Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ashes of Astroworld said:

 

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.

 

1. I agree.  There was no way they'd cancel a program like that when it's already been proven that fauxbacks sell, and it would be super easy to design fauxbacks for CAR, HOU, JAX, TEN, and any other team I'm missing that doesn't have a legit uni to throw back to.  

 

2. Going for the "best of both worlds" never ends well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 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. 

 

Its not a matter of flooding the market per se, but rather cannibalizing an already-existing market. Every team can (and does) sell throwback & vintage-inspired gear - no gimmick game needed. Jim Kelly jerseys are still hot in 2018. While I can't find the sales figures, I also see red Bills jerseys all over Buffalo, which didn't happen when Puma offered a near-identical design as a fashion jersey in 2000.

 

That being said, when the Color Rush gimmick runs its retail course, I would love to see newer teams fauxback their way into a throwback gimmick - i.e, a kitschy, Oiler-colored, vintage-style Houston uni :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard about the Titans changes this year, I'm looking forward to seeing them break out throwbacks next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 10:13 PM, SFGiants58 said:

I happen to like the one-helmet rule. It's a "first line of defense" against CFB-style craziness.

 

Agreeded. However, it would be nice to wear the proper helmet for throwbacks. As it stands the Seahawks, Falcons, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Patriots, Jaguars, Titans, Broncos, and many others (depending on which era they choose) can't wear throwbacks AT ALL because of this helmet rule. 

 

I'm fine with an alternate helmet in the NFL, if it's only used for throwbacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

 

Agreeded. However, it would be nice to wear the proper helmet for throwbacks. As it stands the Seahawks, Falcons, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Patriots, Jaguars, Titans, Broncos, and many others (depending on which era they choose) can't wear throwbacks AT ALL because of this helmet rule. 

 

I'm fine with an alternate helmet in the NFL, if it's only used for throwbacks. 

Those three teams CAN wear Throwbacks easily. Falcons can wear 1990's Throwbacks, the Cowboys can wear the Double Star Topped Alts from the 90's and Early 2000's, which is also their Color Rush, and the Titans can wear Houston/Tennessee Oilers throwbacks with ease!

 

EDIT: Didn't notice "Depending on Which era they choose"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Broken Record said:

From what I've heard about the Titans changes this year, I'm looking forward to seeing them break out throwbacks next year.

 

What is the word on the streets about their changes? Haven't heard much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gr3g3 said:

 

What is the word on the streets about their changes? Haven't heard much of anything.

I would also like to hear. There has been basically no buzz at all about the new Titans uniforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Titans, anything that keeps the flaming ball thing or the 1990s helmet stripe things will be a failure.  I'd like to see them eliminate the navy in favor of red, returning them to the color combo of the Oilers, and put some sort of "T" on the helmet.Insert other media

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God I miss those uniforms, logo too. What a great set. 

 

It's a shame 2 of the best looks of all time in the Whalers and Oilers are no more 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texans should be the team to switch back to Oilers colors.  Columbia blue and red represents Houston.  Titans should keep both shades of blue and eliminate red.  Add silver/gray as a tertiary color so they could avoid the blue overkill.  Or have silver/gray as a replacement of the light blue.  Whatever it takes with different ownership away from the post Adams era, the Titans need to find their own identity and change their look to move away from the Oilers era.  

 

Image result for houston texans oilers colors

 

Don't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 10:22 AM, andrewharrington said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

The league didn't conduct any research that suggests wearing a new helmet contributes to head injuries.. It's primarily the vsr4 rule at this point.. And even if any of that is the case, a strong argument could be made that allowing players to use sub-standard/outdated equipment due to the player's "preference" is irresponsible neglect on the part of the league.. There's been WAY more research and development conducted that proves the newer models are vastly superior to the vsr4, that I think the NFL would have little trouble defending a decision to force a player into a newer, safer helmet.. Also, these NFL brains that have been studied have been of players who spent the bulk of their career in helmets that evolved little to none over a 20+ year span.. In the past 5-10 years, the R&D has been exponentially greater, resulting in significantly safer helmets.. 

In summation, the 1-helmet rule is little more than a cover-up for marketing and/or a horribly illogical CYA rule for liability purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

The league didn't conduct any research that suggests wearing a new helmet contributes to head injuries.. It's primarily the vsr4 rule at this point.. And even if any of that is the case, a strong argument could be made that allowing players to use sub-standard/outdated equipment due to the player's "preference" is irresponsible neglect on the part of the league.. There's been WAY more research and development conducted that proves the newer models are vastly superior to the vsr4, that I think the NFL would have little trouble defending a decision to force a player into a newer, safer helmet.. Also, these NFL brains that have been studied have been of players who spent the bulk of their career in helmets that evolved little to none over a 20+ year span.. In the past 5-10 years, the R&D has been exponentially greater, resulting in significantly safer helmets.. 

In summation, the 1-helmet rule is little more than a cover-up for marketing and/or a horribly illogical CYA rule for liability purposes.

 

The league adopted its rule on the recommendation of two independent committees. I’d hope that recommendations like this are brought with more than a hunch to back them up, but I suppose you’re right that there’s nothing available to the public stating otherwise.

 

Fair enough, but I think the point still stands, regardless of the league’s motives and the propriety thereof. Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, the league is putting the onus on players to choose what type of helmet to wear and when to change them (except in the aforementioned cases where the player must change due to damage, new team, etc.). I think many people would like to see them outlaw antiquated helmets, but others likely see that as counterproductive, i.e., the “safer” helmets simply result in a more unsafe style of play.

 

I also don’t think there’s data yet to back up that recent helmet models are safer in gameplay. The tests are generally done in a laboratory and fail to mimic the types of impacts that football helmets are routinely subject to. So, while it’s true that they reduce the theoretical force of concussive impacts in a lab measuring static, controlled impacts, we won’t know how that translates to dynamic impacts and in turn, to the players’ brains until we’re able to study the brains of current players and compare them to the older data.

Share this post


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

In the past 5-10 years, the R&D has been exponentially greater, resulting in significantly safer helmets.

 

 

Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.  ;) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gothamite said:

 

 

Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.  ;) 

 

Nothing was assumed.. If I need to cite information and data displaying the significant amount of research, testing, and development for you to believe that my statement is factual, I'll be happy to, but I would imagine the members of this board are well acquainted with such information, especially with the recent focus on concussions and safety at all levels of the sport..

And although it fails to address the "research" portion of my statement, the "development" side can easily be seen in the increased number of helmet models, variety of materials, and styles of construction.. As well as the increase in testing, publicity of those tests, and the fact that the numbers suggest superiority of the newer models.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Nothing was assumed.. If I need to cite information and data displaying the significant amount of research, testing, and development for you to believe that my statement is factual, I'll be happy to, but I would imagine the members of this board are well acquainted with such information, especially with the recent focus on concussions and safety at all levels of the sport..

And although it fails to address the "research" portion of my statement, the "development" side can easily be seen in the increased number of helmet models, variety of materials, and styles of construction.. As well as the increase in testing, publicity of those tests, and the fact that the numbers suggest superiority of the newer models.. 

Playing devil's advocate, because I think Gothamite was having fun with that statement due to his use of the smiley-face, one could also argue that the increased number of helmet models isn't due to safety, it's due to increased sales potential.  All those ridges and vents and proprietary 'looks' are just the various make and model numbers and letters in your latest [insert car dealer here] sales effort.

Share this post


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

Playing devil's advocate, because I think Gothamite was having fun with that statement due to his use of the smiley-face, one could also argue that the increased number of helmet models isn't due to safety, it's due to increased sales potential.  All those ridges and vents and proprietary 'looks' are just the various make and model numbers and letters in your latest [insert car dealer here] sales effort.

 

Bingo.

 

I'm also extremely skeptical of the assertion that modern helmets are actually any safer.  At least where CTE is concerned, which is the real issue.  Because remember, concussions are a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Playing devil's advocate, because I think Gothamite was having fun with that statement due to his use of the smiley-face, one could also argue that the increased number of helmet models isn't due to safety, it's due to increased sales potential.  All those ridges and vents and proprietary 'looks' are just the various make and model numbers and letters in your latest [insert car dealer here] sales effort.

i know there was some playfulness in Goth's comment, but i wanted to make it clear that things are different now than they were in 1990.. 

and with regard to the different helmet models - there's more than just some varying "ridges and vents" that make helmet models different from one another.. it's clear that there are significant differences between the Riddell Speed and SpeedFlex, and there are potential/possible performance benefits within the details of those differences (flex panel on the forehead/crown region, relocating the upper facemask hardware, ratcheting chinstrap).. additionally, newer companies have emerged with completely different and proprietary designs that truly seem to be geared towards increased performance, rather than marketable "looks".. xenith has the inner "bonnet" structure with internal suspension system & vicis has its axis fit system and reflex layer of columns, which both companies designed to more properly fit and "cradle" the head as well as address the issues of tangential and rotational forces that are typically neglected in design and testing.. whether the manufacturers are correct or not, it's pretty clear that the idea behind their innovations is to evolve the helmet to address the newer information we have regarding concussions.. sure, certain aspects of the helmet aesthetics are for brand recognition and marketing, but an oddly-shaped ear hole doesn't change the fact that the "guts" of the helmet are substantially different from the old VSR4's and Air Advnatages, and according to all the testing data, safer as well..

Share this post


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

i know there was some playfulness in Goth's comment, but i wanted to make it clear that things are different now than they were in 1990.. 

and with regard to the different helmet models - there's more than just some varying "ridges and vents" that make helmet models different from one another.. it's clear that there are significant differences between the Riddell Speed and SpeedFlex, and there are potential/possible performance benefits within the details of those differences (flex panel on the forehead/crown region, relocating the upper facemask hardware, ratcheting chinstrap).. additionally, newer companies have emerged with completely different and proprietary designs that truly seem to be geared towards increased performance, rather than marketable "looks".. xenith has the inner "bonnet" structure with internal suspension system & vicis has its axis fit system and reflex layer of columns, which both companies designed to more properly fit and "cradle" the head as well as address the issues of tangential and rotational forces that are typically neglected in design and testing.. whether the manufacturers are correct or not, it's pretty clear that the idea behind their innovations is to evolve the helmet to address the newer information we have regarding concussions.. sure, certain aspects of the helmet aesthetics are for brand recognition and marketing, but an oddly-shaped ear hole doesn't change the fact that the "guts" of the helmet are substantially different from the old VSR4's and Air Advnatages, and according to all the testing data, safer as well..

 

 

I support this statement. It seemed like the vsr 4 and the bike/air helmets were the only 2 options for 25 years. In addition to all of the R&D you also have programs like va tech that are now performing consistent research and publishing it. This is not by any means a solution but it's a step in the right direction. As far as the proliferation of helmet models it feels like we are back in the 70's with riddell, rawlings, maxpro, wilson etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, guest23 said:

 

 

I support this statement. It seemed like the vsr 4 and the bike/air helmets were the only 2 options for 25 years. In addition to all of the R&D you also have programs like va tech that are now performing consistent research and publishing it. This is not by any means a solution but it's a step in the right direction. As far as the proliferation of helmet models it feels like we are back in the 70's with riddell, rawlings, maxpro, wilson etc...

definitely more prominent manufacturers now than in the past 20+ years.. it was Riddel and Schutt only throughout most of the 90's til just recently.. i agree none of this is a solution, but they're all steps toward trying to fix (or at least minimize) the problem..

as far as increasing models for increasing sales potential, the current offerings from the major majufacturers (Riddell & Schutt) is actually quite limited.

 

Riddell: 2 varsity models

-SpeedFlex (premium option)

-Speed (mid-level option)

 

Schutt: 5 varisty models (3 basic models, but 2 are available in 2 shell options - so really only 3 types of helmets)

-F7 (premium option)

-Z10 (mid-level option in Vengeance shell)

-Q10 (same "guts" as Z10, but in the Air XP shell)

-Vengeance Pro (entry-level option in modern shell)

-Air XP (same "guts" as Vengeance Pro, but in the traditional shell)

 

it should be noted that Schutt helmets typically test a little better than their Riddell counterparts.. Schutt's offerings compare to the next level up of Riddell's comparable styles.. so a "mid-level" Schutt is comparable to "high-level" or almost "premium" for Riddell..

[the "premium", "mid-level", etc. terminology is mine, used for descriptive purposes; not the manufacturers']

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