pianoknight Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Awesome sauce. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalcowboyfan92 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Awesome sauce.Is in a poster format? Because it'd be pretty cool to hang in a "football man cave". It may end up archaic in a decade or two; but hey.In our basement my dad has one of these hanging on the wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The timeline is very cool - where's it from? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Completely forgot that Portsmouth was the same team as Detroit, and the Cardinals line is definitely the craziest.Be interesting seeing a future one with both LA lines meeting back up and a *gasp* London line Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hailstateunis Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Hard to believe Chicago had two teams for nearly four decades. http://www.hailstateunis.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yeah, but those were the decades when no one in Chicago really cared about football. Still, no one in Chicago really cares about football, but there's been this strange love affair with a foul-mouthed boor in a sweater vest and some nebulous concept of vicarious blue-collar toughness, and I suppose that's close enough. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Nice, but if this thing included defunct franchises, at first glance you'd think it was the Arena Football League rather than the NFL./what, no Dayton Triangles?//Oorang Indians forever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Wikipedia has (a less pretty) one including defunct franchises. The NFL's is ridiculous compared to, say, the NHL... another reason why I give a little more credence to the "Original Six". My favorite old timey NFL team is the Tonawanda Kardex, named after the card filing system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_National_Football_Leaguehttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_National_Hockey_League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 BTW not to self promote, but sometime in January I plan to start adding teams like the Dayton Triangles and Potsville Maroons to my website. : www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerslionspistonshabs Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I was about to post "I thought the Rams were in Cleveland in the 30s and 40s", but then saw it upon closer look. So the longest standing franchise in one city is current the Packers, followed by the Chicago Bears, then New York Giants, then Lions and Steelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rich Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Great graphic, but I disagree with the notion of the Boston Patriots "moving" to become the New England Patriots.To me, it's more of a "representational" name change, such as the way they handled Phoenix Cardinals becoming the Arizona Cardinals. And while I get that the team did move from Boston (proper) to the suburbs/exurbs, so did several other teams-- Detroit out to Pontiac, Cowboys from Dallas to Irvine, Giants (and Jets) from New York City to another state, and most recently (and actually the longest move in terms of distance) San Francisco to Santa Clara. It just happened that the Patriots changed their name in conjunction with a move to another part of the metro area (sort of like the San Francisco Warriors becoming the Golden State Warriors, or the Nets going from New York to New Jersey to Brooklyn). It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewp80 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Wikipedia has (a less pretty) one including defunct franchises. The NFL's is ridiculous compared to, say, the NHL... another reason why I give a little more credence to the "Original Six". My favorite old timey NFL team is the Tonawanda Kardex, named after the card filing system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_National_Football_Leaguehttp://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_National_Hockey_LeagueYou wouldn't like Kieth Olbermann's take on that: Too bad the Kardex played only one game. My favorite has to be the Providence Steam Roller. Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool Check out my music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Great graphic, but I disagree with the notion of the Boston Patriots "moving" to become the New England Patriots. To me, it's more of a "representational" name change, such as the way they handled Phoenix Cardinals becoming the Arizona Cardinals. And while I get that the team did move from Boston (proper) to the suburbs/exurbs, so did several other teams-- Detroit out to Pontiac, Cowboys from Dallas to Irvine, Giants (and Jets) from New York City to another state, and most recently (and actually the longest move in terms of distance) San Francisco to Santa Clara. I hate when people try to argue that they really are all of New England's team in a way that, say, the Red Sox aren't, or that they're just as much Providence's team as they are Boston's. Who without mob ties needs to pump the tires for Providence? ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Great graphic, but I disagree with the notion of the Boston Patriots "moving" to become the New England Patriots.To me, it's more of a "representational" name change, such as the way they handled Phoenix Cardinals becoming the Arizona Cardinals. And while I get that the team did move from Boston (proper) to the suburbs/exurbs, so did several other teams-- Detroit out to Pontiac, Cowboys from Dallas to Irvine, Giants (and Jets) from New York City to another state, and most recently (and actually the longest move in terms of distance) San Francisco to Santa Clara. It just happened that the Patriots changed their name in conjunction with a move to another part of the metro area (sort of like the San Francisco Warriors becoming the Golden State Warriors, or the Nets going from New York to New Jersey to Brooklyn). That's an excellent point. Why treat the Boston/New England Patriots as a move, but not the Pheonix/Arizona Cardinals? Doesn't make any sense.Great. Now I don't like that graphic. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It seems like they have the Baltimore Colts starting in 1959 rather than 1953, with no connection to the first version of the Dallas Texans. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I was about to post "I thought the Rams were in Cleveland in the 30s and 40s", but then saw it upon closer look. So the longest standing franchise in one city is current the Packers, followed by the Chicago Bears, then New York Giants, then Lions and Steelers. Nope. The Steelers and Eagles aren't on that list. The 1933 Pittsburgh Pirates franchise is today's Philadelphia Eagles (after an aborted attempt to relocate to Boston), while the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles is today's Pittsburgh Steelers.Great graphic, but I disagree with the notion of the Boston Patriots "moving" to become the New England Patriots. And you'd be right to, especially considering the name they were going to use was the "Bay State Patriots." That lasted until someone realized it'd be listed as "BS Patriots." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It seems like they have the Baltimore Colts starting in 1959 rather than 1953, with no connection to the first version of the Dallas Texans.If you're counting the Texans, which may or may not have a direct connection to the Colts, based on one's perspective, then you have to count the Texans' antecedents, going back to the Dayton Triangles in 1913. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Let's not forget Card-Pitt or the Steagles. | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Or the Cleveland Rams, who suspended operations and didn't play in 1943.Or, for that matter, conflating the Browns and Ravens. Oh, great. Now I really don't like this graphic. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmac Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Great graphic, but I disagree with the notion of the Boston Patriots "moving" to become the New England Patriots.To me, it's more of a "representational" name change, such as the way they handled Phoenix Cardinals becoming the Arizona Cardinals. And while I get that the team did move from Boston (proper) to the suburbs/exurbs, so did several other teams-- Detroit out to Pontiac, Cowboys from Dallas to Irvine, Giants (and Jets) from New York City to another state, and most recently (and actually the longest move in terms of distance) San Francisco to Santa Clara. It just happened that the Patriots changed their name in conjunction with a move to another part of the metro area (sort of like the San Francisco Warriors becoming the Golden State Warriors, or the Nets going from New York to New Jersey to Brooklyn). That's an excellent point. Why treat the Boston/New England Patriots as a move, but not the Pheonix/Arizona Cardinals? Doesn't make any sense.Great. Now I don't like that graphic.I assume they only did it to show there was another team in Boston before the Patriots. https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.