DCarp1231

48 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I honestly don't understand your disagreement with me or your debating style.  Nobody's giving them a pass. 

I hope you know I was never disagreeing about anything. Just pointing out that Dallas has better options and should use them appropriately.

28 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Just because a team chooses to be dumb doesn't mean my point isn't valid.

 

With Dallas, the navy is IMO their best look, despite the silly number outline and unnecessary sleeve star.  Their color rush is stupid and shouldn't be worn, but I guess they need to move merch.  Their white over silver green should be mostly a road set IMO.  While I'd love for them to standardize their blues and silvers, it's kinda their thing, so I won't waste keypresses on it.

Just because it’s “their thing” doesn’t mean it’s a good thing nor should we all collectively give them a pass for being the cute baby (for lack of a better metaphor) for doing something like this. How they’ve managed to get away with it for this long continues to baffle me.

5 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

 

I'm not sure what your point is and how that's a counter to the one that I made.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said-

Quote

So if your best look isn't your home and away, by definition you're not looking your best all or even most of the time.  And if your alternate is your best look, then it should be your primary. 

The point I was making is how Dallas continues to over saturate their uniform schedule with the worst possible choice of their set. Which happens to be one singular uniform occupying the primary home AND away designation

You might as well call the navy set an alternate alongside the color rush. Both of which are better, more cohesive choices compared to the normal primary whites.

Throw the primary whites in the dumpster, light it on fire, and blow it up. Promote the Navy and CR to Primary Home-Away status and call it a day.

58 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Of course it is!  You wear your home and away most often (which is why, by definition, they're not 'alternates').  So if your best look isn't your home and away, by definition you're not looking your best all or even most of the time.  And if your alternate is your best look, then it should be your primary. 

 

Might want to send the memo to Dallas then. Their regular whites aren’t all that great compared to their navy and color rush sets and certainly shouldn’t be worn for all regular season games like how they tend to do.

43 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Agreed with all of that, except I need you to explain why seeing variety is better than seeing the same look all the time. Regardless of which look any of us think is the best for a given team, why wouldn't you want them to ALWAYS look their best?

You’re right. Any team should always look it’s best. However, IMO, it’s not always limited to a home uniform and an away uniform.

From the league’s Facebook and Twitter pages-

Also, the gold is noticeably darker. Is this an attempt at a fauxback?

8 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

Can they just get rid of the bone ones now?

This looks incredible. Huge improvement over the bone.

Is there a special rule dictating whether or not an alternate can be worn as a primary? I know the Rams were able to get some type of exemption with the throwback of the previous set.

2 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Because it is completely unnecessary. Just because the NFL is going to allow secondary helmets doesn't mean ever team HAS to come up with one. 

You’re absolutely right and I agree. Not every team has to have another helmet.

3 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

If a team organically comes up with an idea for a uniform that would benefit from an alternate helmet, or has a throwback that requires one, that's fine.

If the Ravens continue using their purple color rush uniform beyond 2021, that’s the perfect reason to go with a purple helmet. Would Baltimore want to create a fauxback of sorts that requires a purple helmet? Go ahead.

4 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

Earlier in this thread you commented that the Bears don't need another helmet, so I'm not sure why you are insisting on Baltimore having one just for the sake of it. There was a ton of backlash from the fans when the gold pants were worn, so I think that is working more against your argument than for it. The Ravens have been around for 25 years, have been one of the league's most successful franchises over that period of time, and have basically kept the same brand. I don't think they have much to gain from another helmet.

The difference between the Bears and the Ravens is that Chicago doesn’t really emphasize orange like Baltimore does with purple and black interchangeably. Chicago has an orange alternate jersey now and they’ve had one before, but that’s it. No orange pants and no orange socks. They clearly have a priority on navy blue while keeping orange as a secondary.

2 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Nobody is saying there has to be some sort of rule in place banning the Ravens from using a purple helmet. I'm just saying that when it comes to branding, it's generally a good idea to try and stand out from your competitors.

 

Blue has always been one of the Tampa Bay Lightning's colours, but that doesn't change the fact that switching to a blue & white set made them look like Leaf knock-offs. 

Tamp Bay and Toronto share two colors so it’s relatively easy to get them mixed up.

Baltimore and Minnesota share three colors so it’s easier for one team to have a heavy focus on one of those three. As is the same with the other. Minnesota has purple and Baltimore has black. However, that doesn’t mean they absolutely need to shut out the other two colors from the limelight.

For instance, this was truthfully a decent one-off for Baltimore, IMO.

It can be done with pants on whim, so why not go ahead with a different helmet color?

Great job on Vermont and Boston! Would love to see you do Mount Saint Mary’s 

24 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Your description of those alternate helmets is already hideous and gaudy. What's the point?

Teal and Columbia Blue helmets seem pretty reasonable and self explanatory to me. Not sure what was so hideous and gaudy about the description.

11 minutes ago, Scrumptious Ham said:

I don't mind a flurry of different helmet colors. I'd love to see the Jags with a teal shell for a couple of games. Maybe a Columbia blue shell for Tennessee would be cool to see. 

 

What scares me is someone pulling some cute 2010's Jags crap. The real hideous and gaudy.

Agreed. I expect WFT to take full advantage of the two-helmet rule once the rebrand rolls around next year

24 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Since the Ravens use the actual colors of their mascot, then make the beak on the Raven black as well, and again, lose the "B" on the helmet.

and the nearly invisible helmet stripes.

There is the Portland Diamond Project that aims to build a sustainable MLB Level Ballpark for whenever MLB is ready for relocation or expansion

https://portlanddiamondproject.com/ballpark-concepts

Which includes Russell Wilson and wife Ciara as Investors/Co-Owners

43 minutes ago, NormMacdonald said:

It would be like if the Patriots wore a navy helmet and looked like the Texans, or Bills wore a blue helmet and looked like the Giants. Just because you can because it's a main color, doesn't mean you should

More power to them, honestly. Some may look fine, some may look like :censored:. 
 

You can’t bar a team from using a main color to its fullest capacity.

5 minutes ago, NormMacdonald said:

They've also only had a black helmet since day one. And the Vikings have had a purple jersey and purple helmet since day one in 1960. Obviously a team can't own a color but it's ridiculous to think that if the Vikings made a black helmet or Ravens made a purple one that it wouldn't look like they're copying each other when they have such a similar color scheme. Vikings should have a purple helmet and shouldn't try out a black one, and the Ravens should have a black helmet and avoid a purple one.

The difference is Minnesota uses black as an accent color to purple while Baltimore treats purple as a primary color alongside black.

So Baltimore can’t have a purple helmet because “bUt tHe ViKeS uSe pUrPLe tOo”

Everything about this quote is great until you get to the gradient part. That tells me it’s more of a faux back with gradient elements than it is a true throwback to whatever uniform he’s talking about. Unless he’s just talking about the entire uniform set as whole.

29 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

The Bengals were soooo close to getting this totally right. But there’s too many flaws to give this anything higher than a C grade. 

The only flaw IMO is the away set. Too much is wrong with that, but great with everything else

6 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

Clamoring for the Dolphins to wear a superior uniform is a bad thing how?

It’s a uniform that deserves to be left in the past. The “throwback” status is a memento of what was. I don’t mind if they bring it back with modern touches. One of which is a better logo.

1 and 4

5 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Honestly? Put the 49ers throwbacks over gold pants, red (striped) socks, keep the current helmet, and call it a day. In my opinion, that’d be the best of both worlds AND the best uniform in team history.

Agreed 100%. Ditch the current jerseys. I’d go as far as keeping the white pants around for alternate looks.