goforbroke

Members
  • Content count

    1,608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

79 Excellent

About goforbroke

  • Birthday 06/12/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Favourite Logos
    Houston Texans
    Super Bowl XXXVI
    Super Bowl XLIV
    Minnesota Wild
    New Orleans Hornets (Fleur de Bee)

Recent Profile Visitors

11,391 profile views
  1. Only on the internet would someone criticize the accuracy of a joke meant for 4 year olds.
  2. A- if you set criteria specifically to include the Broncos then your criteria is inherently flawed B - even with your criteria, how could the Packers not make the list? they meet all the criteria and then some. C- The Seahawks are no where near this list. They have had a lot of success the past decade, but only 1 super bowl and not long sustained success in the Super Bowl era. If you are going to be a team like that - like the Seahawks where the majority of your success is recent than you better be the Patriots and have had a BUTT LOAD of recent success. D - If your criteria is only the Super Bowl era, then to be honest some teams don't belong there-- like for example the Giants who have 2 championship "eras" of lets say 5 years but very little success otherwise IN THE SUPER BOWL era. They meet the ownership but what else? CRITERIA 1- Several eras of championship success (Includes pre-super bowl era) 2- nothing else. *championship success weighed for recent success above past success (for example as you mentioned the Lions and Browns are no longer elite even if they once were) **successful eras of non-super bowl winning success taken into SMALL account above non-contention (for example the early 90's Bills has a very good era in the early 90's even without a championship. The 49ers had a very good mini era the past few years even without a championship. these eras count slightly better than a team that didnt make the playoffs for 5 years) Packers Steelers 49ers Patriots Giants Bears Cowboys Teams like Lions Browns and Redskins not included because lack of recent success. Patriots included for opposite reason.
  3. This is a bad answer, but my guess would be because the changes to the Rangers shield logo aren't THAT significant - to lay, non logo obsessed people anyway. That maybe putting different NYR logos would look sloppy, rather than a nice nod to the time period. Whereas the Knicks logos are different enough that it successfully shows the evolution of the logo and the team identity at the time. Again, not a great answer but that makes sense to me.
  4. I like seeing color vs color as long as it doesn't clash.. it's a cool change up once in a while as long as they don't go nuts with it like MLB did. My issues are the uniforms themselves-- why does it have to be full monotone vs full monotone including pants socks shoes etc. ideally I would like to see a matchup of say 49ers in their regular home uniforms - red jersey gold pants - vs Giants in their regular home -Blue Jersey white pants. If that was color rush one game a week for something different and interesting then I'd be all for it.
  5. Very few of these photos are showing the best part of the Giants uniform which is they brought back the GIANTS WordMark on the helmet.
  6. The Giants will not wear their color rush white in the London game called Rams. Regular road uniforms. That's a Sunday morning.
  7. That "TNF" game is on Saturday so no color rush
  8. That's basically it. The one I saw was for on-field, so it had much shorter sleeves. However --- the helmet is the best part. They also have a cool effect on the NFL logo on the collar that idk if any other teams have
  9. No not even close. @canzman is on the right track..
  10. I dont think its just stubbornness - but if the redskins lost their right to merchandise their own brand, then why should the NFL/Nike be able to profit off them?
  11. I think Tohasbo was referring to the 2007 red jerseys, which are still technically part of the team's official style guide even though there are no plans to ever wear it again. So he was saying that technically red could be their color rush uniform as its still part of their style guide, satisfying NFL/Nike's requirements.
  12. DP
  13. Not even close
  14. a little bird gave me the scoop on the Giants .... I wish I could give you more info but all I can say is it's a good one. They did it right.
  15. The commission has 2 jobs ... 1) uphold the integrity of the game. 2) make decisions to grow the league financially. you can't kill Adam silver for the ads... if it brings in $$ and honesty no one besides us will care. Eventually we won't notice anymore. It will be like a stadium naming rights, or a jersey manufacturer logo, or sponsor logos on the boards in the Nhl. Eventually we won't even think about it goodel is often caught between a rock and a hard place... He wants to protect the shield but then puts his foot in his mouth and makes odd, inconsistent discipline decisions. But no one can say he hurts the game financially or the integrity of the sport. Bettman is a Disgrace--- 3 extended lockouts over his tenure. What else do u need to say. Hockey was huge.. HUGE... In the mid 90s. Gretzky was in LA, Rangers were winning. Mighty ducks movies were big. Kids were playing hockey. The sports was legitamatly growing as a true Big 4. Now look at it... They lost their ESPN deal... Their NBC deal is a joke. There's other Sports more popular like ufc mls. Bettman messed up big time.