Jump to content

TheOldRoman

Members
  • Posts

    6,938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

TheOldRoman last won the day on January 27 2016

TheOldRoman had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Title
    #Grateful

Recent Profile Visitors

22,664 profile views

TheOldRoman's Achievements

1.3k

Reputation

  1. I agree with this, but I'd reverse what I tolerate. I dislike the yellow pants with the white jerseys, but I think they look particularly bad with the red jerseys. Maybe not "bad" as much as "not right." It might be partly because growing up, the Redskins' red jerseys only appeared thrice a year if you were lucky. And it was always a treat when you saw the red jerseys over white pants. I loved when they finally went red at home in the last decade. Even though we see the red jerseys 9-10 times a year now, it's not the same with the yellow. Meanwhile, I was tired of seeing the Redskins in the white jerseys anyway, so it's not like them wearing yellow pants with them ruins what would otherwise be a "rare" great look. That being said, the Redskins looked better in every way ten years ago. The yellow pants suck and the Nike switch really did a disservice to their uniforms.
  2. Take it back a step. Instead of mirroring the white pants, leave purple in the middle and swap the black and white. That would allow the purple to "show" more instead of fading into the black. This is what they wore their second season: But wear them with these socks: Or, better yet, add thin metallic gold striping/piping around the purple stripe on both sets of pants (and the socks) to further distinguish things.
  3. They wore those blue pants on the road as recently as 1986, so they used the spare ones as practice pants into the '90s. If they reversed the red and white, then made the center stripe proportionately thicker to match the sleeve stripes, those pants would have looked great on the road. I always felt the road look of that set was lacking. Too little blue.
  4. Wow. That first picture of Kezar Stadium is incredible. I can't believe the people are sitting on the gabled roof. That's got to be a 45 degree angle.
  5. Actually, excavation would be considerably more expensive than building higher above ground level. Teams have done this primarily because they feel it makes for a more intimate experience at the game. The stadium looks less imposing from the outside, it provides better views of the outside world at the game, and it lets the stadium be better incorporated into the neighborhood without completely dwarfing everything else.
  6. New Comiskey/USCF was originally to be built partially in-ground, but even 4 miles west of the Lake, the water level was still too high in that area. It would have been kinda cool had the field been below ground level - riding the train into town and being able to see the players on the field from that vantage point.
  7. I'd imagine that most of the newer stadiums are partially below ground level. Generally you enter at the top of the lower level and walk down to your seats. With Soldier Field, it's all above ground because that area is landfill and below the water level.
  8. Yeah, the Raiders are their own thing, and they'd succeed in a lot of different places. I'd imagine a large number of the people going to games in Oakland also went to/would go to games in LA. The Raiders were never going to be more than a niche team in LA.
  9. The Rams have been cutting corners, I'm sure, but they at least seem like they're going in the right direction. They have a really good defense, and one of these years they might put something together and make the playoffs. I don't know if they're on the verge of greatness, but they're on the verge of goodness. The Chargers, meanwhile, are a dumpster fire outside of their quarterback, who's pretty old. They are nowhere close to the playoffs. Also, it seems like the Rams were intentionally mismanaged to help relocation. Meanwhile, the Chargers tried their best and are still the same Chargers owned by Spanos. In the last decade they blew the primes of one of the best RB and TE of all time, and that was after the specter of their failure chased off Eli Manning. Spanos ownership is like later Al Davis ownership. If the team is good, it will be purely accidental.
  10. The Chargers are a worse organization than the Rams. And while pretty much any city will support a winner, LA is full or Rams fans who waited to root for the Rams again. Sure, there's a young generation which never actually saw the Rams play in LA. but they'll largely be swept up in the hysteria and nostalgia of everybody else. The absolute only way the Chargers could have succeeded with the Rams in LA was to beat the Rams there by at least a year and have a good season. Get the kids pulling for the Chargers and hope they don't jump ship when the Rams come. But with the Chargers coming after the Rams, their ceiling would be Football Clippers.
  11. I've also been saying this for while. LA wanted the Rams back as much or more than they wanted the NFL. LA doesn't really care about the Chargers. Not only did the Rams get the outpouring of love for returning home, but they beat the Chargers to it (by at least a year). The LA Chargers would be a disaster. Spanos wanted to move to LA and was willing to take the Raiders with him just to block the Rams. But when the owners sided with Kroenke, Spanos's path was set to return to San Diego. He wasn't going to go to LA on anybody else's terms. And as much of an afterthought as the LA Chargers would have been in 2016, they'll be twice as much in 2017. Spanos knows this. He was ready to move to LA with the Raiders immediately, but as soon as he found out he'd have to play in Kroenke's stadium, he suddenly needed more time to give it a college try in San Diego. He'll posture a whole lot, but the SD government is willing, so something will get done and he'll reluctantly take a stadium deal in San Diego.
  12. Yes, but I love the hokey uber-'90s one. It fit the team. Either wordmark is far better than the crap they use now.
  13. Like 95% of the Phoenix area, I haven't paid attention to the Coyotes this year. I have a few questions. 1) Has Scott played well this year? 2) Why would Montreal trade for him just to stick him in the minors? 3) Is he still in the minors? Will he play in the ASG and go back to the minors?
  14. And not just the White Sox, but the Athletics, too. The A's changed almost as much, although they stuck with the same color scheme outside of their Kansas City years, I believe. It's good that both teams found classic looks, but both have been chipping away at them with the A's adding a few alternates, using three different road caps that were worse than the home, and now mismatching their helmets on the road. And of course, the Sox messed up sleeve patch and then the pants stripes on the road. Both teams are almost like alcoholics who have been doing well lately. 25 years sober, but you feel like soon one will fall off the wagon and come out with something Diamondbackian.
  15. I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion. They gained fame in the last decade when the fad became wearing throwbacks that were ugly or gaudy. My generation loves them because they were born in that era, but outside of a few dopes, Sox fans don't want those back.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.