hettinger_rl

Tampa Bay Times Sports editorial: Save us from the Buccaneers’ hideous uniforms

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Pengin. said:

Ugh I miss this uniforms so much. I remember playing as the Bucs in Madden solely because their uniforms were so great.  

I did the same thing. I played one in the Divisional into Creamsicles vs Dallas (1982 Divisional rematch) and the Super Bowl I kept THAT uniform above with the new helmet and it was sharp!

Share this post


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

 

Here's another:

 

AR-140219144.jpg?MaxW=950&cachebuster=67

 

 

This photoshop a found is a start:

 

tumblr_pj07iq4k491u7t2opo1_1280.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

That is essentially the AZ Cardinals.

 

cards-05-11-whitered-away-tonymedina-675

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pewter is a great color but it should not be on the uniform at all. It does not work as a flat color. It comes off looking like tan or khaki color. Terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

That is essentially the AZ Cardinals.

 

cards-05-11-whitered-away-tonymedina-675

 

Well I did say it was just a start. Get rid of the shoulder yoke and add more creamsicle like the poster I was replying to is suggesting.

 

 

17 minutes ago, jmac11281 said:

Pewter is a great color but it should not be on the uniform at all. It does not work as a flat color. It comes off looking like tan or khaki color. Terrible.

 

Yeah it just looks like sludge. Probably the ugliest color possible on a uniform. It should be trim at most.

 

Share this post


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

 

 

Thanks for sharing. This is cool:

 

Quote
 
4. There were separate left- and right-side versions of the mascot. According to that same article, “[T]wo different symbols had to be drawn to go on the sides of the Bucs’ helmets. The plum feather has to be facing backwards on both sides, so it was necessary to redraw the logo to fit those specifications.”

Plenty of teams have separate logo variations for the two sides of their helmet, of course, but I hadn’t realized that the Bucs had done this. Sure enough (click to enlarge):

Screen-Shot-2018-11-23-at-3.01.35-PM.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-distinction between a pirate, which was considered “scruffy” and “hairy-legged” and “sweaty-looking,” and a buccaneer, which ownership described as “high-class” and “devil-may-care.”-

 

This was a distinction that made a difference? 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, the best look that the Buccaneers ever sported were the uniforms they wore from 1997 through 2011. The white jersey/pewter pants Buccaneers combo of this era is one of my all-time favorite NFL uniforms; easily a "Top 5" look in my opinion.

Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of the 1997-2011 white pants, particularly when worn with the red jersey. The move to the flywire collars in 2012 was a downgrade, as was the decision to eliminate all of the black from the collars in 2013.

For those clamoring for a return of orange prominence in Tampa Bay's uniform design, I've often wondered what the 1997-2011 Buccaneers' uniforms would look like with the red and orange on the pants and jerseys flipped. In other words...

* Home: orange jersey w/ a black collar, black sleeve trim, white numbers outlined in red & black, player name in white; pewter pants w/ a black/red/orange/red/black stripe; pewter helmet w/ a black facemask  

* Road: white jersey w/ a black collar, black sleeve trim, orange numbers outlined in red & black, player name in orange; pewter pants w/ a black/red/orange/red/black stripe; pewter helmet w/ a black facemask

* Coloring of helmet and sleeve logos would remain exactly the same as in 1997-2011 uniforms.


     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Not to everyone, apparently. B)

 

Lol, tell me about it. 

 

On 11/28/2018 at 5:59 PM, Bucfan56 said:

 

The original colors SUCKED, and NOBODY liked them until they were long gone. If you say otherwise you’re either misremembering or straight up lying.

 

Share this post


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

-distinction between a pirate, which was considered “scruffy” and “hairy-legged” and “sweaty-looking,” and a buccaneer, which ownership described as “high-class” and “devil-may-care.”-

 

 This was a distinction that made a difference? 😄

 

Sure there is.  It's the difference between this character:

 

errol-flynn-captain-blood_10x6.jpg

 

and this one:

 

pirates-of-the-caribbean-the-curse-of-th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Sure there is.  It's the difference between this character:

 

errol-flynn-captain-blood_10x6.jpg

 

and this one:

 

pirates-of-the-caribbean-the-curse-of-th


The difference between a Tasmanian and a Queenslander?

Ohhhhhhh... you said character. Never mind.

😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the uni-watch article:

 

DtQMl-oUUAEjyBv.jpg

 

A burgundy/orange pairing has some potential for the Buccaneers. It’d give the creamsicles a bit more “heft.” Also, if Bruce has to come back, make him an agitated fellow. @Buc demonstrated the perfect method:

 

TBbuccaneers_NPC.png

 

I'm game with anything that drops brown/pewter off the jerseys proper and those numbers. Bruce doesn’t have to come back, but I’d be OK with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Sure there is.  It's the difference between this character:

 

errol-flynn-captain-blood_10x6.jpg

 

and this one:

 

pirates-of-the-caribbean-the-curse-of-th

I just meant "hairy-legged"..... Apparently buccanneers didn't/don't have hairy legs and any guy that does must also be scruffy and sweaty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antonio Bryant agrees:

https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/2018/11/30/ex-buccaneers-receiver-ditch-the-uniforms/

 

Honestly the current set wouldn't be awful with either of the old helmet logos and a normal font.  But to me the matte pewter isn't on the same level as the previous sets.  I'm just torn on which era I prefer; Bruce ('76-'96) or pewter ('97-'13).  

 

Also, not sure I understand what made the reversible-Bruce logo interesting.  Is it not just flipped horizontally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I, too, am having a hard time seeing how the left and right decals are drawn differently...pretty sure they are just mirrored.

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for sharing. This is cool:

 

 

 

I love stories like this, but it’s not really a different piece of art like the Ravens’ left and right facing logos are. Based on that photo, all they did was flip the entire logo for the other side, while the article implies that they did a completely custom version where only the hat, plume, and hair are flipped (which would have been the best way to do it, in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can keep the current helmet logo, but bring back the 97-13 uniforms in their entirety. Maybe they could lighten the pewter a bit, since it looks brown now. I always loved the 'champagne' color the Michigan Panthers used in the USFL.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There’s been debate over whether whether Bucco Bruce is gay, and/or whether the nickname “Bucco Bruce” (which was never the mascot’s official name) was intended as a gay slur.

First of all, I don't think there's any debate over whether it was a gay joke and the answer is yes; second, how did the name Bruce become code for gay, anyway? 

 

EDIT: the notion of earnestly debating the intended sexuality of the logo itself is a laugh, though. No, they probably just thought it was cool. It's just that a lot of disliking other sports teams traditionally consisted of calling them gay: Viqueens, Butt Packers, Gayders, I suppose "Bears" really stands on its own in that respect

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for sharing. This is cool:

 

 

Weren't those just mirror images?

 

ETA - I should have read the whole thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the admiral said:

First of all, I don't think there's any debate over whether it was a gay joke and the answer is yes; second, how did the name Bruce become code for gay, anyway? 

 

No idea, maybe it was a 1970s colloquialism that faded out after the early-‘80s. It’s why Bruce Banner was named “David Banner” in the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno series.

 

Bucco Bruce is only kind of camp. He’s on the same level as ‘70s Kraven the Hunter:

 

asm47.jpg

 

Give him a similar makeover to one of the ones Kraven had and you’d be good.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUVBnnR26ZSAoHq47PL4Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

No idea, maybe it was a 1970s colloquialism that faded out after the early-‘80s. It’s why Bruce Banner was named “David Banner” in the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno series.

 

I remember reading that there was some early consternation over how to go about marketing Bruce Springsteen with that name, hence so much of "the Boss." (Should have saved the consternation for the mid-'80s when he started looking like the Village People's rejected mechanic character.) And of course, the Simpsons joke many years later.

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