Kiltman

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

I feel like Jacksonville would be the team most easily enticed into loving to London.   Haven’t been following but I know a few years back the Khans had a master plan developed for that site and were intent on transforming that stadium area.
 

I truly hate the logistics of international expansion and I can’t imagine, unless those franchises are given a different salary cap limit to entice players to live overseas, that those teams would be able to be competitive.   I think free agents would avoid them and I could see draft picks refusing to report.  Imagine growing up dreaming of playing for an NFL team and then getting drafted to play in Frankfurt.

 

Expansion just seems tricky; at 32 teams now, you’d have to add 4 franchises (crazy) and go back to 3 divisions in each conference (w/6 teams each) or add 8 teams, which is doubly insane,  to keep 4 divisions in each conference (with 5 teams each).

 

 

Yeah feels like if they do expand over there, Jacksonville is going to be part of it. It’s hard to imagine them just doing 4 new teams all overseas. Some sort of hybrid makes sense with Jacksonville. I know the Glazers were looking at selling ManU maybe, but could see them also shifting to that division and having annual games over there. Maybe those international teams have their base of operations US side in Orlando, because they’d need that.

Yeah it’s really hard to picture how it’d be balanced. I get you are doing that as owners to try and grow the most. But could also taking for less risk and logistical burden to just do North American cities.

The 3 divisions of 6 in each conference seems doable, but gets tricky when you try to break a division up in both the AFC and NFC. Easiest target seems to be just dissolve the southern divisions. But as to what it’d be would depend on what 4 cities are being added.

Like if they are adding 2 teams + the jags overseas. Putting in the Bucs, Atlanta and Carolina makes sense. Hubs them more. But obviously if they add like San Antonio, Portland, St Louis and Orlando/Toronto/Mexico City it’d be different.

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

Thanks for playing and putting some thought into this.  All points fun to ponder.

 

San Antonio certainly makes sense.

 

Virginia Generals makes sense to me, but I’m a Civil War buff, and I’m sure it would never get traction in today’s day & age.  I think the name was used for a minor league baseball team in the past.
 

Living in Orlando, I’d be thrilled to get an NFL and/or MLB team here.  With Camping World Stadium having gone through lots of renovations over the last 10 years, it would be a plug & play move.  Stadium is good enough to host the Pro Bowl & Wrestlemania.   Add in a billionaire owner to add some extra upgrades before 2026 and it would be a huge splash. 
 

Either way, if California can have 3 teams, so could Texas or Florida.

Yeah it’s fun to think about, hopefully something happens there. No part of the identity they just got is worth saving.

It’s a cool sounding name, and I loved the Union in Philly leaning into that a bit. But yeah, especially with what side of things every general was in Virginia…probably a non-starter ha.

I wonder if the Jags would move down there once their Stadium “needs” replaced. Or if they move out of state at that point, would Orlando get a bump in expansion talk (which seems like it’s on the mind of the league again)

12 hours ago, HOOVER said:

A).  What if the new owner(s) of the Washington Commanders decide to REBRAND the team?  

1.  What would the new primary name of the team be?  

- Washington
- DC

- Virginia (where team is HQ'd and likely to build a new stadium)

- Other

 

2.  What would the new primary nickname & logo be?

 

3.  What would the new team colors be?

 

B).  What if the new owner(s) of the Washington Commanders decide to RELOCATE the team?  

1.  What city or cities would most likely qualify for a new team?  What city/state name would you choose for them?

- St. Louis
- San Diego

- Other (Orlando, San Antonio, Austin, Salt Lake City, Portland, Columbus, Memphis, Oakland, Birmingham, Sacramento, Hawaii or ?)

 

2.  What would the new primary nickname & logo be?

 

3.  What would the new team colors be?

A)

1. Think they’ll stick with Washington but maybe add in DC in whatever branding. At this point I don’t think they’d shift to Virginia, but would be interesting to lean into that and/or NOVA (though I guess why limit it to just the DC metro area).

2. Only obvious thing would be some version of Hogs or something to get easy clout with the fanbase. Wolves, any of those that actually were liked. Other than that throw a dart and you’ll hit something better.

3. Would be cool to see them slide to maroon, yellow/gold and white. It’s close but something different. Do a throwback that’s maroon and tan with a fauxback W logo based in the teams history.

b )

1. I doubt they’d ditch DC, would be a big market to leave. But if they did San Antonio seems the most primed for it. No bad blood like San Diego and St. Louis.  Growing market in a state that love football. Would make the Rivalry with the Cowboys a little bigger.

2. Feel like the simplest thing would be pick an animal that doesn’t have representation in the league, bonus points if it’s also not in the other big leagues. Wolves again, Snakes (Rattlers, Copperheads, etc) Arachnids (Spiders, Scorpions, Tarantulas, Widows / Widowmakers). All of them would just be the usually head logo or a silhouette. Could see specialized ones like a side view of a scorpion tail that looks like an S.  Easiest to avoid the Alamo stuff or any overdone desperado like names.
 

3, Honestly they could keep the color scheme for any of them, with varying degrees of black. But going with a Maroon / Ath Gold or Orange look would be nice here too. If they weren’t in the same division as the eagles I’d say dark green and powder blue or purple white and red. Two color schemes that don’t get used a ton.

1 hour ago, bowld said:

Ravens still use the original Nike template. Badly needs an update

Would be nice to see them do that and do a slight refresh brand wide. Like minor tweaks, there is room to “evolve it” a bit.

1 hour ago, Pigskin12 said:

At least the Eagles will likely wear black only once or twice with the Kelly Greens coming back.

Since I don’t think they’ll ever drop the black… I hope at some point they redesign the blacks to match the retro look design wise / use Kelly. Would allow for some mixing around too. 

Midnight green on black has never been a great look together.

5 hours ago, burgundy said:

 

Fair point, but I would hope that there's a limit to how many times the league will submit to Jeffrey Lurie's peer pressure.

 

They’ll keep stuffing the ballot now more than ever, gotta filibuster the rugby sneak from getting banned ha.

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

 

Nope, only jerseys have to stay for five years, because that's what sells the most. The Eagles' black helmet will be a one and done*, and the Rams showed that even primary helmets don't need to last very long.

 

* Unless their attempt to get the league to allow third helmets is permitted.

1 hour ago, ralphz said:

Where are you hearing orange and sand? 

There is a Reddit user who talked to @TruColor, person allegedly has seen the whole thing. @TruColor himself has seen the actual helmet

24 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Source?  I mean, it sounds reasonable that they would, but I haven't read anything from them other than having the throwback this year.

 

They could probably wear the black regardless, since half the people probably can't even tell the difference between it and the midnight green version, so maybe nobody with the league would even notice.

I’ll try to find it a clip of it, but straight from Lurie’s mouth last year.

they mention it here

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/eagles-reveal-black-alternate-helmets-2022

edit: he talks about it here at his press conference last year.

uniform talk starts at like 3:30. First what the Kelly greens will look like for 2023, then the black helmet and how they’d try to keep it for 2023 as a third helmet.

12 hours ago, SteeloGreen said:

 

12 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

There’s a small chance the black helmet is retired; the Eagles’ black helmets were just for 2022. 

Yeah I don't think any of those announced last year are permanent rotational options, unless it was a classic style.

I'd expect teams to switch up and/or tweak their alternate looks more often than not

 

Lurie and the Eagles are pushing, or said they’d be pushing, for at least 3 helmets so they can keep the Black.

But yeah I agree it’ll probably be rotating thing in the league. Especially if 3 does get approval.

11 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

I don’t think they should change the color scheme  because I don’t think it will look good. If they did add yellow trim I would find it ugly because I don’t think red/black/gold/white is a particularly attractive color scheme and red/white/black has been their schtick for over 100 years.  Like I said, the uniforms design isn’t my issue, I’m saying it would be an odd choice to add another trim color to their uniforms out of the blue. In that sense it would be similar to the Chiefs putting black trim on their stripes or numbers.  I don’t care about their long history of being irrelevant losers. I don’t think putting yellow on the uniforms will look good. It’s hard to balance 4 colors on any football uniforms. I just want the Cardinals to look good. I think their best look is red/white, maybe with some

black trim. Doesn’t have to be “old” but I think simple is the way to go. I said before, they should look like the Jaguars in red and white, simple, but with some contemporary touches.

You can’t really say they used tan as a part of their color scheme in the past, everyone wore tan-colored canvas pants back in the day. They can sell all the yellow fan gear they want but it should keep itself to the Cardinal’s beak on the uniforms, IMO.  If they insist on adding/changing a color, I’d change that beak to tan or copper. I’m not anti-change. I’m anti-crappy football uniforms. It’s not that I think yellow belongs to the Chiefs. I just don’t think it looks good on the Cardinals in any of the thousands of concepts I’ve seen around the internet. I’m not dying on the “old is good, change is bad hill” I’m dying on the “I think it would look :censored:ty and be a mistake hill”

Gotcha, tough to tell where everyone is coming from on it. I pointed out the tan stuff because it was a color in their design/striping way back beyond just the pants (which was their next update. 
 

Yeah ultimately end result will be the only thing that matters. 
 

8 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

If the Cardinals really are using yellow in their new uniforms I think that’s a huge mistake. It’s like the Chiefs adding black trim or the Steelers adding red or blue to their uniforms. The Cardinals don’t need anything besides red and white. I don’t even think they need the black trim but I can live with that.  Adding yellow would give the uniforms a very gimmicky/minor league feel IMO. I don’t know how to articulate how I feel other than to say it would be wrong and I don’t like it.

I think comparing the Cards to either of them is a stretch. Chiefs have maintained their AFL heritage look for most of their existence. The Steelers uniform became iconic with the success post merger. Colts and Raiders also in those tiers.

When did the Cardinals look ever move into that zone?

Beyond just like simplicity and retro vibes in a uniform are they really an iconic team look wise that is worth the ire? Especially since they ditched the design part of that. If you really want to look at success the times they’ve actually been relevant have been when they have additional colors in their scheme. Tan at the beginning, black and a bit of yellow in the last 18 years.

I totally get wanting to stick to the old, especially here where most people slant that way, but seems like an odd hill to die on when that simple just red and white uniform died almost two decades ago. And by a giant margin when it was what they wore they were one of the worst franchises in the league.

2 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

With full context, the Cardinals have been a red/white/black team since before half the league existed, including the aforementioned Chiefs.

 

So, no, it's not accurate to say the Cardinals don't have the tradition that the Chiefs do. 

They have like double the history but a fraction of the tradition. Even before the Reebok pipe fest, can never recall it being lauded the way other traditional looks have. Once they did that they broke from the little bit they were hanging onto. With slight nudges along the way with striping attempts, most notably the Arizona flag stripes.

Tradition and History really point to the same thing, but influenced by success. One is a judgement, the other is a fact. I think anyone who says it doesn’t have the tradition is pointing to that.
 

Schrödinger’s tradition, does it exist if no one pays attention to it?
 

6 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

So because it's become a standard in college football to give low numbers to linebackers, it should be OK in the pros.  But somehow the longtime practice of giving pro kickers the lowest numbers is worthy of being discarded?  I'm not sure I follow that logic.

 

This is always such an unusual debate, and it quite often breaks along generational lines or whether someone favors college more than pros.

 

I'm a middle-aged fan of pro football who's never cared that much for the college game. I always felt the NFL jersey numbering system gave it a formulated structure that provided an extra layer of information about a player. At first glance,  you could see a player's jersey number and have an idea of that player's role on the team, even if you didn't know who he was. The numbers, therefore, became a symbol of the position as much as the player.

 

This movement to remove that numbering structure plays right into a younger generation's preference for individuality over uniformity. A player will now choose to wear #0 because it will become part of their personal identity and not because it's a signifier of the position they play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that; cultural preferences change with generations. We all just need to adapt. But it's also fair to recognize that we're losing something in the process. As much as the randomized use of numbers has been consistent in college, the more structured system in the NFL made it unique to the pros. It was a symbol that you'd graduated to the next level if a wide receiver had to give up his #7 jersey to choose a number in the 80s. 

 

 

A fair point, obviously kickers/punters are important. But it’s impossible to deny they are often separated/relegated to the bottom of things. Visually there is a disparity purely on the amount of plays say a Linebacker has a game to the amount of time either specialist is on the field. That, plus it being obvious who they are when they are on the field is why using it as a form of uniformity doesn’t have much need beyond “that’s how it was”, which is what I was saying. 
 

I agree there was a certain something to the old rules. Drafting a guy and wondering what number he’d go with in the range he could chose from was a staple of the post draft week.

I think there was room to evolve it more thoughtfully than the “do whatever the hell you want” outcome we basically ended up with. Opening up kicker numbers to me made sense within the old and new rules, could just be personal bias of not really holding onto that one with much care.

7 hours ago, BadSeed84 said:

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2023/3/28/23661068/kelly-green-eagles-jerseys-officially-back-ahead-2023-season-nfl-jeffrey-lurie-philadelphia-buy

 

I guess it wasn't official before? Even though the Eagles themselves announced it before.

It was, Lurie just likes to get his flowers over stuff like that.

9 hours ago, HOOVER said:

Agree.

I don't mind WRs being able to wear single digits or teens, but outside of that, I despise the recent number changes.

Josh Allen in that photo wearing #41 as an EDGE is worse than the DL wearing #52.  

This is what it should be:

0-19:  QB, WR, K, P
20-49:  RB, DB
50-79:  OL, DL, LB
80-89:  WR, TE
90-99:  DL, LB

But hey, we can stuff the kickers & punters into #96 now since no one else wants to wear it, so that Zeke Elliott can wear #15 and DT Jalen Carter can wear his college #88.

Honestly, I feel like in a few years, they'll pull back on this rule.

I think there is a middle ground with some of them, like  LBs basically being in the double digits is a change I was for.

there’s a lineage to it with the sport, I think of like #11 at Penn State, lots of those Bama backers in the 30s. Visually it still looks “right”.

As the rules stand now, I’m fine with them essentially bumping the P/Ks down to what will probably be the 30s/40s for most guys. They are a lone player in a prominent position visually speaking. Don’t really need a number system to recognize them. Aside from pro tradition there isn’t much reason to keep it the same.

I don’t think teams are going to want to give any of them anything in the 90s. So many teams have retired numbers there and the DL already has a tough time getting numbers they want at the start of their career.

3 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Why was 0 not allowed in the first place? Seems like a silly rule.

Think it was just an oversight.

throwing in the P/K rule adjustment seems like them bending to what was happening around the league of those now premium numbers being occupied by punters and kickers. sucks for some of them because they were able to cash in on guys buying the number from them ha.

You’ll have a mainstay grandfathered generation of P/K who stick with their team, then they’ll probably mostly be in the 30s and 40s. Unless they are in their first camp with a new team, in which case they can jump back up to any cut player’s number.

I think them going up to the 90s is goofy, but I suppose it just sets the rule at it’s max.

On 2/21/2023 at 10:28 AM, BBTV said:

I don't know how educators can teach kids not to steal, and to be creative, and then steal other people's work for their sports uniforms.

 

It's basically like "remember kids, stealing is bad, unless you don't have the budget to make it yourself".

Often it’s just not the same people making those decisions that teach kids anything outside of sports, but yeah it certainly just goes unchecked.

For the last decade+ I’ve worked with a company part time doing sports fields for schools and it’s been so interesting to see how little these schools sometimes think of branding. I’m on the presentation side so usually what the ADs and others actually see.
 

Often times they rarely even have the files for their logos ready and available. Have had to get good at quickly sketching over pixelization and other issues to make vectors. Which is super fun on 200x200 jpegs of a logo from 30-45 years ago. So in that instance the stealing they do actually makes my job easier since the svg files are often on wiki or I already remade a logo for another school. Obviously I don’t condone what they do, but sort of just have to roll with what they have.
 

But have had a few wins over the years of getting them not to put certain things actually on the fields. Or developing a new Wordmark/ font for them, so at least they aren’t stealing that too. Sending them extra concepts with that, and like school colored turf in the outside areas / track seem to get some decision makers happy enough to go another way.

But yeah you usually are just talking to the Athletic Department and the admin building (which will be more or less involved depending on the type of superintendent they have). Lots of times the logo was at some point dictated by coach of the football team or other popular sport and the rest just roll with it. Or a lot of them have like 5+ versions from various colleges/pros spread across the school athletics, with no official school one.

51 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Yet not even the dumbest idea to come from that franchise:

’We wanted the Jaguar to be appearing from the shadows.’

Was my favorite line drop from that reveal event. 

1 minute ago, BBTV said:

 

Some classic numbers should be reserved for QBs only.  12 should only ever be worn by QBs.  Same with several other legacy numbers.  There was no great reason to implement the change in the first place, but we're seeing the absurdity it creates when there's literally one and only one number available for a QB.  A QB wearing 35 should never be taking a snap and handing off to a RB wearing 7.

 

I'm honestly not sure what problem the recent number rule changes actually solved, other than to let players act like it's college again, which has lead to all kinds of other amateurish uniform mods.

Added some flexibility, but yeah where they drew the lines seemed a bit of a partial measure.

Like why not broaden K/P numbers? DL numbers?

Adding 0 at this point is fine, it always looks a little goofy and I’m sure it will vary Team font to Team font. 

Love the Legacy look.

Nice precise update on a uniform that’s hard to stray too far with. 

was going to say the multiple oranges look a bit odd (especially on the away), but I think it’s just the template lighting.

Lions losing the silver would be a shame, almost like a full a concession to Nike not putting in the work to bring back metallics.

Hope the alt is just a color flipped helmet HBlue, silver stripes and silver lion, since they are doing it.

15 hours ago, BBTV said:

I had no idea Photobucket still existed.  That's where I used to upload everything I posted to this forum before something changed.

I only know they still exist because they constantly try to get me to pay for old stuff I had on there.

23 hours ago, hormone said:

I do not disagree, I guess the point I was trying to make was aside from the elf showing up at midfield this year, an orange helmet is what they’re known for on the field and on a graphic. The bears can use the bear face, the wishbone c and flip colors of the c on graphics or merchandise. 

Yeah I imagine it’ll just be the number helmet look.
 

I guess the biggest departure I could see would be them doing sorta the white tiger look the bengals did. Just white and brown.

7 hours ago, fouhy12 said:

I think a midnight green and silver identity would look good for Philly. Drop the black and charcoal accents, focus on midnight green as the primary, and add silver pants. 

Would be nice. 
 

Wonder if they would be more or less inclined to do it since there will be silver pants for the throwbacks this year.

I hoping this year or next when they add the new wordmark that an overall tweaked update comes with it.