Jump to content

jws008

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jws008

  1. 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?
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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]
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. I continue to have recurring minor "waking nightmares" that they're actually going to put the LA primary logo on a blue helmet.
  9. The horrid thought I just had: What if the Rams and the designers (Nike/NFL/whomever) decided to put the primary on the helmet? (No, don't mock up that atrocity).
  10. I think I'm reading for most folks that the Rams head is much better than the LA wave/horn. I wonder how long until they switch them and the Rams head becomes the primary logo? My more detailed thoughts: Something about the LA wave (particularly in that beach image), makes me think that someone is about to give a weather forecast for Southern California for the next five days. And I agree that it still looks to me like a football logo from a video game that couldn't afford the real NFL license. I really like the Rams head when it is outlined in blue; there's something almost stained glass like about it, while still looking a bit modern, too.
  11. And to be serious for a minute here, do I think you need to be from St. Louis to see echoes of an Arch in the Rams new logo? No, I don’t. And, as a logo, I think it’s a downgrade, too.
  12. Well, I believe your opinion is also just as invalid then. If you think that Kroenke moved the team to LA because it was their “rightful city”, you’re clearly too biased to be talking about anything Los Angeles related. (I don’t really believe that BTW, you are entitled to your opinion. As are people from St. Louis or Manitoba.) As to why the Rams are back in LA, the answer to that and all your other questions is money. Trust me on this, if Kroenke could have made more money in Anchorage, Alaska, they’d be the Anchorage Rams today.
  13. Why not go to them? After all, they have more experience dealing with Kroenke & Demoff than LA’s media does. Or to put it another way, can Peter King not have a valid opinion on the LA Rams, since he’s a New York-based reporter?
  14. Hey, even the STL media agrees about it looking Arch-like... https://twitter.com/dgoold/status/1236776618611421184?s=21
  15. I don’t think it’s a reach at all, cut off the part below the L, and they’re almost ready for 20 years from now when their stadium is state of the ark, and they move back to St. Louis.
  16. While I generally agree that the Falcons shouldn’t add gold (or add it back), I disagree with the argument that they can’t do it because their division rival Saints use gold. I mean they both already wear black and white. By that logic, the Patriots should have never gone royal blue, since it was a Bills color. Later, the Bills also shouldn’t have added a navy blue, because by then it was an established Patriots color. Wait, OMG, both teams currently use red, white, and blue colors and they are in the same division! Horrors! Three colors in common! How do we ever tell them apart?
  17. Coach McKay and Doug Williams would disagree with that. Granted, it isn’t like that success was long lived, but it did happen.
  18. I actually don’t mind the powder blue trend; but I also don’t want to see it added for teams with no history of wearing it. This update for the Blue Jays is well done and fine with me (well, other than that stupid swoosh).
  19. Grey? White? Brown? Why the bias against Orange? I mean it wouldn’t have made their current uniform look any worse. (Yes, I’m kidding).
  20. I’m ok with anything as long as they don’t bring back the Jim Zorn-era maroon and black uniforms (for those who have forgotten about that press conference, yes this is a joke).
  21. As a mostly lurker (maybe I should change my screen name), I’m surprised no one’s mentioned the Johnny Unitas statue at the Ravens’ stadium in this topic. I mean his records are part of the Colts history and not the Ravens, but the statue obviously acknowledges that his career was played in the city of Baltimore. Also, let’s not forget how the Colts band morphed into the Ravens’ band (after one last appearance as the Baltimore Colts band). i guess my point is really that we can argue the semantics of who owns a franchise name, but the related historic facts can’t really be changed. Unitas never played for the Ravens but he’s part of Baltimore football history. Ozzie Newsome was a Super Bowl winning general manager in Baltimore, who got started when the team was still in Cleveland and called the Browns (but he didn’t switch jobs). Kurt Warner and Marshall Faulk had great careers in St. Louis and are part of the city’s football history, even if the Rams are back in L.A. (End of rant)
  22. I know we’re veering off topic for a number of posts here, but I think the easiest test for this is to ask if any team would reside in a place without the larger nearby market. The Pistons would never have played in Auburn Hills without Detroit being nearby. Same thing for the Angels in Anaheim, the Jets and Giants in East Rutherford, and the Bills in Orchard Park, etc., etc., etc...
  23. The Pistons are no longer in Auburn Hills, but have been playing at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit since fall of 2017. And the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim do have Anaheim in their formal name. Or were you joking with those examples?
  24. Just to be clear, it’s the Mets uniforms from 1993-94 that I’m referencing, not so much the BFBS ones that came later. Link to “Dressed to the Nines” uniform database
  25. To be serious for a moment, and to make an analogy with their New York expansion brethren, these uniforms really strike me as the Jets version of the Mets “swoosh” tail uniforms — trying to evoke the past (but not really), while trying to be modern in a tacky way. For the Mets, the tacky was a silly swoosh; for the Jets it will be this silly triangle/wedge thing or the city name on the chest (or both). Hopefully, the Jets will realize with their next uniform update that they already have their signature look — it just needed proper shoulder stripes and a single green. Given the choice between a “fixed” version of the last set, their 80s and 90s set, and this new one, I’ll take the first option every time.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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