• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

79 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don’t want to go too far off topic here, BUT, with the state of things with COVID-19, how confident are any of the teams moving into new football stadiums (Rams, Raiders, Chargers) that we will be able to even have 70,000 people safely watch a football game together by this September? I know the NFL is proceeding right now (at least in their public statements) with the idea that the season will start as normal, but they have to be concerned and planning for the idea that things will still not be normal by the fall. Understand here that I think it is a distinct possibility that games will be played, but that there will still be restrictions on attendance, or at least a reduced number of people watching the game in the stadiums. And don’t get me started on college football. The one brief thought I’ll will add about it here is this: If colleges and universities are still not back to normal operations by late August, such as still hosting most of their classes online, what makes people think they would play football games (especially in front of 80,000 fans). Do I think either scenario is a certainty? No, but don’t tell me they are unlikely either.
  2. The quote is from Lukas’ article — and yes, I read this as his main point, not the “blackface” headline, but that unfortunately, in both the Browns and Padres caps there was an unfortunate side effect to the marketing that decided to fit everyone’s standard logos into a new design template without thinking of any side effects of doing so.
  3. While I think the Patriots of recent vintage have approached this but not equaled it, it is possible to be both popular and notorious -- See the Oakland/LA Raiders from 1970 thru about 1985 (or maybe I should just say the John Madden/Tom Flores Raiders). [Yeah, I just made myself feel old] BTW - I like notorious instead of unpopular to describe the Pats; the Bengals or the Lions are unpopular outside of their cities (and maybe in them, too), but the Pats are known and disliked. And I know I'm arguing about definitions, which are subjective, too.
  4. It should read, "I Redesigned Every NFL Teams Jersey & Moved The Browns To Celeveland" (Sorry, my sarcastic nature couldn't resist the lame joke)
  5. Well, yes, the money was less back then, but 1994 was the first season of the NFL's Fox deal -- total TV revenues for each team alone was $39.2 million per team, with a salary cap of $34.6 million. You'd think that there would be money to buy a second set of helmets, even at those smaller numbers when compared to today. Again, it doesn't surprise me that some teams would opt to save the money, but it still seems so frugal to me. It is interesting to see that in those mid-90s seasons, the cap for player's salaries was covered by merely the TV revenues.
  6. Knowing that most NFL owners are among the elite wealthy of this country, I am always still a little (very, very little at this point) surprised at how frugal they can be when it comes to expenses. Guess I shouldn't expect better of people; but I still do. [Please don't take that as a political comment]
  7. And an answer: https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2020/03/26/patriots-logo-flying-elvis The relevant paragraphs: "Orthwein is best remembered for trying and failing to relocate the Patriots to his native St. Louis, but he made two changes with lasting impact: Hiring Bill Parcells, and installing the logo today immortalized in countless tattoos and, most notably, on six Super Bowl banners. An advertising executive and longtime board member at Anheuser Busch, Orthwein didn’t much worry about making waves as he took over the NFL’s worst franchise, which he promised from the start he planned to quickly flip after he stabilized the business. After going 2-14 in 1992, New England’s fourth straight losing season and sixth straight missing the playoffs, January 1993 brought a flurry of activity. Coach Dick MacPherson was fired, news leaked that Orthwein was seeking bids to sell the team for the $110 million he’d put into it, and Parcells left his job at NBC to turn the Patriots into an on-field winner. Though unknown at the time, his introductory presser was largely the last gasp of Pat Patriot. A week later, the first story broke that “the team had started talks with NFL Properties about changing its logo.” Not even two months later, it was done, approved by the NFL in the second week of March and leaked by the Globe to the world on March 26."
  8. I think Victor Kiam sold the Patriots to James Busch Orthwein sometime during the 1992 season (Orthwein bought them with an eye towards moving to St. Louis, which is why I stress the Busch family relation). 1993 saw the hiring of Parcells as head coach and the change to blue. I'm not sure back then how long a team took to plan a uniform change; it is possible, even, that the emphasis of blue was an idea coming from the time of Kiam's ownership. Anyone else have more or better information on this?
  9. I'm pretty much 99% in agreement with you here, but, if any of the "reputable" long-timers here had seen the new uniform set and expressed an opinion, I think most of us would find it valid. I mean if you had seen the new Browns uniforms yesterday and posted that they were "modern garbage" or "traditional Browns uniforms" or even just "good" or "bad", I'd respect and appreciate your opinion (and be glad you posted it, too). But, if it were some player, coach, or just some guy who just created an account on these boards two days ago, yeah, I'm dismissing the opinion entirely.
  10. OK, red was when the Sullivan family and Victor Kiam owned the Pats. Blue has mostly been Kraft, though James Busch Orthwein was the owner when the change to blue was made. And yes, there were other minority owners in that timespan. I was writing in general terms in my original post.
  11. There is one other uniform tradition that the Patriots uniform history (sort of) follows -- the idea that a sports teams' identity would change and correspond to a change in leadership (be it coach, manager, or ownership). The Pats were a "Red" team under their original owners; and became a "Blue" team when ownership changed. In a sense, if they scheduled this specific uniform change to coincide with Brady's departure, and the end of that era; it was well and somewhat traditionally done.
  12. Wait, wait, wait -- Doesn't just being on this board and reading the topic imply you have some interest, however little, in both the opinions and descriptions of this Browns' uniform set before it is released? [Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic]
  13. I know the tradition is that the minutemen and the colonial/U.S. army wore blue during the American Revolution, but the actual history, at least according to my college professor is more complicated than that (this is from some old class notes): Many veterans of the French and Indian Wars wore their old uniforms, which were blue with red facing. But just as common were volunteers who showed up in hunting shirts. General Washington was authorized by Congress on March 23, 1779 to set the color. General Order of October 2, 1779 officially established blue as the color. The rules were that at least officers were to have one uniform which conformed, but even by the end of the war it was not fully implemented. So, for at least a portion of the war there was no declared color or uniform; and even when it was set as blue, it wasn't a hard and strict rule. We need to remember, in a lot of battles, the colonial units were more guerrilla fighters than traditional soldiers. My point is that you could make the same argument for blue for a team called the Patriots as you could argue that such a team could just wear a rag-tag collection of all sort of contrasting colors and styles. It's another reason why I've never cared for the argument that the Patriots uniforms should not be red or shouldn't include silver/grey or a thousand other arguments about what their colors should be.
  14. One thing I think we're all leaving out of this change in the helmet rule: If the new rule permitted it, would teams re-visit the Eagles and Seahawks old idea of having home and away helmets? I think that's as likely as throwback helmets, depending on how the new rule is written. And yes, if both were permitted, then the NFL is well on its way to being just like college football when it comes to uniforms.
  15. I continue to have recurring minor "waking nightmares" that they're actually going to put the LA primary logo on a blue helmet.