TheOldRoman

Members
  • Content count

    6,867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

TheOldRoman last won the day on January 27 2016

TheOldRoman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,077 Excellent

About TheOldRoman

  • Rank
    #Grateful

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

21,047 profile views
  1. Striped brown pants would have looked good, provided they were only worn with the white jerseys and striped white socks. However, it wasn't right for the Browns. But yes, I didn't want them touching the helmet (other than going back to the superior white facemask). Just come up with anything that's not a helmet or a B inside a football.
  2. The Browns' previous set was almost identical, yes. They could have improved the look by lightening the brown, thinning out the stripes on the white pants, eliminating the brown pants, and wearing only striped socks. However, their look was certainly passable. The only thing they really needed to do with come up with an actual primary logo. Of course, they messed literally everything up, but still failed to make a primary logo. But I agree. They'll probably come closest of any Nike team to going back completely to the classic look. But there will, of course, be a handful of Nike flourishes.
  3. l like the solid blue hats are the better look. However, I like the look of the white-paneled hat. If they're going to wear it, they should wear it for every home game. Oh, and only wear the blue jerseys once a week. Also, mad props to the Jays for making batting helmets to match the hats. They did the right thing in a world where we have dumbass teams refusing to make helmets matching road hats they wear 81 times a year. If I was the commissioner, first thing I'd do is require teams to make a set of batting helmets matching each hat in their normal rotation. Second thing is remove the New Era logo from the hats. #OldRoman4Commish
  4. The Vikings, Dolphins, Browns and Lions all had classic sets they could have gone back to. The Vikings and Lions sets are decent-to-pretty-good, but worse than the old sets. The Dolphins set is bland crap. The Browns are horrendous. Even in the sets that tried to look old (MIN and DET), Nike had to change just enough to let us know that these were Nike presents "NFC North," a Nike production. Directed by Nike and starring Nike. So, the next Bengals set will be better (it would seemingly be impossible to stay as bad). And it very well might be modeled after the Super Bowl set. But it will have an awful font with sublimated stripes, fierce teeth outlining the face on the helmet, and various other head-shakers that do just enough to leave you disappointed.
  5. 1) I disagree with you. The lighter shade of navy is bad. Also, as far as I know, the teams wearing the lighter navy hats still use the same dark navy on the jerseys. If anything, they should lighten up the teal a hair. 2) This picture show how crappy the matte helmets are. They're two weeks into the season and the helmets are already scuffed up with glossy marks on them. Shiny helmets masked scuffs much better.
  6. These are unoffensively mediocre. Far from great, but not terrible. Here are the rankings for the home and road, since that throwback is long-covered and I think all of us born in the 20th century will agree that the dark gray alternates are hot garbage. Helmet - C The striping pattern is dumb, and it omitting white is awful. They should have used the same B-W-B stripes they used in the Barry Sanders era. Also, the logo was messed up by putting the offset blue outline. I don't care if it matches the crappy stripes. It would have been better to just have a single white outline, like the Sanders era. Silver facemask? Meh. The best look is blue, once again, like Barry wore. It could be worse. Wordmark - C- Unoffensively awful. It's bad an uninspiring, but not so much that you'll remember how bad it is. Numbers - C+ The font is really bad; matching the wordmark. I disliked the previous font, but this actually makes me miss it. That was at least more thought-out. These are just thin, italicized crap with random points in the corners. The only saving grace, and it's a big one, is that they outlined the numbers in silver on the home and road. I don't care if the silver doesn't always show up against the white from a distance. It is a great detail and it looks better than single color. Jerseys (stripes mostly) - C The striping pattern appears for a third time. A bit of overkill, and the set would have improve from having different stripes somewhere (like on the helmets and pants). Still, it's a classic striping pattern. It's hurt by the lack of white on the homes, silver on the road, as those colors outlined the stripes on the classic Sanders-era set. Could be worse. Sleeve wordmark/designs - F The wordmark on the stripes is garbage. Really bad. It's a throwback to the awful '80s designs of slapping a logo on top of stripes. (And no, the Cowboys navy jerseys don't look good. They suck on their own and are a departure from the classic look the team should be wearing. The 49ers of the TO era also looked worse for doing it. Don't @ me.) So, this is a dated, crap practice, brought back because Nike gonna Nike. This is obviously something they want to push, as they put the Buccaneers' wordmark on one sleeve. It looks bad. The WCF logo is awful. If they want to memorialize him, go nuts. Do it in a classy way like the Bears did. However, this logo is the opposite of classy. It's too big, too busy, and messes things up by including white (which they excluded from the stripes and the other sleeve). The only positives of these elements are that throwing this crap on the sleeves clears up the front of the jerseys. Under collar wordmarks are bad, and adding a big permanent logo on the chest is awful (hi, Chiefs). Gray (silver?) pants - B The stripes match the helmet, which is standard practice for teams that aren't morons (hi, Saints). However, the stripes are bad for the helmet, and that goes for the pants, as well. However, it looks like these pants are actually metallic silver, rather than the washed out, see-through faint gray pants they wore in recent years. That is enough to move the pants up. Blue pants - D The stripes decent (previously discussed). However, these are awful for a few reasons. First off, they aren't paired with white or gray socks, they will always look like tights. Even worse, this is going to lead to these being worn with the blue jerseys, which is horrendous. Worse still, they'll probably wear solid blue at home and only wear silver pants on the road. A potentially decent element, but awful in this era. So, these "look like the Lions," but so did the last set. The colors are great. The fonts are awful. There are a few Nike elements that have no place. These aren't terrible, but they could be a lot better. I'd give them an edge over the previous set, but only because of them eliminating black. They would have been much better served to just go fully back to the Sanders set, but they they'd be admitting they made a mistake changing to begin with. And they wouldn't be able to see more jerseys and helmets in a few years when they make another change.
  7. The White Sox used Velcro on their jerseys as far back as around '95. You'd see a slight outline of single-row stitching for a small rectangle of Velcro. I only ever noticed it on the black jerseys because the white had the pinstripes and the gray had the script covering that area. Eventually (I think in 2000) they moved to evenly spaced-out buttons on the white and black, since they didn't need the empty space for script in the middle. I'm not sure if they still use Velcro on the grays or not.
  8. Easy solution to a great Browns look: Jerseys - 1999 jerseys (brown and white, with the 2003 orange alternate thrown in just because every team has one now) Pants - 1999 pants (white pants with thin O-B-O stripes are all they need) Socks - 1999 socks (white and brown, with striping matching the jersey sleeves) Helmet - 1999 helmet (white facemask FTW. No logo) Wordmark - 1999 wordmark (it's the one from the '80s and it is perfect for the Browns. Don't overthink this and try to make a "tough" wordmark) Team logo - something they don't currently use. Not the dog. Not the elfNot the horrible <=B=>. Not the damn helmet. Come up with an actual freaking logo (that isn't a B ), and don't put it on the damn helmets. Hell, maybe they could make the dog or the elf into a perfectly acceptable primary logo. Just come out with a great one and commit to it. That was easy. They had it right in the late '80s and '90s. Then Browns 2.0 was terrible for extended time, and they tinkered with it to give the fans something to talk about and feel fresh about. They looked worse and the team got worse, so then they went for the Nike-gasm. Just dress like a historic football team and worry about getting better players later.
  9. Looking at it now, it's not as bad as I remembered. The lighting isn't doing it any justice, but you can make out the shadowing of the logo. There's a small hole at the bottom right corner. Mostly, that area of the fabric looks frayed, which doesn't show up on the photo. It doesn't look terrible, but I don't think I'd buy a new cap with the intention of doing that. I was at the mall yesterday and saw the new NE hats. The logo looks HORRIBLE. Especially one simple two-color hats like the Sox, Yankees and Tigers, I will never get used to it. But anyway, the logo was abnormally large and 3D. Upon closer look, it was a 3D patch that they glued on. I assume NE just glued logo patches on old stock to "update" them, but they also had a few of the older caps in stock without the logo. So, if one were to buy the caps with the logo patch, that would probably be easier to remove. But for the Cubs champions hat, that logo would most likely be stitched. Also, New Era finally solved their problem of colored stitching on white crowns. They had Sox throwback and Orioles home caps, and the new versions had clear/white stitching on the front panel. This kinda sucks for me because I just caved and bought a new 83 Sox cap with the stitching. I bought a few caps for back stock, because I don't ever intend on buying any more hats now that the logo is on the side.
  10. It doesn't work well. I say this as someone who has stripped jerseys and had them recustomized (LOL authentic Nick Swisher Sox jersey for $20). By the way, if anybody knows a place that redoes NFL jerseys, send me a DM. Anyway, I bought a $10 Marlins aqua hat on eBay for the purpose of taking the logo off, because if I mess up, who cares? It's the Marlins. Anyway, the NE logo is too intricate at such a small size. Too many turns and such. I got it all off, but there are a few small nicks and holes in the fabric and you can see a substantial outline of where the logo was. I'd probably just try a marker, but not a Sharpie. Get a fabric marker, but test it on paper and make sure the blue is close to the hat color.
  11. No reason they can't, but also no reason they should. People might think "well, that will help eliminate commercials," but it won't. They might trim 15-30 seconds off between each inning, but that's in exchange for the above crap after every out. No, it's not that burdensome here, but it will only get larger and be on the screen more time. Also (this is more in general and not to your post), this does absolutely nothing to stop ads on jerseys. No matter what the NBA may say, no American pro sports team (other than about a third of the NHL) is in financial ruin to the point where it absolutely has to have that last bit of advertising income. The Padres and Reds will survive just fine without ads on jerseys or post-AB sponsorships. But that is money the league knows is out there. It's not going to pass it up for other income. It'll just take that in addition to the other income. Baseball has been great with minimizing manufacturer logos in the past, but the NE logo on the caps looks terrible and intrusive. And in a few years we'll get an UnderArmour logo on each jersey chest. It's sadly a matter of time before baseball stops feigning being "better than that" and puts ads on the jerseys. Having in-game commercials won't do a thing to stop that. We'll still have lengthy commercial breaks (longer in the playoffs), we'll have ads taking up half the screen after each AB, and we'll have ads on the jerseys. And we'll accept it because us, that's why. There's no better solution here.
  12. I know what you're saying, but I think that's just a product of that particular time in merchandising. I loved the hats and locker room shirts that teams got in the '90s, but in retrospect, they included a lot of graphics just for the hell of it. I mean, sure, a Bulls jersey makes much more sense for the Bulls than Mardi Gras stuff for the Packers, but I think they just fall in line with "lets throw more crap on there because screen printing is cool." And that Bulls had had real leather stitched on for the basketball. Because why not. I've still got it somewhere. I have the shirts, too, although I doubt they fit me anymore. Actually, they probably do. I was a big kid. Anyway, I think in recent years the Super Bowl merchandise hadn't taken on too much of host city of logo. Around the time Reebok started making the locker room gear, it became bland and "fill in the blank," which in retrospect was maybe good. While I dislike them moving away from unique logos for each game, I think the particular logo they chose was horrendous. 51 and 52 are slightly improved with the color thrown in, but even with that, the L is separated from the I's for no reason. The trophy should be behind those letters, but they didn't want to cover the damn shield. But jokes on them, but the league logo doesn't even appear cleanly on the logo. It appears distorted: on an angle, moving toward the viewer, and in monochrome silver. Dumb.
  13. I agree. Since the advent of Coolbase jerseys in 2007, the White Sox have eschewed their BP jerseys to wear the black alts during ST games. That was until last year, where they made a Spring version of their black alts with the '80s logo to be worn only during ST. Anyway, before last year, the Sox would wear the crappy black alts for the entire spring, and then when they made their way home to start the season, it was refreshing to see them in their normal home and road jerseys. Of course, more than once they ruined that by wearing the crappy black alts on opening day.
  14. I don't hate the Nationals using the flag-logo alternate. I don't think it's particularly well done, but they play in the nation's capital and are named the Nationals, so it's not out of place. Plus, they rarely wear it, and it's better than the awful red jerseys which they wear all the damn time. But for the Blue Jays, this makes zero sense. It's unnecessary, has nothing to do with their identity, and they will wear it once a week. Was there a clamoring among the fans for a red jersey? Probably not. But worse than just wearing a red jersey and hat, they're both horribly done. They could have made an attractive jersey which featured red and, you know, their primary color, but they chose not to. Making the logo monochrome red is inexcusable. The hat is laughably bad. The S&S caps teams are forced to wear every year are crap, but at least they feature the teams' logos! This hat has literally nothing to do with the team, and won't be recognized by anybody outside of this message board as a Blue Jays hat. This hat would be a boon for local value stores and gift shops selling nearly-identical reproductions, except I don't think anyone will actually want to buy this hat. Lots of American kids will inadvertently get a Blue Jays hat as a gift when their parent comes back from a business trip to Toronto, but that's the extent of this alternate's success.
  15. Not sure if you're joking, but that's literally the worst thing I've ever seen. Nothing to inspire the fans like gray and yellow!