NFL 2017 changes?

[The_Admiral]

If the Dolphins outwitted everyone by making them wear dark jerseys on the road, they must have been unbeatable at home! Certainly not a team that would have missed the playoffs for like 15 years in a row if not for one time they ran the "RB direct snap" play from Madden over and over and no one knew what to do.

[leopard88]

14 minutes ago, the admiral said:

If the Dolphins outwitted everyone by making them wear dark jerseys on the road, they must have been unbeatable at home! Certainly not a team that would have missed the playoffs for like 15 years in a row if not for one time they ran the "RB direct snap" play from Madden over and over and no one knew what to do.

 

. . . while simultaneously having the good fortune to devise that plan during the year Tom Brady suffered a season-ending knee injury.

[bwburke94]

36 minutes ago, the admiral said:

If the Dolphins outwitted everyone by making them wear dark jerseys on the road, they must have been unbeatable at home! Certainly not a team that would have missed the playoffs for like 15 years in a row if not for one time they ran the "RB direct snap" play from Madden over and over and no one knew what to do.

 

21 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

. . . while simultaneously having the good fortune to devise that plan during the year Tom Brady suffered a season-ending knee injury.

 

And don't forget, that was the year with the WR Snap glitch.

[Old School Fool]

Looks like the Eagles are still trying to get that one helmet rule changed. More teams need to step up.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-jeffrey-lurie-kelly-green-20170907.html

[walkerws]

Alex Smith has a Schutt mask made for his Vicis helmet. I'm assuming it's Schutt because it has the extra cross bar uprights that are on their Vengeance models. 

 

[walkerws]

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

Looks like the Eagles are still trying to get that one helmet rule changed. More teams need to step up.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-jeffrey-lurie-kelly-green-20170907.html

 

No.  If the Eagle want to wear a kelly green helmet, they need to just drop that ugly blue-green color and wear a kelly green helmet.

[Tracy Jordan]

6 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

Looks like the Eagles are still trying to get that one helmet rule changed. More teams need to step up.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/philadelphia-eagles-jeffrey-lurie-kelly-green-20170907.html

 

From the article:

 

Quote

“They’ve got some issues they’re dealing with with the players — the players have to approve it,” Lurie said. “I don’t know that they’ve had those discussions [with the players’ association], but my hope is, by next offseason, I’m going to try and push those discussions forward. And we’re not the only team. There’s other teams that want to see two helmets. That’s what’s holding us back; otherwise we would have had it this year.”

 

I don't see why the players/NFLPA would be the ones preventing teams from wearing two different helmets. But I'm happy to hear that other teams want to eliminate the one-helmet rule. Don't give up Lurie!

 

[Old School Fool]

3 hours ago, LakeShow24 said:

The Seahawks alt logo replaces the main one for the hashtag emoji on Twitter.

 

You'd think the Saints hashtag would be #GeauxSaints or #WhoDat but it's not.

[BlueSky]

You're right, one of those would be a much better fit. 

 

Sigh...where to start with the Saints' uniforms. Yes, the "toilet seat" collars are gone, and that's good news, but...

 

I despise the beige they wear now instead of gold, but they actually darkened it this year per Uni Watch. Did anyone notice?

 

 

Yeah, me neither. Worse, they're back to mismatched shades between the numbers and pants. One thing Nike did right for a while was at least getting the beige to match reasonably well:

 

 

 Not this year:

 

 

As noted earlier in this thread, they would instantly look better with their original style pants striping, which Georgia Tech wears, albeit in blue/white/blue:

 

:

 

That works on the black pants too, breaking up the onesie look of the current all black uni. Did I mention that matching the golds has been an issue for a while? (Pants stripe vs. sock stripes)

 

 

It looks nice on white too if they wanted to add another combo. Bonus! Photo of rare all-white unis that clearly inspired their Color Rush look.

 

 

 

Trivia: The pants stripe was changed for a "tougher" look - note that it essentially copies the Steelers. Yeah, that helps you get tougher. 

 

And finally, they still haven't realized how great one of the league's best wordmarks would look on a helmet bumper.

 

 

Instead, they have this nondescript and decidely uninspired font:

 

 

 

This concludes my annual Saints uniform rant. Thank you for your attention. 

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, Tracy Jordan said:

I don't see why the players/NFLPA would be the ones preventing teams from wearing two different helmets. But I'm happy to hear that other teams want to eliminate the one-helmet rule. Don't give up Lurie!

 

 

If I was a player and someone told me that wearing one helmet would reduce the chances of my brain becoming mush, even if only by a couple of % points, I'd reject a second Helmet too.

[WSU151]

51 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

If I was a player and someone told me that wearing one helmet would reduce the chances of my brain becoming mush, even if only by a couple of % points, I'd reject a second Helmet too.

 

I wonder how the league determines when a helmet has been "broken in" versus not.  Players who are cut or traded (and then go to another team) during the late parts of training camp or regular season obviously wear more than one helmet and have little time to "break in" the new one.

 

Seems like there are some logical fallacies in the NFL's science, which wouldn't exactly be a rare thing.

 

summoning @WavePunter....

[BlueSky]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

If I was a player and someone told me that wearing one helmet would reduce the chances of my brain becoming mush, even if only by a couple of % points, I'd reject a second Helmet too.

 

A valid point but one I'm forced to call BS on in regard to many, if not most, NFL players. Look at old footage of players donning and removing their helmets. It wasn't easy because the helmets fit snugly - you'd often see guys with their fingers in the ear holes pulling outward to get it on. Today, players can take them off with one hand using the face mask like the bill of a baseball cap. Guys with double chin straps and all four attach points snapped somehow get their helmets knocked off. All that points to a very loose and poor fit. If the issue is the brain bouncing around in the skull, how much worse is a fit so loose that your head bounces around inside the helmet?

 

It doesn't make sense that with today's technology that can't get a proper helmet fit. Or maybe they can, and the players just aren't that interested. 

[shaydre1019]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

If I was a player and someone told me that wearing one helmet would reduce the chances of my brain becoming mush, even if only by a couple of % points, I'd reject a second Helmet too.

 

That's not the reasoning. 

For 99% of the league there are no injury concerns (from switching helmets), the issue is that there are a handful of players who wear old, discontinued models. The concern is that there are so few of those helmets that Player-X would have to switch to an entirely different model and thus it would be a safety concern. 

 

TLDR; it's a dumb rule, but it's often misinterpreted. 



And in regard to the Saints, when i was watching them play the texans, i definitely noticed their numbers were a different shade. They look like the shade of their throwback numbers, which clash with the rest of the uniform. 

[oldschoolvikings]

31 minutes ago, shaydre1019 said:

 

That's not the reasoning. 

For 99% of the league there are no injury concerns (from switching helmets), the issue is that there are a handful of players who wear old, discontinued models. The concern is that there are so few of those helmets that Player-X would have to switch to an entirely different model and thus it would be a safety concern. 

 

 

Exactly.  This has been gone over a number of times but still we have to dig thru all these post complaining about the rule on the basis of reasoning that has nothing to do with the rule.

 

The next time somebody posts something along the lines of "if college can maintain 5 or 6 helmets, why can't the pros?" can that person just get a week suspension?  You know why colleges can do what they want with multiple helmets?  It's because college players have no union, college administrations don't really have to care what those kids think, and most 18 to 21 year olds would put "looking cool" significantly higher than "protecting your future brain" (as would, apparently, many of this board's posters). Those kids have zero power.

 

Unlike unionized professional players, some making multi-millions of dollars.

 

Let's look at this logically. If, say, Tom Brady likes and chooses a particular helmet, and that helmet is no longer being used, the team can reasonable accommodate him with one or maybe two helmets (assuming he doesn't go on a massive helmet destruction tear, which could be argued is nobodies fault) and at least give the impression to him (and, potentially, his lawyers) that their doing the best they can do honor his personal wishes in regards to his cranial safety.  However, if the team comes to multi-millionaire Tom Brady, and says, "Hey, Tom, we know you prefer this helmet, but a somewhat small portion of our fan base would love to see a throwback white helmet, and since we can't go around searching for old helmets just for you without at least offering to do it for every player in the league, we are just pretty much going to demand that you take this new helmet because we said so. Don't worry, the manufacturer says that these superfluous random slots and Klingon-like ridges make it 1.45% safer, so you should be fine." Now, to follow this further, let's say Mr. Brady (God forbid) suffers a career ending head injuring while wearing this awesome looking throwback helmet.  How far do you think into the eventual lawsuit do we get before the lawyers bring up the indefensible point that the league would not let him wear the helmet of his choice? 

 

Of course, you can certainly argue that none of this really has as much to do with caring about safety as it does with giving the appearance of caring about safety in the event of future lawsuits, but if I'm running a giant corporation, that would be reason enough for me.

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

 

[philly97flyer]

8 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Exactly.  This has been gone over a number of times but still we have to dig thru all these post complaining about the rule on the basis of reasoning that has nothing to do with the rule.

 

The next time somebody posts something along the lines of "if college can maintain 5 or 6 helmets, why can't the pros?" can that person just get a week suspension?  You know why colleges can do what they want with multiple helmets?  It's because college players have no union, college administrations don't really have to care what those kids think, and most 18 to 21 year olds would put "looking cool" significantly higher than "protecting your future brain" (as would, apparently, many of this board's posters). Those kids have zero power.

 

Unlike unionized professional players, some making multi-millions of dollars.

 

Let's look at this logically. If, say, Tom Brady likes and chooses a particular helmet, and that helmet is no longer being used, the team can reasonable accommodate him with one or maybe two helmets (assuming he doesn't go on a massive helmet destruction tear, which could be argued is nobodies fault) and at least give the impression to him (and, potentially, his lawyers) that their doing the best they can do honor his personal wishes in regards to his cranial safety.  However, if the team comes to multi-millionaire Tom Brady, and says, "Hey, Tom, we know you prefer this helmet, but a somewhat small portion of our fan base would love to see a throwback white helmet, and since we can't go around searching for old helmets just for you without at least offering to do it for every player in the league, we are just pretty much going to demand that you take this new helmet because we said so. Don't worry, the manufacturer says that these superfluous random slots and Klingon-like ridges make it 1.45% safer, so you should be fine." Now, to follow this further, let's say Mr. Brady (God forbid) suffers a career ending head injuring while wearing this awesome looking throwback helmet.  How far do you think into the eventual lawsuit do we get before the lawyers bring up the indefensible point that the league would not let him wear the helmet of his choice? 

 

Of course, you can certainly argue that none of this really has as much to do with caring about safety as it does with giving the appearance of caring about safety in the event of future lawsuits, but if I'm running a giant corporation, that would be reason enough for me.

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

 

What if a player that wears an old model gets traded?

[WavePunter]

3 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Exactly.  This has been gone over a number of times but still we have to dig thru all these post complaining about the rule on the basis of reasoning that has nothing to do with the rule.

 

The next time somebody posts something along the lines of "if college can maintain 5 or 6 helmets, why can't the pros?" can that person just get a week suspension?  You know why colleges can do what they want with multiple helmets?  It's because college players have no union, college administrations don't really have to care what those kids think, and most 18 to 21 year olds would put "looking cool" significantly higher than "protecting your future brain" (as would, apparently, many of this board's posters). Those kids have zero power.

 

Unlike unionized professional players, some making multi-millions of dollars.

 

Let's look at this logically. If, say, Tom Brady likes and chooses a particular helmet, and that helmet is no longer being used, the team can reasonable accommodate him with one or maybe two helmets (assuming he doesn't go on a massive helmet destruction tear, which could be argued is nobodies fault) and at least give the impression to him (and, potentially, his lawyers) that their doing the best they can do honor his personal wishes in regards to his cranial safety.  However, if the team comes to multi-millionaire Tom Brady, and says, "Hey, Tom, we know you prefer this helmet, but a somewhat small portion of our fan base would love to see a throwback white helmet, and since we can't go around searching for old helmets just for you without at least offering to do it for every player in the league, we are just pretty much going to demand that you take this new helmet because we said so. Don't worry, the manufacturer says that these superfluous random slots and Klingon-like ridges make it 1.45% safer, so you should be fine." Now, to follow this further, let's say Mr. Brady (God forbid) suffers a career ending head injuring while wearing this awesome looking throwback helmet.  How far do you think into the eventual lawsuit do we get before the lawyers bring up the indefensible point that the league would not let him wear the helmet of his choice? 

 

Of course, you can certainly argue that none of this really has as much to do with caring about safety as it does with giving the appearance of caring about safety in the event of future lawsuits, but if I'm running a giant corporation, that would be reason enough for me.

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

 

Valid point on some counts, but also illogical in some ways... Leather helmets and single-bar facemasks are illegal for safety reasons, regardless of a player's "preference".. I think there would be at least some level of justification to forcing players to wear equipment that has been proven superior through qualitative research and testing.. Allowing a player to wear something dangerous simply because he likes it could be viewed as negligent..

[Gothamite]

30 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Valid point on some counts, but also illogical in some ways... Leather helmets and single-bar facemasks are illegal for safety reasons, regardless of a player's "preference".. I think there would be at least some level of justification to forcing players to wear equipment that has been proven superior through qualitative research and testing.. Allowing a player to wear something dangerous simply because he likes it could be viewed as negligent..

 

We'll have to see the research before that claim can be made.

[WavePunter]

21 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

We'll have to see the research before that claim can be made.

I may be misinterpreting the data, but the Virginia Tech helmet studies show the Riddell SpeedFlex (0.193 & 5 stars) to be either 4 or 5 times better than the VSR4 (0.791 & 1 star).. Obviously that testing has its limitations, but to ignore such stark differences in performance would seem foolish from a safety standpoint..

[DCarp1231]

Is it just me or do the black pants stripes on the Saints gold pants taper out at the bottom?