they simply were not there at the beginning, and ostensibly that’s what this is all about.

In fact, I’d have mandated that the original 8 wear their 1960 unis, no exceptions. They aren’t recognizing the entire 50 years, they’re recalling Year One.

That way everyone finally could have seen the three-cornered-hat Patriots, loopless Titans, royal & silver Bills, correct Oilers (their Legacy roads have a couple pretty glaring mistakes), blue-bolt Chargers and black & gold Raiders, all of which—like the Broncos’ gold & brown until last Sunday—have never seen live in color on TV. And still haven’t been.

That’s if they were more than half-assed serious about their own history, of course.

—Ricko[/quote]

Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

The red wings had a chance to wear white pants this winter classic, the unis they wore would have been matched with them.

I want to see some NHL team bring that look back for a game. Perhaps the Canadians will drag them out for one of the throwback games this year- in the very early years of the NHL, they were the standard. Then they went to natural leather, then to colors.

More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.

[quote comment=”354069″][quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but link. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

I don’t think the white pants made it through their entire first season, I think they were given the boot after a few months. At one time, that site showed both pants for the initial season.[/quote]

In fact what “nhluniforms.com” says is: As if the Caps’ horrible record wasn’t enough to make them the laughingstock of the NHL, they had to deal with the ridicule that came with wearing white pants, which they did with their red jerseys for a few games at the beginning of the season. The white pants were quickly retired

[quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

you should be watching 30 for 30

“the band that wouldn’t die”

/great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]

thanks (although the 2nd play from scrimmage was a 60 yd td pass)

[quote comment=”354066″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they link

[/quote]

If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.[/quote]
My issue is not with green (or colored) pants in general. The Chiefs’ red pants look sharp as do (I think) the Bears’ navy ones. I just don’t think the Jets greens look good at all. ESPECIALLY when paired with the green jersey… they look like big sticks of deodorant.

[quote comment=”354064″]Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]
It actually link, but only if you navigate to the 1974-75 season first and then choose the Caps’ unis. If you go directly to the Caps’ unis and then pick 74-75, the whites aren’t shown for some reason.

The same is true of the Winter Classic unis. If you go by team first and then pick the specific season you don’t see them. However, if you go to 2009-10, then select the Bruins or Flyers, they are shown (same for the Hawks & Wings last year and the Pens & Sabres the year before).

[quote comment=”354078″][quote comment=”354066″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those link green pants.[/quote]

I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they link

[/quote]

If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.[/quote]
My issue is not with green (or colored) pants in general. The Chiefs’ red pants look sharp as do (I think) the Bears’ navy ones. I just don’t think the Jets greens look good at all. ESPECIALLY when paired with the green jersey… they look like big sticks of deodorant.[/quote]
There are definitely some teams that I think look terrible wearing dark pants: Chargers, Bengals(orange would be a huge improvement), Patriots, Cardinals, Saints, Dolphins to name a few.

There are also some teams that I like in dark pants: Bears, Redskins, Eagles, Chiefs, Texans. I’m even warming to the Titans’ powder blues and I don’t hate the Jets’ greens — in both cases, only when paired with the white jerseys.

Yeah, that’s a shot from the league All-Star game. Knapp is wearing the old style uni with a columbia underlay while Valentage is wearing the new style. Hadn’t noticed that before I posted it.

[quote comment=”354084″]Yeah, that’s a shot from the league All-Star game. Knapp is wearing the old style uni with a columbia underlay while Valentage is wearing the new style. Hadn’t noticed that before I posted it.[/quote]
I gotta say that I like 5 of the 6 pictures. Everything but the front view of the alts looks really nice. But even the front of the alt isn’t that bad. They’re a bit jumbled, but not ridiculously so.

Any reason for no NOB on the road blues whereas the other two have NOBs?

[quote comment=”354065″]I’d like to be Manon Rheaume’s pads –
Her maxi-pads![/quote]

Well, that’s classy.

[quote comment=”354088″][quote comment=”354065″]I’d like to be Manon Rheaume’s pads –
Her maxi-pads![/quote]

Well, that’s classy.[/quote]
Is it any wonder more women don’t visit?

[quote comment=”354093″][quote comment=”354090″]
Is it any wonder more women don’t visit?[/quote]What was the stat from the survey ? Five percent female, and 7 points UNDECIDED?

BTW, I think (I just caught the news highlights) that for the Hawks opening night, Hull went no name on back while Espo had his name on the jersey.[/quote]
Hull, Mikita and Esposito all wore era-appropriate replica jerseys. For some reason, Savard wore an Edge.

[quote comment=”354085″][quote comment=”354081″]I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

I could go on.

So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

(Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

—Ricko[/quote]

Obviously.

You have to admit it’s not a bad guideline. Add in exceptions for teams that use the same off-color for both home & away (Steelers, Giants), and an exception to allow white helmeted teams to use pants that match their home jerseys (Jets, Titans, Dolphins) and it pretty much works.

Not sure if I’d like the Bengals in orange pants or not, and Denver would fail badly because of the swooshes… but other than that it’s not too bad.

Not that it needs to be a real rule or anything, but if it was, maybe there’d be less use of the SAME DAMN SHADE OF NAVY across the league. More color variety wouldn’t be a bad thing.[/quote]

We’re talking about getting rid of white jerseys sometimes, but we’d require some teams (based on the design of their home uis) to have different road pants? We’re saying the “contrast” issue is vanishing, and there was—and still is—a practical reason for them. There’s no practical reason to require different road pants.

Besides, how you gonna legislate “good taste”? And who’s the arbiter of said good taste?

Like it or not, teams have a right to wear ugly unis. Or unis some of us find to be ugly.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”354096″]And who’s the arbiter of said good taste?[/quote]
Raises hand, waves it madly: “OOH, PICK ME, PICK ME!”

[quote comment=”354099″][quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

you should be watching 30 for 30

“the band that wouldn’t die”

/great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]
Watching it off the DVR. Locally we all know this story, but it’s freat to get the Barry Levinson treatment and national exposure.[/quote]

was incredible…everyone who didn’t see it should find out when it’s on again (i think 11 eastern tonight, plus tomorrow and thursday)

totally worth it!

[quote comment=”354097″][quote comment=”354094″]Hull, Mikita and Esposito all wore era-appropriate replica jerseys.[/quote]
Interesting. I didn’t know that-but I didn’t see the game and I was kind of incommunicado after about noon Saturday. I just went to the Hawk’s site, and it’s sort of amazing to see how “flat” the Indian Head logo looks on Espo.

Very hard to find a picture of Hull during his playing days showing the back of his jersey. Plenty of him showing #16, one from the back during a fight with Howe (judging from his hair, pretty early in Bobby’s career) but not a lot from that early 70’s era. Maybe I don’t remember when they went to names on back.

I guess in the era of 12 teams, they didn’t need more than the number though. :-)[/quote]
The crest’s flatness is due to the link. It looks fantastic up close, but the black outline makes the link pop a little more.

Hull didn’t wear an NOB in his time in Chicago.

link

link
link

Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
link

Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”354106″]Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
link

Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

—Ricko[/quote]
That would be a great throwback for them.

[quote comment=”354074″][quote comment=”354069″][quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but link. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

I don’t think the white pants made it through their entire first season, I think they were given the boot after a few months. At one time, that site showed both pants for the initial season.[/quote]

In fact what “nhluniforms.com” says is: As if the Caps’ horrible record wasn’t enough to make them the laughingstock of the NHL, they had to deal with the ridicule that came with wearing white pants, which they did with their red jerseys for a few games at the beginning of the season. The white pants were quickly retired[/quote]

According to the Capitals’ site, they were link.

I like that new New Orleans Zephyrs logo. Nice improvement over the beaver thing.

Also, add “Wild Rebel” to the list of Wildcat clones. Ole Miss uses that one.

[quote comment=”354062″][quote comment=”354055″]link for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details link. And the team’s link has already made the switch.

In case you’re wondering, here are a few link link[/quote]
I’m still surprised that they kept the Dikeou family’s chosen team name when they moved the Zs from Denver. Seventeen seasons in NO and still named after a Denver train.[/quote]
But I don’t think you realize that the “Zephyr” moniker is perfectly suitable for New Orleans because of nostalgia. An old amusement park called link had a wooden coaster as its signature ride. It’s name? The link.