Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jws008

  1. Here's my unpopular Patriots uniform opinion. I liked this set a lot: I know those big shoulder logos are pretty much a "ugh" feature these days and most will hate that number font, but there still is something about these that remains appealing to me. An aside: the most underrated feature of these is the "vertical" striping, which I wouldn't mind someone attempting in a current set (better than side panels IMHO). Of course, the issue with these vertical stripes was that you couldn't always see them, depending on the lighting and viewing angle.
  2. I know you're discussing your work with the Dolphins and I don't have any evidence this is the case, but I kind of feel like part of my issue with the Falcons release is that it seems like they were given a dozen or so options but couldn't narrow down their choices to less than 7-8, so they wound up with the mix and match options.
  3. I think I finally have a good analogy for what the apparent return of gradients to sports uniforms makes me think of: Gradients on current uniforms is like hearing a really bad 80s one-hit wonder on the radio today. That's right, ATL, that red jersey is basically the Dexys Midnight Runners or Baltimora of uniforms.
  4. Sorry, I don't mean this to come off as a personal attack, but if Van Gogh had painted a pitch black canvas instead of "Starry Night" it still would be an awful painting. And I will agree that the photos setup and shots were good, but the poor design of the subject matter means they can't be great. I mean good job by the photographer; too bad he didn't have a better subject.
  5. Yeah, but the Bucs don’t exactly have that Broncos defense, either.
  6. Just a quick aside, especially after that Brady Buc logo: If Brady suddenly looks like, for example, Peyton Manning in his last year in Denver, will that be a) proof that age finally caught up with him b) further proof that the Bucs are inept or cursed, or c) both?
  7. I think if they’d simply released a black over white and a white over black set (without even the idea that they could be mixed and matched), most of us would applaud. Sure, we’d still question the font and the big numbers and (probably) the helmet changes. But I think the overall opinion would have been B to B minus. Basically, that would have been an improvement over the last set that can be fixed. But this seems like such a design mess, with all the options. I think there’s two things that will be interesting to see, especially with all these combos: 1. Do they stick with mostly the two mono looks most of the time? So, over the season we see the gradients once, the throwbacks once, and each non-mono look once (so five weeks of non-mono with different sets to allow for the red pants once). I realize I’m ignoring sock options here. or 2. Do they really employ a mix and match style where they look different pretty much every week of the season. There is a part of me that thinks the players will want the first choice, but that management and marketing would probably lean more towards the second choice. It wouldn’t surprise me if the second winds up being what happens; I think that’s the trend in college that is likely coming to the NFL, maybe sooner rather than later or never. And, while I want to see alternative helmets, I think that just accelerates the trend.
  8. Of course, the other possible fix is that they add a second set of white pants (and it's not like teams haven't surprisingly added another set of pants in the past).
  9. I think back in the day the creamsicles were disrespected because the Bucs had been historically awful throughout most of the time they wore them. And I agree that the 1997 set was, for a long time, identified with a change in fortunes for the franchise; they were pretty consistent playoff contenders for the first decade in that set. My point is that I think part of our immediate opinion of a uniform (especially by more general fans) can be colored by the on-the-field performance of the team in that uniform. In hindsight, both the original Bucs set and the 1997 re-design were good, well-designed uniforms.
  10. (Seriously, this will be my last response on this; sorry again for dragging this off-topic) Hmm...maybe because the lawsuit was filed by an entity of the local government in St. Louis and Missouri (or should they have initially filed in Alaska?). And clearly, their lawyers have argued and tried to position the case in their favor (which is basically their job). However, SCOTUS, which again is NOT located in Missouri, ruled against sending the case to arbitration and also apparently has no issue with the case going ahead in Missouri in a courtroom. That seems to disagree with your opinion that the case can't get a fair ruling by a Missouri judge who is subject to election, at least in SCOTUS' opinion. They seem to trust that a judge will follow the law; not public opinion or the threat of being kicked out of office by the voters. They disagree with your assessment that such a judge cannot be a "neutral arbitrator" under the law. I'm fine with you disagreeing with the lawsuit, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not even saying my opinion disagrees with yours; however, the courts (even outside of Missouri) disagree with that opinion. [Heck, I disagree with some recent rulings by SCOTUS, but right now, those rulings are still the law of the land].
  11. Not just Missouri courts, unless the stays and rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning this case, including one that denied the Rams request for arbitration instead of an open court case, were somehow not issued in Washington D.C. I haven’t been out much the past few weeks, did the State of Missouri annex the District of Columbia?
  12. In the late 1970s and early 80s, this was their word mark, yet their royal blue uniforms were also pretty modern (for the 1980s). These days, you'd likely call that bad design (and the entire design thing has changed a lot since then), but that's not to say it couldn't happen (just unlikely). By the way, my parents bought this particular bumper sticker for me in the summer of 1982 on their first trip to California. I got bumper stickers for all the California NFL teams (and some non-sports related t-shirts) when they got home. They hung on my bedroom wall for years afterwards. BTW, the California NFL team my parents had the hardest time finding a bumper sticker for in 1982? The Rams, even with them spending a couple of nights in Anaheim.
  13. Back to the main topic. I find myself very, very curious on how the Chargers' uniforms turn out, more so than any of the other 2020 changes coming. It seems to me that generally, these will go one of two directions, with the announced color scheme: 1. Full retro (or close to it), with numbers back on the helmet, very closely resembling their powder blues from the AFL and early NFL years. 2. A second attempt at an updating of that set (I'd call the powder blues of recent vintage their first attempt at modernizing that set). What has me curious, more than those general outlines, is that both approaches could lead to either really good or really awful uniforms for the team. Based on what they've released thus far, I'm hopeful that these will lean to the good side.
  14. Nope, no confusion at all -- I'm referencing that last lawsuit, which is the one coming from the local government entity. There have been rulings regarding it, including from federal courts (even those outside of the immediate area), all of which have ruled in the plaintiffs favor (none of which have called the claims or the case, "a nuisance" either). Ultimately that final decision is TBD, of course. My point is more that there's plenty of evidence, enough to make this court case occur, that Kroenke and the league didn't have the high moral ground when it came to their dealings with the folks back in Missouri. Do I understand why the Rams moved back to LA? Of course. Do I also understand that people on all sides behaved poorly? Yes, I do. Am I surprised that Kroenke and the NFL behaved in the way that they did? No, not all at all. Do I understand why the lawsuit was filed? Yes, and clearly the move precipitated the case. And the courts, thus far, are allowing it to go forward.
  15. Of course, there's a certain lawsuit out there that argues that Kroenke and the NFL failed to live up to their own rules; and I would point out that thus far the courts have ruled against the league and Stan each time.
  16. Not to be pulling the thread off topic, but I think 10-15 years is a good time period to determine if LA is actually a good two-team market or not. I do think that one of the reasons for the Rams-Chargers marriage in the first place is that the league wants LA to be a two-team market. I don't know that it ever really has been. In NY, you can make the argument that the Giants have always been favorited over the Jets, but I do think the Jets carved out their own market, even with years now of sharing a stadium (and clearly being the second fiddle in the market). I also think it worked in Oakland and San Francisco, where the two teams both clearly had success. In the case of the Niners and the Raiders, I think both franchises are where they are now because it's simply very hard to built any new stadium in California and use taxpayer money. But, generally, in both NY and the Bay Area, the support for two teams was there. It will be interesting to look back in a decade and a half and see what happened in LA.
  17. So, I'm having a text conversation a few days back with an old college buddy, We get to talking about Brady going to the Bucs, and he says, "I can't believe Brady's going to have to wear those awful uniforms with the alarm clock digits" I reply with, "He won't; the Bucs are changing their uniforms." His response, "Good, because Brady in a different uniform would be like Babe Ruth not wearing the NY on his pinstriped home jersey." Again, I reply with "Ruth never wore the NY insignia on his home jersey (my favorite piece of uni-related trivia, BTW), and the Babe played his last season with the Boston Braves." His reply, "Really?!?! Only you would know this stuff." To which I replied, "Well, there are a few places on the internet where there's evidence that I'm not the only one."
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. It should read, "I Redesigned Every NFL Teams Jersey & Moved The Browns To Celeveland" (Sorry, my sarcastic nature couldn't resist the lame joke)
  22. 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.
  23. 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]
  24. 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."
  • Create New...

Important Information

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