GFB

Members
  • Content count

    4,017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

GFB last won the day on June 29 2015

GFB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

718 Excellent

About GFB

  • Rank
    The Invisible

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Detroit, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

29,143 profile views
  1. I think you're mostly right that Nike normally doesn't care what sort of stripes an NFL team has. You look at a team with triple stripes like the Bears and it's unlikely someone would confuse it as the Adidas tri-stripe. However, in the 49ers case, the uniforms displays three identical and monospaced white stripes, which is iconic to the Adidas brand. Let's just say that if my company paid over a billion dollars for an apparel deal, I would want to not give any free advertising to my main competitor, no matter how inadvertent or accidental that is. And for those of you saying "Well, Nike made 49ers uniforms with the three stripes on it before," they had to because that was the uniform. They couldn't make a Bears jersey with only two stripes. But if Nike went to the Bears and said "We're having trouble with getting all your stripes onto our new template, can we tweak your uniform?" and mysteriously a stripe disappeared, they could then make two-striped Bears uniforms. Look, I'm not saying that this was 100% Nike's decision. But I think if given the choice, Nike would probably prefer to sell 49ers merchandise without the three stripes and Jed York likely doesn't care or notice the difference. Ultimately, I think it's as good an explanation as any as to why the third stripe disappeared, but even if it's not true, it's fun to think about.
  2. The Pats have had those socks since Adidas was their uniform supplier decades ago. Nike can't just change any existing uniform because they feel like it (See Cowboys, Packers). However, this 49ers uniform is technically new. I guarantee you that if the Patriots asked Nike to help fix/update their uniforms, those socks are gone in two seconds.
  3. Conspiracy theory: Nike didn't want to put three stripes on the uniform to give Adidas any inadvertent advertising.
  4. Let's see what's going on over at FS1: You know, if Fox's strategy was to pick up blowhards like Whitlock, Cowherd, and Bayless only to publicly roast them on a daily basis... I have to admit, I'd watch that. (not that putting microphones in front of Lavar Ball on a regular basis is a great idea either)
  5. From a story in today's Waco Tribune Baylor hit with 7th Title IX lawsuit, plaintiff alleges gang rape by football players Unreal. The only reason those "bad dudes" are on campus at all is because YOU put them there. Get :censored:ed Art Briles and the rest of Baylor University to boot.
  6. I'm not a fan of the serifs either, but PORTLAND and TRAIL BLAZERS are two different fonts. If they had used the same serifs, then they would've/should've used the same font for both. Also, there is no P or T in the pinwheel.
  7. I don't know if the team is using the pinwheel as a P in that ad... that looks more like problematic responsive coding to me.
  8. Woah, that quote is so far out-of-context. Did you even read what I said? You have to add "If he had said it (THIS) way, then..." at the start of the quote. Regardless, stop trying to paint the original poster's intentions as some paragon of innocence. He wasn't trying to make a thoughtful criticism of the design and he simply wasn't able to phrase it properly; he tried to make an offhand comment putting down the design in the form of a lame joke. That's the definition of snark. I'm done arguing this with you. ✌️
  9. First, those two statements are not saying the same thing because one says that "this design is whole/complete and wrong" and the other says "this is not whole/complete at all." That's a big difference. Second, yes, most people aren't going to phrase their critiques in the best or most clear of ways. That's ok! But go back to the original post. If he had said, "I don't get the beveling, this design feels unfinished;" then sure, I get what he's saying in layman's terms (not that the design is unfinished, but that it only feels that way). Instead, he made a snarky comment about the designer not doing his job and signing off on incomplete work. That implication changes the meaning of the criticism. I get it, and really it's cool that you're here commenting. Honestly, I wouldn't have said anything had I not seen similar sentiments repeated from other posters in many different threads. Sorry if it seemed like I was going after you... It was way the post was phrased that irritated me, not you.
  10. Give me a break. Was he being serious? Most likely not. But it's a lazy joke (and judging by his profile picture, right up his sense of humor). I'm not saying you have to like the logo; rather, I am saying that if your reasons for not liking the design is that you believe it looks like it is "unfinished" or "needs more work," then you're flat out wrong and uniformed. The styling is obviously an intentional decision and it is complete as-is. Here's are some valid criticisms: - "I would have liked to have seen more consistent beveling." - "I don't believe the logo needs the gold styling at all." - "The randomness of the gold beveling makes the logo more difficult to read." Those are all perfectly valid criticisms of the World Series logo. You can disagree with the decision to highlight the logo in that abstract manner, but to say that it looks unfinished or rushed is wrong and lazy commenting.
  11. This comment bothers me. It feels absolutely nothing like that. You don't have to like the styling (as some others have before you have complained), but don't just throw out that this is rushed or unfinished work. Believe me, there's a time and a place to call out shoddy design and craftsmanship; but this is not that time. Sorry, I just hate the "I don't personally like it so it must be amateur hour" line of thinking.
  12. One aspect about the Bengals current uniforms that I've always enjoyed is the white side panels... they remind me of the white underbelly of a tiger: Really, outside of the numbers, I'm very happy with the Bengals' current uniforms.
  13. I don't know Cap... if it's a situation where the fans are on clearly on board like Al Davis or Jerry Jones or Bob Kraft or someone of that ilk, then I can understand it. But for the majority of my life, most Lions fans I knew were begging William Clay Ford to sell the team so the team could be more successful. I mean, it's the Ford's team, so they can do whatever they want with it. However, there is a real likelihood that in 20 years WCF will be behind both Martha and Bill Jr in terms of best Lions acting ownership... then we'll have our worst owner immortalized on our uniforms.
  14. He also moved the team out of Detroit to Pontiac for a couple decades. Honestly, the WCF patch is why I will never buy a Lions jersey. I really like these uniforms too... but since the unveiling, the WCF patch has left a sour taste in my mouth. I wouldn't buy a Tigers or Wings jersey with "Mr. I" patch, and he meant more to those franchises than Ford ever meant to the Lions. The Lions have always been more important than WCF and they will continue to be long after William Clay is (rightfully) forgotten. He's not worthy of being enshrined on the uniform permanently.
  15. This is probably the Tigers uniform you're thinking of: