Skip to content
 
Uni Watch

Monday Morning Uni Watch

By

For all photos in this section, click to enlarge

Good morning! Very interesting collision of styles yesterday in Tampa. On one side of the ball were the Colts, wearing what might be the NFL’s definitive old-school uniform — one color plus white, block numerals, a design that’s been more or less unchanged for more than six decades. On the other side were the Bucs, wearing their newfangled mono-red costumes — a design that’s now in its sixth season and may not make it to a seventh. Regardless of which style you prefer, it sure made for a weird-looking game, because the two teams looked like they came from different universes (and uni-verses). Lots of additional pics here, here, and here.

In other news from around the league yesterday:

• The 49ers added a “TY” helmet decal for team CEO Jed York’s brother, Tony, who died by suicide a year ago Saturday:

• The Jets wore their awful mono-BFBS alternates:

• The Browns went mono-turd:

• When it comes to the Bills, the only thing I like less than them going mono-blue is when they go mono-red:

• Speaking of red, the Texans wore their red alternates:

• The Jaguars went mono-black:

• The Patriots wore their mono-navy alternates:

If you add the Saints going mono-black (which I don’t call out anymore because it has become their standard home look, just like I don’t call out the Seahawks going mono-navy at home), that means seven out of yesterday’s 14 games featured at least one team in a non-white mono-chromatic uniform. That’s way too many!

• In that Pats/Chiefs game, Pats wideout Julian Edelman had the standard NFL logo on his collar, instead of the NFL centennial logo:

• There was a weird situation prior to that Chiefs/Pats game, as some of KC’s pads and helmets were mistakenly sent to New Jersey instead of to Massachusetts. The gear was re-routed and arrived in time for the game, however.

• The Lions went white over blue, which isn’t remarkable but I’m mentioning it because I like it sooooo much better than any of their other uni combos (even with the annoying leotard effect):

• In that same game, the Vikings’ stadium mistakenly put a Broncos logo, instead of a Lions logo, on the scoreboard:

• Three weeks ago I counted 18 Ravens players with pockets sewn into their purple jerseys. Yesterday I counted 22 of them with pockets sewn into their white jerseys! Here they are in uni-numerical order:

• Prior to the Steelers/Cardinals game in Arizona, Steelers linebacker Devin Bush apparently dunked a ball over one of the goalposts — which required a goalpost repair:

• Yesterday was this year’s “wear custom-designed cleats for charity” day. Remember what a big fuss everyone made over that when it launched in 2016? This year I barely heard a peep about it.

• No home team wore white.

(My thanks to Andrew Julian, Matt Snyder, and Jerry Wolper for their contributions to this section.)

• • • • •

• • • • •

What makes a “great game”? All the postgame and highlight shows yesterday were saying that the 49ers/Saints game — a 48-46 Niners victory — was a “great game” or a “classic” or “one for the ages.”

I watched this game myself (and as a lifelong Niners fan was very pleased with the outcome), and I can affirm that it was certainly exciting. But was it great football? As you can tell from the score, the defense was pretty dreadful on both sides, with lots of blown coverage and missed tackles. Plenty of stupid penalties on both sides, too (including one on the Saints that probably cost them the game). Is that what constitutes a “great” game — lousy defense that leads to lots of scoring?

I’ve often thought the same thing about boxing, where the bouts that get described as “great” are invariably the ones in which both fighters absorb a lot of shots to the head — in other words, the fights with lousy defense. I agree that this can be exciting, but should poor technique really be called “great”?

Discuss.

• • • • •

• • • • •

rafflet ticket by ben thoma.jpg

ITEM! Another membership raffle: Today we’re raffling off the last of the five memberships that were recently donated by reader David Cline.

This will be a one-day raffle. To enter, send an email to the raffle address by 8pm Eastern tonight. One entry per person. I’ll announce the winners tomorrow. Mega-thanks to David for sponsoring all these raffles!

• • • • •

• • • • •

Click to enlarge

KY deli: Yes, it’s a juvenile joke. But come on, it’s funny!

• • • • •

• • • • •

Photo by the New Girl, Oct. 24, 2014; click to enlarge

Sigh, time for the black armband again: Very sad news out of Wisconsin, where longtime reader/pal Jeff Ash informed me that Marcy Skowronski, the pint-sized proprietress of Holler House — the awesome Milwaukee bar with America’s oldest pair of league-sanctioned lanes in the basement — died on Thursday at the age of 93.

I first drank and bowled at Holler House in October of 1997, and have been back many times since then. While I always loved the setting, the crowd, and the amazing bowling scene (live pinboys, no auto-setting machines!), the high point was invariably Marcy herself. Always welcoming (she never remembered my name but usually said, “I know you, you’re that guy from out of town, right?”), always trash-talking, always long on humor and short on patience for BS, she was an American original. I’m lucky to have known her, and to have bowled at Holler House. R.I.P.

• • • • •

• • • • •

The Ticker
By Jamie Rathjen

Football News: Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update segment included a uniform-based joke about the XFL (from Darrel Marusek). … There’s also a video about the making of the XFL’s ball (from Mike Chamernik). … Yesterday’s school of the day from Blaise D’Sylva’s helmet collections was a doozy — Oregon. Scroll through that thread to see all 92 helmet designs! Paul will have more about Blaise and his assorted helmet-related projects soon. … The clue for 26 across in today’s New York Times crossword puzzle is “Only NFL team that doesn’t have a logo on their helmets.”

Hockey News: The WHL’s Edmonton Oil Kings did a teddy bear toss game on Saturday and wore white and dark-blue uniforms. Their opponents, the Calgary Hitmen, also brought the teddy-themed uniforms from their teddy bear toss, creating what Wade Heidt thinks is the first teddy-on-teddy matchup. … The next three are also from Wade: The OHL’s Niagara IceDogs wore teddy bear toss uniforms as well. … The QMJHL’s Sherbrooke Phoenix wore their annual Christmas-themed uniform. … A Canucks blog wrote about the team’s uniforms and picked a “worst” one, and you, too, can vote on which one is the worst. … UNLV’s club team also wore Christmas sweaters (from Bryan Metcalf). … On Saturday, Dallas’s arena hosted the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks in the afternoon and the Stars at night. Here’s a time-lapse of how the crew flipped the playing surface from hardwood to ice (from Mike Chamernik).

Basketball News: Florida State wore gold at home against Clemson (from Josh Hinton). … San Diego State wore the Michael Jordan/Bulls-themed alternates revealed last week, which created a color-vs.-color game with San Jose State (from multiple readers). … Furman and Auburn, who played each other on Thursday night, both had unusual shoulder ticking (from Timmy Donahue). … Cross-listed from the hockey section: On Saturday, Dallas’s arena hosted the Mavericks in the afternoon and the NHL’s Dallas Stars at night. Here’s a time-lapse of how the crew flipped the playing surface from hardwood to ice (from Mike Chamernik).

Soccer News: In the Premier League, Aston Villa wore black armbands for former manager Ron Saunders, who passed away on Saturday. … The next two items are wrapping up the Rainbow Laces campaign in the UK: Tottenham Hotspur Stadium was lit in rainbow twice last week, including during the home team’s game on Saturday. … England’s Women’s Super League had their own version of the rainbow captain’s armbands — with definitely the most writing or logos I’ve ever seen on one — this week. … We mentioned German team Borussia Dortmund’s entirely black on-field merch dump 110th-anniversary shirt yesterday, but the shorts and socks also appeared to be different than BVB’s other black shorts and socks, which would make three different pairs of black shorts and two pairs of black socks for them on the season. … As we mentioned, Southampton wore last season’s third shirt, but with the shorts and socks from this season’s first kit (from Mike Miller). … Estadio Azteca in Mexico City still has visible field markings from the NFL game there Nov. 18, though yesterday was only Club América’s second home game there since then (from Josh Hinton). … Also from Josh: new third kit (worn on Thanksgiving) for Danish team FC Copenhagen, and the ball for the upcoming Club World Cup was revealed. … You can see more on Josh’s Twitter feed. … New shirts also for Irish team St. Patrick’s Athletic, Japanese team Consadole Sapporo, and Swedish team Hammarby IF. … The UNC women’s team wore jerseys with an argyle pattern on the back.

Grab Bag: Two new National Lacrosse League teams, the expansion New York Riptide and the relocated Halifax Thunderbirds, played for the first time. “Halifax have elected to go with white helmets even with their purple uniforms,” says Wade Heidt. … Australian Football League club Collingwood has a new-ish tradition of giving its top draft pick No. 35 for the following season, which is continuing for 2020.

 
  
 
Categories
NFL
Comments (70)

    I feel the same about the Niners Saints game. More offense isn’t always more exciting. I did however find the gold vs gold interesting. The Saints have a Vegas gold helmet (but can never make the gold on their jerseys match) and the Niners have more of a bold gold. Have both teams always had the same shade of gold on their helmets they wear today?

    I do remember when the golds look really close to the same between the 2 teams. Saints have changed to the more Vegas gold.

    link

    At least they are actually shades of gold. It could always be mustard yellow called “gold” … anyone wish the Steelrateguins other color was red? Guessing Heinz would pay a fortune for them to refer to their uniforms as “ketchup and mustard”

    Could not agree with you more. I’ve watched so many lowER scoring, tight ball games where I felt both teams really played great.

    A great game is evenly matched and well-played by both teams on all fronts. In a game with a final score of, say, 14-13, the 1-point margin represents a 7% differential. That one point is huuuuuge. So every play, every possession, represents a potentially decisive turn in the game. Whereas in the no-defense dual-blowout of 48-46, the difference represents only 4%, and any additional point only 2%, of the margin. When the score is that big, even though the game remains close, every play and possession matters that much less.

    A game in which both teams show good offense, good defense, and good special teams may not be a one-point game, but it will be low-scoring, and it will be exciting. A no-defense dual-blowout can be fun to watch, but it’s not exciting, and it’s not a great game.

    There were 2 huge comebacks during the game on both sides. I wouldnt say it’s a great game but great games to me also arent 10-7 snoozefests either.. just because the score is close doesnt make it great either. Big moments, lead changes, moving the ball, explosive plays, momentum changing interceptions/fumbles make it for me.

    Why are the Browns singled out for scatological ridicule (“mono-turd”) on a regular basis but the Padres given a pass?

    Can we look forward to references to their “turd shirts” in the future?

    As soon as the Padres go mono-brown, I’ll refer to them as mono-turd.

    It’s the combination of brown on brown that earns the “turd” descriptor. (I never refer to the Browns’ jerseys this way on their own. Indeed, I singled out a brown Browns jersey in this year’s Gift Guide.)

    The irony is that the Browns Brown/Brown look should be venerated, not relegated to this scatological moniker. I am not even a Browns fan and it pains me to read that. When the Browns wear Brown/Brown, they should be referred to as “The Browns”. :)

    Brown is such a rare color in sports, and a fine one. Just don’t like it being called shitty.

    I think because it’s a terrible look. Going with matching jerseys and pants always looks bad under a lighter color helmet. I suppose if the Padres had dark brown jerseys and pants they would also look terrible and be called turds as well.

    Games worthy of the ‘instant classic’ moniker can come in many different score-styles. I’m totally fine with high-scoring games carrying the title if it’s clear that the high-powered, skillfully-crafted offenses are what’s driving the pace of the game, and not poor defensive scheming and play.

    Generally, to me, this consists of game where there aren’t a ton of penalties, missed tackles, broken coverages, etc…but just defenses playing their best but not being able to stop what’s on the other side of the line of scrimmage as them. If the Saints/49ers game included a bunch of missed tackles and stupid penalties then yea I can understand how some would roll their eyes at the immediate beatifying of such a contest. But the score itself is not an immediate disqualifier.

    If you really want to get pedantic and hair-split on what constitutes a “logo”, you could argue that the Bengals‘ helmet doesn’t have one.

    I think the accepted definition of a great game, in this case, is two good teams that are “evenly matched” play down to the last second. Obviously, defining a great game is pretty subjective. If the Saints had blown out the Niners, I bet about half of the audience would have thought that it was a great game and vice versa.

    Personally, I tend to agree with the “evenly matched” definition. I think your point about bad defenses and mistakes is relatively moot, because that is just the essence of the game. If the result was 3-0 instead, would that have been a great game? Obviously the offenses would have reversed position with the defenses in their level of suckitude. What perfect balance of scoring would adequately qualify it as a great game? Here we go back to subjectivity.

    If the result was 3-0 instead, would that have been a great game?

    Probably not, because that would likely involve inept offense instead of inept defense. I’d like to think there’s a middle ground between a game with 90+ points and a game with three points. I’d rather see good technique on both sides of the ball from both teams.

    I still hear people talk about how “awful” that 9-6 LSU/Alabama game was in 2011. I watched that entire game and thought it was fantastic football. Clearly (to me, anyway) seemed to be exceptional defense rather than inept offense.

    I think ‘great’ just gets used as a lazy synonym for ‘close’ and/or ‘exciting’. At the end of the day, it’s subjective, of course. I agree with Paul that in general there’s probably a “sweet spot” between high and low scoring, but I’ve seen great high-scoring games and terrible (but usually entertaining) high scoring games. There does seem to be a bias towards offense (chicks dig the long ball!), but the way I look at it, a bad low-scoring game is boring, whereas a bad high-scoring game is often fun to watch.

    I’d be okay with a game that ended 3-0, or even 2-0. I don’t think that’s a sign of ineptness if the offense isn’t able to score, especially if the defense on the other side is just that good. Great skill on one side doesn’t imply lack of skill on the other.

    Of course, I’m okay with Nil-Nil soccer games and 1-0 baseball games, too. To me, that’s signs of even competition.

    jacket18:
    just watch the CFL; I’m sure it will happen again sooner or later.
    as far as the last decade 7-5 was the lowest scoring game.
    link

    back in 1960 there was a playoff game that ended 4-2.
    If you do enough searching there must be a 4-3 game somewhere in the CFL history.
    link

    Will, I remember that 7-5 game back in 2014. The score was definitely contributed to by how ridiculously rainy that game was in Ottawa.

    If I’m watching my Riders after a first possession and their punt goes through the end zone instead of pinning the opponent, I’ll still throw high fives. ‘Cause the Roughriders are leading 1-0!

    I’m with you, Grant, that “evenly matched” tends to be a lot more exciting and part of what makes a “great game.” I do think that “exciting” tends to be morphed into a synonym for “great,” though. As an example on the other end of the spectrum, this year’s Stanford-Colorado game was close and came down to the last second, as Colorado got a big win, 16-13. But it was an absolutely painful game to watch as both offenses were completely inept. False starts on 3rd-and-1. Inability to convert multiple 3rd-and-short situations. Bad clock management at the half.
    I do think it’s possible to have a high-scoring game with both good offense and defense being played. If a team is dialing up the right play to counter a strong defense, that’s good on both sides. There were certainly bad moments in yesterday’s SF-NO game. There are those in most games. I’d still rather watch something close, no matter what the score, than a total blowout.

    You know what would’ve made New Orleans/San Francisco a truly great game? If the Saints had gone black over gold instead of monochrome…

    Also those New England CR tops still give me pause. I like them far better than their normal ones, but the lack of TV numbers is just odd. All of the other TV number-less uniforms are throwbacks, if I recall correctly, but I wonder if New England’s special disposition to go without them might herald a slow change in the NFL.

    I don’t understand why they’ve mothballed the gold pants. Shade variations aside, it’s easily their best look.

    Personally I love a good low-scoring defensive battle in football.

    But like a few already pointed out, it’s the actual quality of football that should count. If the game is low-scoring because both defenses play dominant football with spectacular turnovers and sacks, that’s great. If the low score is a result of incompetent offenses, then no thanks. I prefer a well-played shoot-out over that any day.

    To Paul’s point of “lousy defense that leads to lots of scoring” and that being considered great. I think that is a result of both the rule changes and that football has become too big for its own good. The casual fan doesn’t care about or understand the intricacies that make great football. Many people care more about their fantasy teams than the actual scores. Lots of scoring is the lowest common demoninatorand it keeps people’s attention and if the game comes down to the wire, then yeah, that’s exciting. Casual fans don’t care about the actual quality of play, they just want to be entertained. And 94 points with a last minute win is pretty exciting. Nobody will ask questions about how we got there. (Apart from the defensive coordinators from both teams in this week’s team meetings. They’ll probably both go hoarse from all the yelling haha.)

    Wow, 2 points you made above were exactly what I thought yesterday… I must “get it”. The first time I saw Colts’/Bucs on the red zone I thought, well now that’s a strange combo.. looks like a time machine game. Then they talked about niners/saints and how great it was, and I thought, and yet if it was the same spread, but 12-10 people would think it sucked… Same nail-biter, just better defense.

    After the first series or two, I knew the Niners were going to be in a pinball game. Very exciting. However, if they had lost, my opinion wouldn’t be so positive. Now back to the red jerseys at home this Sunday!

    Anybody else noticed that indoor games at Atlanta and Minnesota are lit in such a way that whites appear gray? (See the Lions/Vikes pic).

    What’s up with that? Doesn’t seem to be the case in other indoor venues.

    I love the Colts uniform, especially the all white. I’d love for the Cardinals to have something like this with red replacing the blue.

    Yeah simplicity would go a long way in fixing the Cardinals’ uniform mess. I loved the old road uniforms with white jersey (with Arizona flag on sleeves), red pants with stripes, and striped socks. Just can’t beat that. Their current uniforms somehow look completely outdated even though they haven’t been around too long. The drawback of going along with a trend.

    Those uniforms have been around for 14 seasons (of 31 in Arizona)…that’s too long IMO.
    At least ditch the gray facemasks since there’s nothing olde-timey about the current set, nor is there a throwback to wear them with.

    Cardinals should have been one of those old school teams with an unchanged look for decades. They went astray, but not too late to fix.

    They just need to go with this with tweaks, fine with the modern logo, just stripes on the road uniform sleeve. Done and done:

    link

    Being from Milwaukee, I’ve bowled at the Holler House numerous times. Marcy was a charachter, no doubt.

    We’re concerned, though, as we talked to one of the daugthers my last time there last April, and there was no real succession plan. The kitsch and novelty of two ancient lanes requiring pin boys is a draw, but the neighborhood (once heavily Polish) is in a quick decline and now can be considered “dicey”. I am not sure if a bowler would want to buy the place in a bad neighborhood. I am not sure someone from the neighborhood would keep (or, at least, honor the bowling) if they were to purchase it.

    Who woulda thunk (a local colloquialism) that a 4’5″, 93 year old lady held the key to Milwaukeee’s bowling past?

    (The link is a photo I took of Marcy’s daughter, and the fact that you can’t go to a bar that old-school and not have a Blatz.)

    Ultimately, people should like what they like. A preference for lower or higher scoring football games is not an indicator of good or bad taste. Every game isn’t 48-46; if that’s not your thing, there are plenty of 17-13 games out there to enjoy. A world where every football game has a final score that occupies some theoretical middle ground between high and low scoring seems pretty boring; I appreciate the variety. And yes, a lot of fans will praise shootouts as great games, but I hear just as many dismiss those games as “not real football.” There are countless former players and coaches in sports media who do the same. I’ve never understood why 48-46 is ridiculed as simply “bad defense” yet 10-6 isn’t “bad offense.”

    This is a straw man argument. Nobody said enjoying a high-scoring game was an indication of “bad taste” (I said myself that I found the Saints/Niners game exciting), nor did I critique the Saints’ and Niners’ respective defenses strictly on the basis of the score. On the contrary, I specifically called out all the blown coverages, the missed tackles, and the idiotic penalty that probably cost the Saints the game.

    And yes, duh, of course people can “like what they like.” But liking something is not the same thing as ascribing greatness to it. That’s what we’re discussing.

    My definition of a great game is when great defense grudgingly gives way to great offense.

    I am with Paul on this one. I have said this for year, regardless of the sport, a game with a small margin of victory in which both teams score a considerable amount of points doesn’t necessarily make it a great contest. A lot of it has to do with the parity of the NFL, which I for one am not a fan of. Sure it keeps every team almost in every game, but another result is there is a lot of bad football out there. A lot of my distaste comes from me being a Cowboys fan. In the 70s and 90s they would go out on the field and just kick the crap out of a team and the other team was never in the game. It was just the way it was, and as a fan of the other team, you just realized that it was that team’s time and you had to wait for those players to retire or move on and you would have your shot (I know, I lived through the 80s Cowboys era, which was actually worse than the last 10 years!) It wasn’t just the Cowboys; the 49ers and 70s Steelers were the same way, and when those teams met, those were the great games. Remember all those times the 49ers played the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game? They were so good that in the end it was a shame one team had to lose. I sound like “it was better in my day” guy, but it was just different. Even the Patriot’s dynasty; how many times have they had to win a game (or lose) by some last minute ditch effort or field goal? That’s the state of the league when the current dynasty is literally just a few plays in their history away from being another mediocre team.

    I remember watching a great MNF game in 1978; Washington 9 Dallas 5. It was a classic.

    One of the best hockey games I ever saw was a 1968-69 0-0 game between Boston and Montreal. The shots on goal were 41-34 and the goaltending by Cheevers and Tony Esposito was amazing.

    Dude in the background of the SDSU color on color bball game has got the Justin Timberlake “D!ck in a box”.

    Clearly the problem is, we all have a different definition of the word great. For me a great game is when multiple(at least one per team) good-great players have their best games in (insert years). This results in memorable games to me, to I associate that with great.

    As a Packers fan the game I remember a ton of is the 51-45 Cardinals v Packers game from the 2009 playoffs. Similar to this 49ers v Saints game there was bad tackling and blown coverages leading to magnifying the incredible offensive output. However, what I remember most is two Hall of Fame QBs that looked completely unstoppable, throwing perfect bombs repeatedly. So although good play throughout each phase of the game might be objectively better, greatness was on display from the QBs, and that was enough for me on that day to be impressed.

    Anyone else mystified by the Bills and their facemasks? For one game in Dallas, they change out from gray to white facemasks. This looks so much better, since gray is not one of their team colors. Some teams wear gray because that is color you had to wear in the 50’s and 60’s? (49ers, Giants, Cowboys, Raiders) Then this week, put the equipment staff back to work changing back to gray masks with a mono-red costume. This seems about as pointless as anything I’ve seen in the uni-verse lately.

    The state of uniforms in the NFL is terrible. i know a lot of that has to do with the restrictions teams have on using multiple uniforms and helmets. But it just seems that of all of the professional sports, they are seriously lacking right now.

    I’d nominate the NBA. No consistency, ads, and jargon up the wazoo on top of chintzy design.

    Saints fan here. Maybe I’m biased the other way here on the Monday after. But watching the game, I was not enjoying what I was seeing. Yes, I liked when the Saints were up. No, I did not quite enjoy the final drive.

    But it seemed like a completely sloppy game on both sides. A good chunk of the scoring I was excited about (Saints) I still felt was cheap and because of San Fran’s messiness on D.

    And same the other way around.

    It was not a great game, it was not even a good game. Even if the Saints had won (and I felt this when they were one play from winning)… I did not at all enjoy the game.

    Seemed cheap. Seemed like a video game on “easy mode.” Which is fun to do for all of 20 minutes.

    Haven’t seen it covered in the ticker, and I haven’t been able to post until today: in the MAC Championship game, Central Michigan wore a memorial sticker on their helmets honoring Don Chiodo, their long-time radio play-by-play man. Chiodo was killed in a head-on collision with a semi last week.

    I don’t love mono-white football uniforms, but I don’t hate them either the way I hate all other mono-color football uniforms. Is that just because mono-white was “normal” in the late 1970s & 1980s, when I was a kid, and so it’s a uniform combo that I’m used to? Probably. As a general rule, I much prefer football uniforms to offer some contrast between pants and jersey – and for both elements to offer clear visual contrast with the opposing team.

    Re: “the first teddy on teddy” matchup – I take it you’ve never seen the Lingerie Football League.

    …I’ll show myself out.

    My vote for the greatest game I ever saw.

    link

    Talk about evenly matched:

    Kelly-22/33 403 yds 3 TD 1 INT
    Young-26/37 449 yds 3 TD 1 INT

    Buffalo Rushing 33 car 107 yds 1 TD
    S.F. Rushing 30 car 159 yds 1 TD

    Each team had 2 lost fumbles

    Most impressively, zero punts total for both teams.

    Hey Paul- I though “mono-x” was the jersey/pants/socks look? Browns are wearing orange socks.
    Or am I confusing unitard with mono?

    To me (although others may differ), “mono” means same-colored non-white jersey and pants.

    Same-colored pants and socks are the dreaded leotard effect.

    I think last year’s Rams win over the Chiefs (54-51 was the final) received similar praise. To me a great game would be one in which both teams excel in all 3 phases of the game–offense, defense, & special teams. It’s pretty hard to get that, but I think that’s the point of reserving the term “great” for such occasions.

    As a St. Louisan, I’m reminded of game 6 of the 2011 World Series–one many around here are call the greatest WS game they’ve ever seen. While it certainly had some pretty remarkable late-inning heroics (David Freese tying it in the 9th, Josh Hamilton thinking he’d done enough to win it for Texas in the 10th, Lance Berkman tying it again in the 10th, and Freese winning it in the 11th), the pitching and defense were hardly remarkable. Nineteen total runs allowed, five errors… it was a great final three innings (especially for Cards fans), but hardly a great game.

    I did vote for the worst Canucks jersey on the article in the Ticker. Not the Flying V. The choice for me is the mid-1990s third jersey. The red skate. That paired with the solid black socks wins it for me.

    link

    I think the greatest game I’ve ever seen was San Diego at Miami playoff game in 1982. I can definitively say this was the game that got me hooked on football, especially the Chargers unis.
    link

    For me, the leotard effect has to involve pants without stripes (e.g. the Saints’ black pants). The Lions’ stripes go all the way down, so I don’t consider that look a “true” leotard effect.

    There are very few NFL pants without any stripes, so your standard would render the leotard effect largely moot. You’re free to define the term your way, of course, but it sort of defeats the point of the term, which is this: The function of NFL hosiery is (or was) to provide contrast at the intersection of pant leg and sock. So if your pants are blue (even with a non-blue stripe), you shouldn’t be wearing blue or blue-topped socks. That’s the leotard effect.

    The endangered species list ought to include white socks with stripes. This should be required wear with dark trousers.

    I detest the mono look in the NFL. As far as I can figure, the only teams never to take the field with a colored mono look is Indy, Dallas, NYG and Oakland. Can anyone confirm this?

    Oh damn, I forgot about the Colts mono blue disaster! What would Johnny U said about that abomination?

Comments are closed.