gosioux76

The team is moving there, sure. But has the league said anything specifically about the name moving, too? Again, I'm not suggesting it won't either. But to my knowledge, they've said nothing publicly to suggest they would re-apply the XFL 2.0 names. So it seems presumptuous to assume that this would be the case.

I'm not sure we can presume that they intend to recycle the XFL 2.0 names. I can see keeping BattleHawks, because of the way it resonated with its fanbase. But why wouldn't the new owners want to put their own stamp on the branding? I could easily see them looking at some of the previous league's looks and thinking they could upgrade them. I also wouldn't assume this shift from Tampa to Orlando is all about Tampa's tepid fan reaction. Disney is a partner in this league, so I wouldn't be surprised if the reference to "Magic" in that tagline isn't a hint toward a new brand.

This is a good point. Even more, I wonder whether the red-flake effect of the helmet will make the Cardinals logo -- which just appears to be a regular glossy sticker -- stick out awkwardly. It could look like a mismatch of textures -- like slapping a sticker onto a marbled bowling ball, which this essentially is doing. I get the jonesing for change with the Cardinals, but I'd want a lot more than just swapping white and gray for black. The red flakes are a barely noticeable novelty, just like they were with the Jaguars before. Put another way, I don't necessarily hate these just to hate them. Like all of the other recently released alts, they're unimaginative. These teams made the easiest (or laziest) choices possible just to not be left out of this alternate helmet trend. I'll applaud the teams that end up showing restraint.

So it's a black and red disco ball.

I'd be OK with an orange Bears helmet, but only if it were leather.

I don't know what's worse: That any of these non-throwback alternate helmets exist at all or the complete and disappointing lack of imagination in the NFL design world.

This is really a brilliant Texans concept. It emphaizes the Texas flag in ways the original logo suggests, but stops short of fully embracing. I love it. I have one minor quibble with your state of Texas secondary logo. I can see what you were trying to do by incorporating the primary mark into the state shape, but I worry the star/eye could be mistaken for a placemarker. And right now, it's placed right around Abilene, and nowhere near Houston. I presume that's why the Texans adopted this as a secondary and didn't try to do something like you attempted:

Other than these three, I see things worth salvaging in all the rest.

I see your point, but it seems like an easy solution would be to use the logo without the roundel. Why not just have the cannon on the jersey? Also, just as big of an issue with that uniform is that it completely ignores the Blue Jackets' use of red. Add some into that look in a subtle way, and you'll have something nice.

I have a hard time getting excited about a helmet that looks exactly like it would if you look at a black-and-white picture of the current helmet. It doesn't stretch the imagination enough to be interesting. You could say the same about throwbacks, but at least those designs tend to mean something to people. You don't have to think too hard to imagine what every team would look like if they were just a different color.

I agree the NY logo is superior and should remain their primary brand. But I'm a sucker for nostalgia and like seeing this as a throwback every now and then. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I really like the 1975 double-lined NY logo. Not saying it should come back, but I wouldn't complain if it did.

This is really fantastic. I particularly enjoy how the banner pattern is repeated on the pants stripes. One suggestion: On the secondary state logo, I think the banner effect gets a little lost in all the blue. Would it look worse to have the state be white with a blue keyline, and a blue banner draped over it?

I always loved this Giants uniform, but I don't think it translates well to this era of shortened sleeves. In the '80s and '90s, you could tell the Bills and Giants home jerseys apart by the sleeve striping. The Giants were thin, the Bills were thick. But now, because of the tighter sleeve caps, if the Bills were to ever bring back the Jim Kelly-era uniforms, they'd look essentially the same as these. This might also have something to do with the shade of blue used on the jerseys. A few of you also mentioned this, but the jerseys clearly look like a brighter shade of blue than was previously worn.

That’s terrible news. These all-star uniforms are abysmal. I want to see the colors of the game on display, not this dreary gold and anthracite mess.

I don't generally have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the human race these days, but I would at least trust the fans — and the players — to understand that the home fans aren't rooting for the visitors just because they're all in white. Literally nobody is confused by this.

The suggestion wasn’t to adopt the name “Oilers,” just the colors. They can continue to be the Texans. So I don’t think an intellectual property claim comes into play if you’re not using the name. I’m also no IP expert, but I’m pretty certain you can’t claim ownership over colors on their own.

I like this idea, only the base color would have to be powder blue for it to draw any connection to the Oilers legacy. And really, it’s fair game for the Houston to reclaim those colors. The last Titans rebrand is so heavy on navy and silver that red and powder are there for the taking.

This is probably an unpopular opinion at this point, but I really dislike this Texans helmet specifically because of the finish. To me, the chrome-like shininess of it will stand out from the otherwise muted tones of the jersey fabric. It's going to look like they're wearing a disco ball on their head. I'd have much preferred they had gone with more of a matte finish, like the Memphis Express example posted earlier. FWIW, I'm also in the group that thinks all alt helmets should be throwbacks, but a recolor like this is still far preferable to the atrocity the Saints will wear. This one just doesn't happen to work for me.

It could be such a thing that NFL Films does contract-for-hire work. I'd imagine the spring and early summer are pretty lean times for them.

To that point, I'd almost rather they go full retro and lean into the old two-bar style that used to be standard for helmet graphics.

You're sort of making the point, though. I presume you're not a Wolves fan, so you haven't had to endure nearly two decades of (mostly) futility. So, using this analogy, the Wolves ,to you, are just any amusement park. You have no local attachment to it, so you can look at this trade, like most sports fans with no skin in it, as an armchair GM and assess winners and losers. That's fair, and it's part of the game. I just find it unproductive. As a Wolves fan, I just see a team taking a big swing. I don't give a damn what they gave up. They're just ensuring me that i'm likely to enjoy this next season more than I enjoyed the last one. Those future picks are just faceless commodities. And if it turns out to be a mistake, big deal. I'm used to them losing. At least we're enjoying the moment. Another point on this: Not all trades among all markets can be judged equally. Some teams, like the Wolves, aren't going to land any big-name free agents. It's just not going to happen, whether it be the quality of the squad or the location of the team. So they have to give away more to get players of a certain caliber. It's an unfortunate quirk of NBA economics you don't hear as much about in other sports. Location matters, and L.A. and South Beach sound a helluva lot more appealing to a 20-something athlete in the winter than the Twin Cities.

I get it. You're not wrong, but I always try to look at this as the GM and owners' problems. It's not like they're mortgaging my future. As a sports fan, if this makes them better now and makes the team more fun to watch, what do I care? It's like going to an amusement park to ride the new rollercoaster, but then criticizing it because they paid too much to build it.

It's as many five first round picks, per the Athletic: Unprotected first rounders in 2023, 2025 and 2027, a pick swap in 2026 and a top-five protected pick in 2029. I can understand all the heartburn over giving up so many picks. But as a T-Wolves fan from Day 1, I'd rather see them take some big swings now rather than banking on the unforeseen future. If they suck five years from now because of this, it’ll be no different from where they were five years ago, but they’re a lot better right now.

Woj is reporting that the T-Wolves just got Rudy Gobert. This is a holy **** deal for the Wolves. I hate they gave up so much, but I love what it means for the team's potential.

You don't think that changes if Billy Beane does one of his semi-miraculous turnarounds where he finds 9 guys you've never heard of and turns them into contenders? I'm a purist when it comes to the "winning cures everything" theory, but I certainly believes it carries some curative properties. The A's, if anything, have proven to be resilient over the years when it comes to competing.