damnyoutuesday

2 hours ago, PurpleHayes said:

 You nailed it. I also blame the owners for letting the players decide on uniform redesigns and combos, and then not correcting the players when they push the limits of uniform rules...which is how we wound up with all white uniforms with no stripes and plain white socks. It could have been nipped in the bud years ago!

You say this like there are some rules deep in the rulebook which ban these things. There's nothing that says you can't have an all-white uniform, or white socks, or that stripes are required on pants

13 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I’m sitting here trying to imagine the reaction of the average fan (the 95+ percent who couldn’t care less about what socks their team is wearing) when a key player on their favorite team gets suspended for wearing the wrong socks. The entire concept is idiotic.  
 

 

I just hope you’re kidding.    

NFL fans would mutiny if star players got suspended for their SOCKS

Suspending players for minor aesthetic violations would be overkill. Once again, people on this forum need to remember we are a very significant minority who cares about this stuff. The average fan just wants to watch the game, and can't determine when most teams make uniform changes unless they change colors

1 hour ago, aawagner011 said:

This level of mix and match should be beneath Florida State. Leave it to the directional schools. You’re garnet and gold. Play around with garnet pants, white pants on the road, even the occasional all black. But this looks totally wrong.

 

 

On the other hand, players like to mix and match, and arguably the best game to do so is against the school that wears the same colors as you

4 minutes ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

I'll add Notre Dame, the Patriots, and the Texans to this growing list.

Twins, Astros, Nationals, Arizona, Auburn, Virginia, UNC

2 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

I'm amazed that they've found a way to make their uniforms even worse. Imagine how bad those silver pants are going to look with the navy jerseys now.

I would imagine we're only getting white pants with the navy jersey now

It's actually kind of pathetic that Kansas State nails the Cowboys look better than the actual Cowboys

19 minutes ago, simtek34 said:

Oh?

 

 

The Cowboys really need to decide if they're a royal blue or navy team. Having both would be fine, but they mix the navy on the helmet with the royal blue of the white jersey and it just looks bad

3 minutes ago, Frylock said:

Yeah, it’s actually a little distracting. I don’t know if it’s a Nike fabric change, new lighting at MetLife, or new NBC equipment.

My thoughts were that it might be the rain?

Do the Cowboys pants look super teal to anyone else?

3 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

I thought last year was the last time too but apparently not and we haven't seen mono bone since 2021.

For my part I think it's overly maligned. Especially when worn as intended as monochrome with blue accessories.

 

That combo makes it semi-tolerable and is probably the best option with the bone, but it's still a bad uniform

On 9/3/2023 at 9:15 AM, tBBP said:

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like we didn't comment on how horrendous their old road uniforms were nearly enough

7 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

My phone might be messing with me but...do those stripes and numbers appear yellow and blue to anyone else?

Slight hint of blue. Probably camera/lighting

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

 

Time out...have I been in a fog or something? When did LAC go to being WAH? (Admittedly I don't keep tabs on what goes on out west—usually because I'm sleep by the time they get going—so I hadn't realized that if they did.) Now, with that said...I'm not on Twitt—um, X, to know what the Snatit's uniform schedule is, but going by the above post they're going WAH against a team whose primary color is pretty much the same as theirs...and why do socmany NFL teams do this again? And while I'm throwing out all these arbitrary questions...

 

 

...Someone tell me how the Chargers were/are able to get away away with two alternate non-throwback uniforms again?

One is an alternate, the other is a color rush

Cardinals wearing their white uniform for the first time today vs the Vikings. I really like this look, would look great with some red socks. Significant improvement over the previous set

Montana State to wear an updated gold uniform for their annual "Gold Rush" game. Now more closely matches the regular home uniforms:

 unlike our last Gold Rush uniforms:

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

Now we're talking!

 

Teddy Bridgewater in #50

 

Wasn't there a QB for Michigan like 10 years ago who wore 98?

3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

This is why schools need to switch to paint instead of stitching logos into the turf. 

Eh. If you're a smaller school that is only going to use the field for football, stitching it into the turf is the most economical option. Also doesn't smear, and doesn't have to be reapplied every week. Also, schools normally don't change their midfield/endzone logos that often

16 minutes ago, solvetica said:

At least we shrunk the logo to normal size this year

Other than the prominence of powder blue, I have never understood the love for that Titans set. It looked like a bad CFL template

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Put the Tigers script, no tail, on practice uniforms and leave the in-game home whites the hell alone.

I vote they do what the Cardinals do and wear their alternate once a week, but every other game is the standard home. Wear the Tigers scripts once a week for home games, and every other game is standard

8 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Were the Vikings always a "we don't retire numbers" team, or did they become one just now?

We've only retired 6 numbers, AP has never been one. Last number retired was in 2003 (Cris Carter). We haven't even retired Randy Moss's number

37 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

With the resurgence of throwbacks and more traditional style uniforms, the current iteration of Seahawks uniforms is quickly becoming outdated. Wouldn’t surprise me if it reached “Reebok unnecessary piping” status.

Not even close, the Cardinals and Bengals looked way more outdated before their redesigns than the current Seahawks will look in 20 years. The only things that really need a small update to keep that set looking nice are getting rid of the design inside the numbers and adding teal to the white and grey pants.

So are we just waiting for the Eagles to officially release the kelly green at this point?

8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Maybe if i saw it with navy pants (and a normal collar) it'd be acceptable.  

They did wear a normal collar during the final years of the old set

6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Cannot for the life of me understand the nostalgia for the old Seahawks uniforms, by the way. All they make me think of is when the Seahawks were a forever-.500 team that everyone forgot about, an adjunct to the old AFL West that never fit and never mattered. They're the St. Louis Football Cardinals without the historical cachet, but unlike the Cardinals' efforts, the Seahawks' tweaks have been vast improvements. I don't think the current uniforms get everything right, nor did the 2000s set, but the '80s/'90s set doesn't really get anything right. But people seem very positive about it, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about on this one.

The way I've always seen it is look at how that specific team's fanbase reacts to it. It doesn't really matter what a Vikings or Jets fan thinks of them, as long as Seattle fans love them (which seems to be the case). I know a lot of people on here also hate the Seahawks regular set but Seattle fans love them also