Pharos04

Members
  • Content Count

    1,594
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pharos04

  1. Feels like that just opened up an unneeded can of worms that will eventually dip into Redskins territory
  2. Personally i'd be fine if/when they introduce a Red alternate that ties into the new primary, so long as it doesn't get pressed to Primary status. It'll come full circle as to why the Color Rush emulates the pre-1993 change as it is. People who prefer the Pat Patriot look can still get the modern take on the same idea, the primary will still retain the Blue which is associated with the dominant era, and the White will look sharp either way.
  3. So I think it gets a bit muddy at that point. The Pats were the last to join the initial 8 in November of 1959. But the Minnesota group forfeited their franchise rights just after the AFL draft and were awarded the NFL franchise on January 28, 1960, while Oakland was awarded the new spot that was previously held by Minnesota on January 30, 1960. So yes the Raiders were the last team to be finalized but the Pats were the last of the original 8. Either way the other 4 teams wearing Blue were still in existence at that time and still likely dictated that the runt of the litter wear a different color.
  4. Just thinking about it now, I’m wondering if they were forced to be in Red back in 1960. They were the last team to join the original 8 of the AFL. At that point, the only other red team were the Texans in the West. You also had the Titans (dark blue), Bills (Royal Blue), Oilers (Luv Ya Blue), and Chargers (Navy Blue). Half the teams were primarily blue. Imagine if 5/8 of a league wore blue? plus, they could tie-in to playing in the RED Sox’ field at Fenway. That was the excuse given when the Braves moved to Fenway and they changed their name. For the time, it just worked. They should’ve switched to Blue when they moved to Foxboro in 1971 and adopted “New England”.
  5. This needs to seriously stop. they changed to blue 27 years ago now and admit that wearing red for a team named for the group that fought against an army that primarily wore red tops was inaccurate. if you want to make an argument, say they should change to Red and Green due to the color of the NEW ENGLAND flag. (Which if you want to really delve into it, was also reported at Bunker Hill to have been blue) but that’s disingenuous to the rest of the groups that were also labeled as Patriots. after 20 years of success wearing Blue, the likelihood of them changing primary colors again is slim to nil. For throwbacks to honor the terrible, joke-riddled history for the first 33 years of their existence? Sure. Go wild. but for the foreseeable future, Flying Elvis and Blue tops are going to stay
  6. I’m glad that the CR stripes are incorrect. The stripes matching the stripes on the jersey definitely helps tie it in together. The old stripes definitely only went for the old away jersey so going to simpler stripes going forward is a plus now where’s that silver set....
  7. I just realized they removed the hold-over Adidas socks from 2000 with the 3 stripes. I always loved that quirk was still a staple of their away look and i'm sure it just pained Nike to remove that aspect of the uniform or it was likely the first thing pressed to be removed
  8. I definitely don't hate the promotion of Color Rush to full-time. I thought it was a great idea when they first introduced it to harken to the red jersey uniform while maintaining some of what has worked for the modern incarnation. I'm laughing that the Pats are now the first modern team to not have TV Numbers. Hopefully people in the stands in the 300 section will be able to tell who's in the scrum when they're at the game. Some things i really like: White Jersey with the RBR striping gives off a major old-school vibe for me which i love. I definitely like it a lot more than i thought it would Removal of unnecessary piping. jerseys look so much cleaner with this Some things i don't like: No silver pants? c'mon, gotta keep the full look. Maybe they just haven't done the "full" set yet. Like how we got the Atlanta jerseys but then there were more combos shown. No Alternate? Maybe a red one in the future to fully compliment the look Number font change. This seems really unnecessary
  9. probably a lucky-number-7 thing to go along with the lucky horseshoe. which, per the superstition, is always in the U shape so “the luck doesn’t spill out” so...doing the obvious and making it into a C would spill out their luck and ruin the point of having a horseshoe in the first place
  10. "The Lawfirm" BenJarvus Green-Ellis
  11. Just show them this and point out you don't think professional athletes should look like condiment splatters
  12. One of the colors listed is now black... nike is absolutely using it’s logo as an integral part of the design process. Disgusting new numbers look cool!
  13. Well that's the one good thing about hard leaks: they sometimes lead to a full reveal... And...oh wow. The Gradient Red-to-Black has turned the Yoga Pants look into High-Waisted Yoga Pants. oh wow does it look bad from afar, which is HOW EVERYONE WILL BASICALLY BE SEEING THEM. My god they are tone deaf. The ATL i can deal with because that's become Atlanta's thing at this point but why is it so damn huge?! Just...ouch. This is rough for Falcon fans. Can easily see which jersey will be the popular one. I'll give you a hint: it's not any of the new ones and rhymes with "Mow Mack" Typing this out now. I'm....i'm seriously wondering if this is "All Part of the Plan" Roll Out new, controversial design with all sorts of garbage elements meant to test the waters Deal with 5 years of gauging feedback while at the same time, raking in the profits of people who buy the jerseys because it's the current look Release jersey meant to seem like a "correction" that forces people who bought the garbage look to now buy new new jerseys again, and the team is praised for correcting the "mistake" and more people buy the correction. Profits made all around Makes you wonder why teams that have made almost no changes to their uniforms like the Packers or Bears don't hop on.....oh wait they always sell merch and jerseys...
  14. Yikes. So who wants to start the “Potential Falcons Uniform Change 2025” thread and keep it running for the next 5 years? just...yikes
  15. Except they already have inconsistent horns in the new branding . Having a 3rd set for the uniform would just complete the trifecta
  16. I find it funny that they stated emphatically that they want the horn to match across all the branding.... then they put this out there they can’t even unify the horn for the actual Ram’s Head. I know others have seen it and glossed over it but why doesn’t the Ram have the gradient that they seem so proud of? And now I’m seeing that the lines are different thickness on the head too. how does a professional company screw this up so easily?
  17. That right there makes it look like the LA is just tacked on as an afterthought ...oh wait
  18. “Prepared for a negative response” sounds like Nikespeak for “we put in our own trademarked ideas that spit in the face of what fans want and they’re gonna dislike loudly and immensely but we already got paid so nyah nyah “
  19. So after a day of reflection, I got some hot takes that are ready to burn. It's obvious that the Rams leadership wanted to emphasize that they are the LA team, and their tenant is second banana. Using the mothership as an example, it's easy to see why. The other large-market team in that image doesn't use imagery that invokes the team's nickname. It's just a straight "NY". People immediately know that is for the Giants. Here's where their thinking is flawed though: The Giants' NY was put on the helmets in 1961 and lasted until 1975. The return in 2000 has kept it in the public eye as the logo and helmet for going-on 20 years. It's familiar and known and has a sort-of old school feel that has reached a sense of timelessness. The Rams on the other hand have used a Rams head for a good chunk of their history. They are THE Rams. Hell even the website is therams.com. The Ram Head should be the primary logo in this regard. Let the brand define their return to Los Angeles. The LA pandering feels exactly like that: pandering. Now a comparison with the magic of "INSPECT ELEMENT": Tossing it up with others, i agree that it's VERY simple compared to the rest. And it stands out in a somewhat not good way (While the Chargers logo just works, holy crap was that a good update). But the Rams head being new and specifically designed for the return to the LA market helps detach from the St. Louis Rams logo and becomes solely Los Angeles Rams. The pandering and forced justification of an odd design choice for the horn is unnecessary. The backtracking now saying that they're is no "official" logo is a complete 180 from the forced LAHorn they were pushing throughout. Does the Ram head need some fixing? yes. Does it work as a standalone primary? Yes. The Rams need to stop pretending they have to be LA's team and just be the Rams and being the LA Rams will come naturally.
  20. the new head with the outline should absolutely be the primary. the LA Wave horn can easily be diverted to secondary status. The head immediately says "Rams" and they're the only one in the league so it's not like there's any confusion where they play anymore. and the LA Wave Horn can be used on more national merch for that LA Flair
  21. Rams website is using a version of the blue logo on a blue background with a white border. it's an svg so i'm trying to get it uploaded