Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

C'mon, Goth, no one's going to read that.  They'd rather just come on here and rail about the "rediculus (sic) one helmet rule"... "but, but... what about colleges??"

Not to mention the always-present “Paul Lukas holds an opinion I disagree with! Therefore everything he writes is wrong!” brigade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

C'mon, Goth, no one's going to read that.  They'd rather just come on here and rail about the "rediculus (sic) one helmet rule"... "but, but... what about colleges??"

 

That FAQ is 100% junk and colleges have actually done due diligence. Lukas' source is likely his equipment manager buddy on the giants who forged a bunch of game used memorabilia which may speak to the source's credibility.

 

Let's recap yet again.

  1. Breaking in a helmet(s) are done in training camps. New helmets don't require extensive break in periods nor does broken in padding have anything to do with safety.
  2. The NCAA is not concerned because if you follow proper fitting and maintenance guidelines there is no statistically controllable difference between multiple helmets. Colleges are also actively partnering with their academic counterparts in medicine, science, and engineering to do actual research. The shield does nothing on this scale.
  3. You can make potential argument that swapping masks for throwback helmets can is additional safety risk if it requires resetting of internal padding etc. without refitting.
  4. If the goal is minimizing helmet changes that is a labor/effort issue not a safety issue.
  5. Maintenance intervals are not an issue as 1 helmet per player is maintained weekly in season whether it 1 or 6 helmets worn in a season.
  6. Grandfathered/discontinued models argument is highly suspicious. There are enough examples of veteran players that have switch teams that play contact positions like v wilfork, a peterson, a gates that have either swapped teams or worn the vsr4 longer than their useful lives. This would require an extensive dead stock inventory or riddell continued to manufacture in small quantities. There is no way a 300+ lb nose tackle did not go through multiple shells in his career. In addition peterson wore 2 different vsr4's in 2 consecutive weeks when he was traded. The limited quantity argument is very dubious.

 

Like Lukas I'm not a neuroscientist, but anyone with education or professional experience in statistics, process, safety, or logic based disciplines can see this whole thing is a sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

James Harrison picked up by NE so late in the season after the Steelers obliged and released him per his request.

 

i seriously doubt he took his Pittsburgh helmet with him and the Patriots Equipment Mgr painted it silver.

 

My belief is that he was given a brand spankin' new silver Patriots helmet.

 

What a crock of BS this one-helmet rule is!  🙄

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, a player can wear a different helmet every game if the choice to do so is voluntary.

 

The goal is to minimize *unnecessary* situations in which a player is *forced* to wear a different helmet. Moving to a new team qualifies as a necessary situation. A damaged helmet qualifies as a necessary situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Again, a player can wear a different helmet every game if the choice to do so is voluntary.

 

The goal is to minimize *unnecessary* situations in which a player is *forced* to wear a different helmet. Moving to a new team qualifies as a necessary situation. A damaged helmet qualifies as a necessary situation.

 

Please define unnecessary. For whom? Nfl properties concerned about confusing cans? Nfl PR trying to hype an illogical policy to make it appear like they care about safety? A handful of teams were wearing different helmets 2x a year. That volume of change definitely does not qualify as burdensome or heaven forbid, dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Not to mention the always-present “Paul Lukas holds an opinion I disagree with! Therefore everything he writes is wrong!” brigade. 

 

8 hours ago, guest23 said:

That FAQ is 100% junk

Wow. The very next post. I've spent way too much time here.

 

12 minutes ago, guest23 said:

Please define unnecessary.

I know a lot of people here don't realise this, but throwback uniforms that use a different coloured helmet from the primary home/road set are not necessary

 

Look. Am I on the NFL's side on the "head trauma in football" discussion? Absolutely not. Just check out the appropriate thread in the Sports in General section to see how hard I am on the League for how they've handled, and continue to handle, issues related to player safety.

That being said...I get why the "one-helmet rule" has been implemented. If I take out my personal opinions on the matter? And just look at things from an objective, cold, and calculating point of view? Yeah it makes sense. If there's even a remote possibility that changing helmets for a throwback game compromises player safety, and it comes out that the NFL knew that and let teams do it anyway? They could be up :censored: creek from a legal and compensation standpoint.

It makes complete sense to me why the NFL would institute this policy. You and others are missing point. The NFL isn't saying switching helmets for throwbacks definitely compromises player safety. They're simply hedging their bets and covering their asses legally.

 

Yeah, it sucks we lose out on a lot of cool throwback looks, but so what? The people who care that much about seeing specific throwbacks that would necessitate a helmet change are all pretty much here. And there's no way the NFL is exposing themselves to legal liabilities just to appease some uniform nerds on the inner webs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Yeah, it sucks we lose out on a lot of cool throwback looks, but so what? The people who care that much about seeing specific throwbacks that would necessitate a helmet change are all pretty much here. And there's no way the NFL is exposing themselves to legal liabilities just to appease some uniform nerds on the inner webs.

Big Bingo right here. It’s wild how often people on these boards assume that the general public or even the people in the business itself care about or covet sporting aesthetics as much as they do or in the same fashion as they do. There are some folks here who will throw around statements such as “EVERYBODY wants this!” and “It’s a no-brainer!” when really all they are referring is their own aesthetical preferences and, often, nostalgia. It cannot be stated enough that our obsession is kind of strange (I don’t think I could ever bring myself to show it around even my closest colleagues). The people who truly care enough are all right smack here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think that the one-helmet rule is some combination of (some or all) 1) overcautious, 2) low-hanging fruit in trying to appear to care, 3) CYA for liability, and 4) a way to protect league/team image.

 

Regarding #4, helmets are a key part of team identities in the NFL.  A team's helmet is almost as present as its primary logo and if teams started acting like NCAA teams, the identities get watered down.  I don't think the helmet is as key to college team identities as it is in the NFL, as colleges have other sports, more prominent mascots, and basic letters. There are some exceptions, of course, (e.g., Michigan).  Maybe I'm off-base here and the NFL does not care if individual teams water down their identities.  But I would understand if that was what they are doing.

 

While my uneducated sense is that wearing multiple helmets would not make the game appreciably less safe, I also feel that if there's a chance it would, the rule should be in place.  Even though I'm on this site, the value to wearing a throwback or alternate helmet cannot eclipse even a thin chance that disallowing such things helps.

 

And mark me down as thinking the rule's a positive even for aesthetic reasons.  I like reliable NFL helmets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the CYA aspect of this is the easiest part to understand.  Imagine a future lawsuit, in which the lawyer for the family of a former player who committed suicide turns to the jury and says, "On top of all the other risks associated with the game, the NFL forced my client to wear a helmet not of his choosing, simply to make money off a throwback uniform promotion"... it doesn't matter if the NFL could parade 100 experts who say switching helmets had nothing to do with it.  Anybody hearing that would think that forcing multiple helmets on an unwilling player was a frivolous and disrespectful way to treat a piece of (theoretically) protective equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Deion Sanders, who was famously meticulous about his uniform, wore the same helmet through much of his NFL career, even after changing teams.

 

On 1/2/2018 at 10:56 AM, FSUViking said:

Replace color-rush with Throwback Thursday's. If they insist on having this stupid game with an even stupider gimmick, at least make it a good one.

 

Color Rush really only exists as a merch gimmick. A lot of teams already wear throwbacks as alternates, which cannibalizes the potential to expand that market the way Nike did by adding an entirely new jersey for almost every team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Please define unnecessary. For whom? Nfl properties concerned about confusing cans? Nfl PR trying to hype an illogical policy to make it appear like they care about safety? A handful of teams were wearing different helmets 2x a year. That volume of change definitely does not qualify as burdensome or heaven forbid, dangerous.

 

I’m sure your can use your own common sense to define the term. If not, you can just go back to my post. Anything other than a damaged shell or moving to a team with a different helmet color is unnecessary.

 

Alternatively, this guy seems to have a nice, objective opinion of what unnecessary means in this context.

 

10 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

Wow. The very next post. I've spent way too much time here.

 

I know a lot of people here don't realise this, but throwback uniforms that use a different coloured helmet from the primary home/road set are not necessary

 

Look. Am I on the NFL's side on the "head trauma in football" discussion? Absolutely not. Just check out the appropriate thread in the Sports in General section to see how hard I am on the League for how they've handled, and continue to handle, issues related to player safety.

That being said...I get why the "one-helmet rule" has been implemented. If I take out my personal opinions on the matter? And just look at things from an objective, cold, and calculating point of view? Yeah it makes sense. If there's even a remote possibility that changing helmets for a throwback game compromises player safety, and it comes out that the NFL knew that and let teams do it anyway? They could be up :censored: creek from a legal and compensation standpoint.

It makes complete sense to me why the NFL would institute this policy. You and others are missing point. The NFL isn't saying switching helmets for throwbacks definitely compromises player safety. They're simply hedging their bets and covering their asses legally.

 

Yeah, it sucks we lose out on a lot of cool throwback looks, but so what? The people who care that much about seeing specific throwbacks that would necessitate a helmet change are all pretty much here. And there's no way the NFL is exposing themselves to legal liabilities just to appease some uniform nerds on the inner webs.

 

This guy even took it to the next level with the perfect hypothetical situation that the league wants to avoid.

 

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I think the CYA aspect of this is the easiest part to understand.  Imagine a future lawsuit, in which the lawyer for the family of a former player who committed suicide turns to the jury and says, "On top of all the other risks associated with the game, the NFL forced my client to wear a helmet not of his choosing, simply to make money off a throwback uniform promotion"... it doesn't matter if the NFL could parade 100 experts who say switching helmets had nothing to do with it.  Anybody hearing that would think that forcing multiple helmets on an unwilling player was a frivolous and disrespectful way to treat a piece of (theoretically) protective equipment.

 

Personally, do I like the rule? No. Do I think putting a player into a properly fit helmet of the same model but different color has a quantifiable negative effect on head injuries? No. Do I think the presence of this rule should absolve the NFL in its alleged complicity in suppressing scientific evidence? No. Do I understand why the rule exists? Yes. Do I think the NFL would be attacked hard in a legal setting if a player was forced to wear a new helmet for a throwback game (whether it was the player’s same preferred model or not) and subsequently suffered a head injury, knowing that the league conducted research to find out if wearing a new helmet could contribute to head injuries and were told that it couldn’t be ruled out? 100% Yes.

 

Lesson: it’s possible to understand something without agreeing with it. The league wants to put the onus on individual players to change helmets and to do so at their own risk because it doesn’t know what the risks are. Same reason why it stopped allowing Riddell to pay to have its logo on helmets; it doesn’t want to be seen as an endorser of one brand over the others when there’s little data and no consensus as to whose helmets (or which models) are “safest” outside the confines of a laboratory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like the Color Rush Thursday idea. But it needs to be tweaked. It should be Color Rush Thursday, not Monochromatic Thursday. Wearing the same color socks and pants makes it look like the players are wearing yoga pants. Just let them wear primary colors with normal socks and cleats. I'm also disappointed when teams "wimp out" and just wear white pants and jerseys. I understand we can't have the Cowboys play the Giants with both in blue. But the Giants could wear red or the Cowboys wear silver.  When one team wears white, it winds up looking like a 1950's or 60's uniform in most cases!

And as most have stated, the one helmet rule needs to be changed. We shouldn't let teams use 10 different helmets, but maybe just limit it to two or three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wandell said:

I personally like the Color Rush Thursday idea. But it needs to be tweaked. It should be Color Rush Thursday, not Monochromatic Thursday. Wearing the same color socks and pants makes it look like the players are wearing yoga pants. Just let them wear primary colors with normal socks and cleats. I'm also disappointed when teams "wimp out" and just wear white pants and jerseys. I understand we can't have the Cowboys play the Giants with both in blue. But the Giants could wear red or the Cowboys wear silver.  When one team wears white, it winds up looking like a 1950's or 60's uniform in most cases!

And as most have stated, the one helmet rule needs to be changed. We shouldn't let teams use 10 different helmets, but maybe just limit it to two or three.

Really? Do you have data on that? I think there's a large number of people who are perfectly accepting of one helmet as a means of establishing and maintaining a team's brand.

 

Along those lines, Color Rush sucks as it makes a team wear something that is NOT its best uniform (in almost every case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 2:19 AM, Jt0323 said:

Dolphins 5 years are up, hopefully they put in a change for their throw back being full time last year, or they do so this year

 

nope :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Really? Do you have data on that? I think there's a large number of people who are perfectly accepting of one helmet as a means of establishing and maintaining a team's brand.

 

Along those lines, Color Rush sucks as it makes a team wear something that is NOT its best uniform (in almost every case).

I think, if anything, there are very few people who want multiple alternate helmets for teams. We don't need an orange Bears lid or a yellow Rams helmet.

 

What I think would make most uniform-minded people happy is if the NFL allows two helmets period: one standard helmet for your home, road, and Color Rush whatnots, and one designated throwback uniform, whose elements from head to toe (helmet, jersey, pants, and socks) cannot be mixed and matched with other aspects.

 

I understand why the one-shell rule is in place for safety purposes (or the appearance thereof), and in the absence of it, I could understand why they would want a one-helmet rule for league branding purposes. But if they were to ever back off from the rule, I think the above would be the best way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, C-Squared said:

IIRC, Deion Sanders, who was famously meticulous about his uniform, wore the same helmet through much of his NFL career, even after changing teams.

 

 

Color Rush really only exists as a merch gimmick. A lot of teams already wear throwbacks as alternates, which cannibalizes the potential to expand that market the way Nike did by adding an entirely new jersey for almost every team.

 
 

The Bears, Lions, Packers, Dolphins, Bills, Falcons, and Rams wear throwbacks meanwhile the Titans, Colts, Chiefs, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, Panthers, Bears, and Packers use already existing home or alternate jerseys for color rush so it would sell most likely an equal amount of jerseys. I bet way more people would shell out money for a creamsicle jersey than a bucs color rush or pat the patriot vs color rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

nope :(

 

President/CEO Tom Garfinkel said last year that he believed brand evolution is a good thing and brand revolution is a bad thing, so I doubt going to the throwback look full time is going to happen anyway. He seems pretty happy with the way things are.

 

Again, I understand I’m in he minority on this, but I agree with his point of view. I’d prefer to keep things as they are now. The throwbacks are a great look and I wouldn’t want to taint them in any way so only wearing them twice a year is a smart move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ltjets21 said:

The Bears, Lions, Packers, Dolphins, Bills, Falcons, and Rams wear throwbacks meanwhile the Titans, Colts, Chiefs, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, Panthers, Bears, and Packers use already existing home or alternate jerseys for color rush so it would sell most likely an equal amount of jerseys. I bet way more people would shell out money for a creamsicle jersey than a bucs color rush or pat the patriot vs color rush.

 

People can already purchase creamsicle jerseys, red Pats gear, etc. The NFL throwback market is strong and has already existed for decades. Color Rush created new merch. Throwback Thursday would simply recycle existing merch that was already available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

Throwback Thursday would simply recycle existing merch that was already available.

I had heard that “Throwback Thursdays” was the initial plan, but was cancelled due to the combination of the one-helmet rule and the fact that the Texans and Panthers wouldn’t have anything to wear.

Maybe that story was bunk, but if there’s truth behind it? They obviously weren’t worried about flooding the market with already-available throwback gear. 

Besides. Teams often have more than one look to throw back to.

 

Not that any of this matters, considering the NFL basically cancelled Colour Rush as a concept anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I had heard that “Throwback Thursdays” was the initial plan, but was cancelled due to the combination of the one-helmet rule and the fact that the Texans and Panthers wouldn’t have anything to wear.

Maybe that story was bunk, but if there’s truth behind it? They obviously weren’t worried about flooding the market with already-available throwback gear. 

Besides. Teams often have more than one look to throw back to.

 

Not that any of this matters, considering the NFL basically cancelled Colour Rush as a concept anyway. 

 

The cancellation reso was a stupid excuse due too the fact that they could have easily just made fauxbacks for the Texans and Panthers to wear a la the Tampa Bay Rays. A lot older Texans fans wouldn't mind a Battle Red-colored variation of our original teams jersey complete with the floating Ohio State stripes. Not mention Denver, Atlanta, the Rams and a lesser extent New England's CR's showed what would it look like if a retro design used modern colors And the Chargers the inverse. Instead of the one-helmet arguments, imagine the Seahawks 80-90's jersey's in the current colors. Or a Bucco Bruce/Pewter fusion. Not haphazard like the 75th anniversary,  but something that could be the best of both worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now