Jungle Jim

Members
  • Content count

    1,405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

448 Excellent

About Jungle Jim

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,188 profile views
  1. The Cincinnati Bengals have done a lot of things wrong in their history, but I think they got it right with Paul Brown Stadium in 2000. I know the cookie cutters are widely ridiculed today, and they were not great places to watch sports, but from a purely aesthetic standpoint, Riverfront Stadium was a beautiful structure.
  2. In addition to my team, the Bengals, I grew up liking the Vikings, Rams, Cardinals, and Buccaneers, because of their uniforms. Like others have already said, today I actively root against teams with bad uniforms and for the same reason others gave: I don't want bad designs to get permanent placement with a franchise because they were successful in them. (Patriots, for example) Some of my fellow Bengals fans would hate on me for saying this, but I hope they don't win anything in the current uniforms, because we'd be stuck with these clown suits to infinity if they did. So, I don't "hate" the Bengals because of their uniforms, but they're certainly much harder to root for with them, just as the Reds were during their horrible BFBS vested era 1999-2006.
  3. If I have to choose only one, it would be a return of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers creamsicle colors. Keep the current flag on the helmets, I don't care. Bruce wasn't the appeal of those uniforms for me, it was the color scheme.
  4. One thing I take from this is that orange caps are not worn nearly enough in MLB. That orange Astros cap has always and will always be my favorite of all time. Still have fond memories of the Astrodome lights bouncing off those glorious orange batting helmets back in the 70s.
  5. The white facemask is a mistake because it detracts from the white horns. The navy mask would have allowed the horns to stand out more, to pop, if you will.
  6. I addressed this on page 110...
  7. I don't undertand why you would be upet about thi. The only reaon they're doing it i becaue it look nice.
  8. I really didn't like the Dodgers raised helmet logo last year at all, but this one on the Cardinals helmet is hitting me somewhat better. I guess I'm just being an old fogey, but I wish they'd all just stick with shiny helmets and decals, though.
  9. Here are the photos from the 1999 unveiling. It was my impression at the time that they were intended to always wear red undershirts at home and black on the road. After they started winning a lot of road games that first season (even earning the nickname "The Big Road Machine"), they naturally assumed it was because they were wearing black undershirts on the road. (I'm being sarcastic about the stupidity of superstition, by the way). It was for that reason that they started wearing the black undershirts both home and road, and as the wins piled up, they were there to stay for far too long. I may be wrong, but I don't think they ever wore red undershirts on the road with that set in the eight years they had them. As you mentioned, though, the replica jerseys of that era strangely had the red undershirt with the road vest. Regardless of the combination, it was a horrible look, and I'd like to forget it ever happened. The current ones are much better, but it's time to take the next step and eliminate the black. As others have said, just go back to 1968-71 and be done with it. They never should have strayed from those in the first place.
  10. Yes, I love it, and wouldn't change a thing!
  11. The Rays got it right when they switched to the green caps, which I think was in the last three or four years of that era (2005-07?). I don't like vests, though. It's a shame those uniforms had such a short shelf life. As for the Marlins, I hope new ownership means new uniforms. I've been saying it for years, but they should just match the colors of the Dolphins (maybe a little stronger on the orange) and be done with it. It would be unique to MLB and look great.
  12. While the Falcons Glanville change may not have been BFBS, an argument could be made that it was "Black Overkill For Black Overkill's Sake". Black jersey, black helmet, black logo on helmet, black hat/shirt/pants on the head coach. They went from a beautiful red-centric uniform/helmet to something much less attractive, and the black logo on a black helmet was the worst mistake of all. I'm fine with the Falcons current helmet logo and feel it's better than the one it replaced (and this coming from a traditionalist). It just needs to be on a red helmet. Remove the unnecessary crap from the jersey and those are okay, as well.
  13. I am SO glad the Lions are dropping the black. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had been a new team and we weren't aware of how they looked (better) beforehand. The worst part of it, though, was the black stripes on the sleeves. They looked very forced and ruined the whole thing for me. Maybe if they had been thinner?
  14. To be on the same page with this discussion, we'd need to define what constitutes a new or different set, and that's going to be subjective, in some cases. For example, the Reds had a white outline around the lettering on their road jerseys in 1969 but not in 1970 and 1971. Other than that, the uniforms were the same those three years. I'm not sure about 1968. If we consider those two Reds sets as different, Pete Rose wore these with the team: Other teams that come to mind as possibly having candidates would be the Padres of the early 1970s through the early 1990s and the Pirates 1976-85, when they had the 3,748 combinations (1977-84), along with the year right before that started (1976) and the year right after it ended (1985).