Jungle Jim

Members
  • Content count

    1,397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

420 Excellent

About Jungle Jim

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,120 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Yes, I love it, and wouldn't change a thing!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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).
  8. Not a big fan of vague thread titles.
  9. Why do the Cowboys find it necessary to outline the numbers on their blue jerseys but not on their white jerseys? The outlines ruin it for me.
  10. I've never been a Patriots "fan". It's just that, at any given time, there are other teams (other than your favorite) that you prefer to see succeed over others. The Patriots used to be one of those teams. That list changes for me from one decade or era to the next, based on the people involved, or perhaps based on negative experiences involving my favorite team (a heartbreaking loss in an important game, for example). It may be players, coaches, or even owners. For example, they were never "my" team, but I liked the Cowboys of the Tex Schramm / Tom Landry era. (So, I don't dislike a franchise just because they're successful.) Today, I root against Dallas because of Jerry Jones.
  11. Regarding inter conference play, others have already pointed out that each AFC team plays each NFC team only every four years, but a given NFC team plays in a given AFC city only every eight years. I'm in the Cincinnati market, and I know that there is a lot of excitement among fans of the Bears, Packers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys when they make their once-every-eight-years visit to Paul Brown Stadium. Competitive issues aside, I think it beats adding more games against the Titans, Jaguars, etc..
  12. You make excellent points and they're difficult to counter or refute. I assume that divisions were began to provide more games with a set of opponents within a limited geographical area, thus cutting down on travel. But that is nothing more than an assumption. Whether or not that is still needed in this era of faster and more comfortable travel is another discussion, I guess. I just see the division winners plus wildcards as a nice balance, providing two paths to the postseason. Perhaps the success of wildcard teams in the NFL and MLB is evidence that those teams deserved their chance. Then again, perhaps it only proved that they got hot at the right time, I don't know. I guess I'd rather take the chance on an "undeserving" team getting in than to take the chance that a really good team got sent home because they happened to be in the wrong division. To me, it's worth it, but I can understand why some would disagree.
  13. I'm from the Lexington area, so I've heard the chatter. There's more to this than the fact that the name is gender specific. A stallion is, of course, a non-castrated male horse whose purpose in life is to breed. But it also refers in slang to a male human with, shall we say, sexual prowess. I don't blame any high school girl if she doesn't want to wear a jersey with a term that has either of those definitions or connotations associated with it. Some of the people who wanted it changed have cited that as the reason, not just that the term referred to a male animal. Yes, the term "Stallions" has been used for decades. I think there are actually a couple elementary schools in the area that use it. In some cases, where there are decades of tradition or whatever, there's more room to be sympathetic to those who don't want to see the name go by the wayside. And, I agree the political correctness has gone too far in the world in recent years, but there's also the thing of just simply being respectful of the feelings of others. In this case, we're talking about a name that had been in existence for about 24 hours. Why christen a brand new high school and it's sports programs with controversy right out of the gate? (horse racing pun not intended) As for the male-centric names that have been around for decades, like I said, there are many (most?) cases where changing it will cause all sorts of unrest. But it has always "intrigued" me (for lack of a better term) that the female teams have to be referred to as "Lady ____". Even when it's not combined with a male-centric name, which makes no sense, why does the "Lady" have to be in front of the female names but "Gentlemen" is not used in front of the male team names?
  14. I don't get it. It would look as good as most other team's helmets, and certainly better than the flaming thumbtack thing. That thing is an asymmetrical mess.