Still MIGHTY

Members
  • Content Count

    14,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Still MIGHTY last won the day on April 22

Still MIGHTY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,737 All Star

About Still MIGHTY

  • Rank
    Duck Blur

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    "The OC" "Don't call it that"

Recent Profile Visitors

25,702 profile views
  1. What if I just think the uniforms aren't good? There really isn't a basis to that beyond my own opinion on what makes a good uniform, but yet, here we are with an entire message board dedicated to such discussion. I've even provided examples as to my thought process in previous posts that you chose to not comment on, but that's you. You're allowed to not like my opinion. That's what we're all here for. This has nothing to do with not liking the Clippers, truly. What it does have to do with is that mediocre history. And what it has to do with presenting a new uniform is I don't think these uniforms are good representations of the Clippers and their overall aesthetic. As you've said, they're trying something new and going a different direction, and all that is fine. But like I said in the other posts, sometimes it works (like the Miami Vice unis) and sometimes it doesn't (the Pacers' Hickory High jerseys, or the Clippers alternates last year). This one, it doesn't work for me because it doesn't ring true to the Clippers, their identity, or how they represent their small slice of Los Angeles. It's a hollow attempt to be something their not. I never said anything about not being tough, and I never said they don't represent LA. Just that if they want to try and represent this part of LA, that part of LA isn't going to rep them. They'll rep the Lakers, through and through. And I'm just a guy that's lived in Southern California my entire life, interacted with people all over these communities, and seen the Clippers up close in this market for nearly 30 years. But, what do I know?
  2. Scared? Nah. I recognize the Clippers have a strong team this year, and it'll be a fight. But scared of the Clippers? No. Especially not in the context we're actually talking about in this unifrom/identity/representing the city discussion. Even if the Clippers are good, even if the Clippers were to make the NBA Finals, even if the Clippers beat the Lakers to do it, my points about their identity would still all stand. I realize I popped off pretty aggressively in the first post, but I've backed up all my thoughts in subsequent posts.
  3. Yup. That's exactly what I said. You got it. Nailed on the head. Thanks for playing.
  4. Yes, I understand all that. Truly, this has nothing to do with the actual team on the court. I know the roster they've put together and their expectations and all of that. This is about perception and identity. Yes, and that sucks. I hate what Nike has done with these uniform rotations, and I think it's spawned some of the worst basketball looks we've seen. Some of it works for the team and city (see: Miami Vice), and a lot really have been terrible. And I mean worst in two ways. Worst in terms of actual looks and aesthetics. And I mean worst in looks that have nothing to do with the actual franchise and its history. Examples are the Hickory High uniforms for the Pacers (sure, they look fine in a traditional sense, but what the hell does Hoosiers have to do with the Pacers NBA franchise?) or the Clippers' LA Express-looking alternate from last year (again, what?). And to show you some objectivity, however far that'll go, the Lakers "Magic Johnson" jersey from last season. The black, the "pinstripes," etc. Just ugh. Not only was it ugly, but it didn't represent anything resembling the visual brand of the Los Angeles Lakers. Not really, no. As explained above, you can try stuff, sure, but it has to make sense. To me, these Clipper uniforms don't make sense. They feel inauthentic to what the Clippers are or represent. The Heat definitely went off board with the Miami Vice jerseys, but does it work for them? Totally! But these GTA San Andreas things? They don't work for the Los Angeles Clippers. Then maybe we should stop.
  5. Okay. The uniforms don't resonate with me personally because it feels like the Clippers playing dress up for something they're not and their attempt rings hollow. The Clippers trying to be something the franchise just isn't and hasn't been. I'm not saying they can't try something different. What I'm saying is, if this is what the franchise wants to be, don't just "try" something. Go all out. I think the franchise should wholly rebrand from the Clippers, because there's nothing worth holding onto there. Between the court and these jerseys, it looks basically like the Clippers are trying to do what the Nets did. Now, yes, the Nets didn't change their name, but they didn't have to. The Nets name had plenty of history in the New York area worth hanging on to, so when the Nets did move from New Jersey, they embraced the Brooklyn and made that their identity. The difference with the Clippers is 1) there's truly nothing worth hanging onto with the Clippers name or history and 2) they're not moving. They can put on a meaner face for 17 games, but they'll still the hapless Clippers to so many people in this town.
  6. That was my thought, but to @LMU's point, if you're looking for a casino partner as a franchise in Las freaking Vegas, you're really going to go with an Indian casino over 3 hours drive away? But then again, I agree with you and @the admiral that, at least in the early stages, the Raiders will mine their SoCal fanbase for all its worth. EDIT: Hold on, there might actually be some weird precedent here. According to the San Manuel Casino website, yes, San Manuel sponsors with the Dodgers, Kings, Chargers, Galaxy, Ducks, LAFC, Ontario Reign, Rancho Cucamonga Quakes... but also... the Vegas Golden Knights. Weird, but it's there.
  7. Because the Clippers aren't Compton. At best, the Clippers are Marina del Rey. You can say the Lakers are Hollywood, and they certainly are from their profile, but they're also Compton, Inglewood, the South Bay, Glendale, East LA, etc. The Clippers, by virtue of being the freaking Clippers for the last 30+ years, just aren't any of that. And I actually agree, I think the Clippers should rebrand. I think they should blow up the whole thing. The problem with them doing this right now is the Clippers of it all. There's a whole lot of baggage to that. And like I said, I think them trying to put on this look comes off as hollow, or dress up. If this franchise truly wants to "embrace a new identity," then I think they should and just redo all of it. There's plenty to flush away, and I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to go ahead and flush it.
  8. Look at the Clippers trying to be all "hard" lol. Look, this just isn't what the Clippers are, and this just screams that to me, trying to be something they're not. As much as they might want it to be, this isn't their brand. They aren't the team of the city, and trying to take on that "inner city" aesthetic, from the court to these jerseys, it all rings hollow. And those hats, pairing the Old English font with that Clippers logo, it's just laughable. Win something before you try to come with this type of swagger. Aesthetically, the "Los" on top of the "Angeles" rather than on the same line is an odd choice for me. And as others have said, the number font just doesn't jive with that "Los Angeles" font.
  9. The Canucks have never won anything and can't pick a logo. Just fold the franchise.
  10. First half of the game, the Ducks got Halak'd. Second half of the game, the Ducks got Pasta'd. What can you do? :shrug: Overall, the Ducks split their road trip, which is always the goal, and if they keep playing like they did today (except the power play, which is 0-13 to start the year (why can the Ducks *never* have power play success... three different coaches, and the same crap, ugh.)), they'll be just fine going forward.
  11. Great for the Brits, but slightly inconvenient for the West Coasters with a 10 a.m. start (where Columbus Day/Canadian Thanksgiving isn't a thing). However, I'm making due at the office.
  12. Yeah, the Rams have issues all over, and I don't know what to do about it. Defensively, idk, blame the injuries. Overall, they haven't been *that* bad. Offensively, look, I know it's easy to just bash on Goff, but he isn't the one mainly at fault. I think the blame lays at the feet of the offensive line and McVay's playcalling. O-Line has been terrible, and since, yes, we've determined Goff isn't great against heavy pressure, the faulty play of the O-Line has put Goff in horrible positions, not to mention not opening the running lanes the ground game to set up the play-action pass/relieve that pressure on Goff. (Some of that O-Line issue could be put on GM Les Snead/McVay's personnel decisions in the offseason, too.) And for all the offensive genius praise hyped upon McVay (and I was right there too), he's made more than a few strange decisions. Particularly, I thought he handled the passing game terribly yesterday. After averaging around 44 attempts per game through 5 weeks, Goff only threw 24 times yesterday? He was only at 10 or 12 attempts late into the 3rd quarter too. After averaging 330 yards per game through 5 weeks (including games of 517 and 395 the previous two weeks, Goff only gets 78 yards yesterday? I know he missed a couple open deep shots, but that kind of a drop goes beyond one guy. On the other side, huge credit to the 49ers defense. They showed up big in a very clear and obvious way. When they weren't bringing the pressure, they were covering everything deep. Rams had nowhere to go, and never found a way around it. 0-9 on 3rd Down and 0-4 on 4th down says it all. They got the Rams off the field. Now would be the perfect time for a bye, but there's still two more weeks. However, it's at Atlanta and in London against the Bengals before the bye. It's IMPERATIVE that the Rams win these next two. Two very beatable teams before regrouping for the Steelers/Bears/Ravens/Seahawks/Cowboys/Niners in the back half of the schedule. Clearly not happy with the last three weeks, but plenty of time to get right.
  13. I guess Nantz and Romo dragged the Chargers "home crowd" against the Broncos all day on Sunday. And after SNF, Al Michaels referred to Carson as the "cute" stadium. Chargers are hosting the Steelers for SNF next week, and we all know Steelers fans. This whole charade is going to be showcased on a national stage. Yeesh.
  14. Happy to report the Ducks are playing a fun style of hockey. Yes, two wins to open the season helps, but there is a truly noticeable and real change to their game. The pace, the pressure, it’s all there. Bless you, Dallas Eakins. (And John Gibson doing something John Gibson things, especially tonight. Get this man a Vezina nomination, thank you?) On the other side, oof, the Sharks have some defensive issues. Outscored 12-3 in their first three games? Not to mention just one goal scored in each? Like I’m happy with the Ducks play tonight, but I expected a true push back from the Sharks off those Vegas losses. It just wasn’t there.
  15. Wait... WHAT?! People got mad... about throwback jerseys???