MCM0313

13 hours ago, Gary said:

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2021/3/31/22360830/detroit-lions-uniform-changes-rod-wood-planning-2022
 

I hope they get rid of the ridiculous WCF letters where the stripes are, get rid of the Lions word mark where the stripes lay. Also tweak the numbers a bit

 

Was this an early April Fools’ Day joke? The Lions are fine when they stay away from the grey alts. No need to fix what isn’t broken. 

People, we’re having a debate over something that was settled once and for all, long ago, by the brilliant Gregg Easterbrook: 

they should forevermore be the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons. 
 

Logo? How ‘bout an interlocking I and P?

9 hours ago, thisguyphelps said:

 

...I highly doubt the user Norm MacDonald is actually Norm MacDonald, sir. 

7 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Lol he was talking about the idea of people being offended by Redtails, not Washington's old name

Thank you. This is precisely it. 

10 hours ago, NormMacdonald said:

The world has always been hyper-politicized. Take off the rose-colored glasses when looking at the past old man and just accept that language changes and racial slurs aren't okay

Old man? I’m 36. 
 

Racial slurs? I was talking about the name Redtails. Is that a racial slur?

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I like the idea, but I think swapping out one group for another is probably the wrong call in this specific case. Folks will raise a stink just to raise a stink instead of appreciating the accomplishments of a group of servicemen. 

 

Le sigh. In this hyper-politicized day and age, there probably would be people getting offended by that. 

6 hours ago, Bruhammydude said:

I think a fun idea for the Washington Football Team would be the Pigskins. It ties the [mod edit] name, the Football Team name, and the Hogs nickname all at once. The Skins ending carries over from the [mod edit], a Pigskin is a term used for a football, which relates to them being named the Football Team, and the Pigskin moniker also ties into the Hogs nickname of the 80s [mod edit] that they were at their best. Maybe it's too cheesy, but I think it would stand out.

 

People would call it a cop-out and an attempt to surreptitiously hang on to the old name (which we can’t say here for some reason, even though one year ago it was their actual name).

Even if it were a brand-spanking-new team with no connotations of past names or ties to racism (lot more than just the name there; they were also the last team to integrate, and their Hall of Fame owner was a virulent racist), it would seem overly casual. And it also seems as though visual branding would HAVE to be goofy almost to the Brandiose level. I see a pig wearing a maroon helmet. Maybe also standing upright and holding a football. Maybe also-also doing the Heisman pose. 

1 minute ago, DNAsports said:

Wolves work fine IMO too. It keeps the push by fans for Redwolves, but obviously doesn’t emphasize the Red part. You can still have a red wolf logo without a problem too.

Too close to Minnesota. I want something unique. 

4 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, it's all clunky. And awkward. Or as I said a few posts up, stupid.

 

Pick a name. Move on. The crybabies will either get over it, or eventually die. Either way, the problem is solved.

Redtails. Honor the military and the historic contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen. Spiffy logo. Maybe a mascot dressed up like a WWII airplane. Same colors. Same helmet shell. Striping that complements the logo (or perhaps a unique helmet incorporating flight motifs). Done. 

13 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

Honestly I kinda like Washington Football Team (but would prefer Washington Football Club). It has a classic, storied feel to it that fits a team that has been around as long as they have and have stuck with classic looking uniforms. But the reason why I don't want them to keep it is because I hate it when announcers and articles call them "the Football Team" rather than just "Washington". I get it in cases of databases where you have to insert a nickname into the database for auto populating websites and such. But in conversation and writing where you can choose to call them Washington it irks me to no end. 

Solely calling them Washington is also annoying. I remember before they dropped the old moniker, some of the more...ah...outwardly virtuous sportswriters would call them only by the city name in protest, and it was clunky. Football Team is also clunky. I like the idea of still calling them the Hogs unofficially, but not having an official nickname is so...European at best, severely awkward at worst. 
 

As an example: if you’re covering, say, the Chicago Bears, you can easily and smoothly switch back and forth between “Chicago” and “Bears” and even throw in “Monsters of the Midway” once or twice. Everyone familiar with the NFL will understand you. 
 

Now imagine that you can no longer call them Bears. You go back and forth between the city name and the unofficial historical nickname. Occasionally you just call them “football team”. It sounds like you’re the commentator on a video game that has NFLPA approval but not that of the league itself. 
 

When you really think about it, some of the team names are already pretty generic. No need to make it more so.

11 hours ago, Ark said:

I think the Washington Football Team will use that name permanently, and that's a good thing. They will make more people angry than happy with whatever name they go with, so they're better off staying generic. A name like that is unique to the Big 4 North American sports leagues and helmet numbers is a unique detail in the NFL as well.

 

I hope the "Cleveland Baseball Team" becomes the Cleveland Spiders, though.

How about Washington Spiders too?

2 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

Hey, respect my authoritah!

6 hours ago, ptaylor said:

 

I do get the appeal (feels classic and old school) and if the on-field product continues to improve then it could work.

 

But man, any time someone calls them 'The Football Team' I want to vomit. Will always feel like a placeholder name to me. 

Right. This is not soccer. This is not Europe. This is American football, and  NFL teams have plural names. They need to stop with this nonsense and pick an *actual* name.  

1 hour ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Fun fact: the Browns did not wear their brown jerseys in 2011(excluding preseason), going WAH all season

http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/controller/controller.php?action=teams-season&team_id=CLE&year=2011

Same for 1993 Rams. 

17 hours ago, debo0775 said:

Elaborating, there are a handful of teams that I think can lay claim to their colors being their visual ID:

 

Baltimore

Miami

Jacksonville

Tampa Bay

Minnesota

Seattle

Green Bay

NYJ

SF

 

Those teams are unmistakably identified by their colors. Maybe another couple of teams could be added. Beyond that, there‘s mostly a muddled mess of Blue/White, Blue/Silver, Blue/Red, Red/White teams (not to mention Chicago and Denver with remarkably similar colors).

 

The NFL is also defined largely by its brand rather than its players (save the superstars). Removing the helmet as the visual identifier for a club would dramatically alter how we consume the NFL in viewership and in public persona.

Jags can’t even make up their mind how much each color matters to them. 
 

Raiders are silver and black and instantly recognizable as such. You could take out all logos and words and it would be incredibly obvious still. 

36 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Lombardi was with the Giants. 

I know. But the Browns were a major power in the ‘50s and I’ve read that something about their look appealed to Lombardi - specifically the color balance. He decided the helmet should be the team’s secondary color because of them. And then he extended that idea to the pants. He had an opinion on what a winner should look like. 

1 hour ago, Froob said:

What year are these from?

Late fifties? 
 

I believe Lombardi was on Paul Brown’s staff when the team switched to orange helmets, which in turn inspired him to put the Packers in yellow helmets. 
 

EDIT: Lombardi was never with the Browns. I’m pretty sure their look inspired Green Bay’s, though. 

On 1/28/2021 at 9:04 AM, BBTV said:

If you're upset about Brady's reasoning for wanting #7, you're just predisposed to disliking Tom Brady.  Everyone has their reasons for wanting a certain number, and I'm sure a lot of them have to do with personal reasons rather than something for a team.  I'm not sure how anyone's reasoning for any number could be "douchey", unless it's something like "I want 14, because it's my goal to bang 14 girls at a time", or "I want 4, because I'm trying to get my 4th STD".

 

He became a mercenary, and went to the Bucs specifically to (get out of New England, but also) win his next SB.  He's not part of the fabric of the franchise or community, and I don't think anyone in the team or fanbase thinks of him as a "Tampa guy".  Everyone knows the deal with him.

Who’s to say that Brady doesn’t have an offseason goal of getting seven STDs simultaneously and going seven days before seeking treatment?

Well, besides Giselle I guess. 

Just now, DNAsports said:

Oh no... not the BENGALS using TIGER stripes

 

I fail to see the “excessive” amount of striping you claim to see.

There’s a tasteful amount of it all around. Now, if they went bonkers with it on top of the shoulders, down the sides of the jerseys, and on the socks, THEN there’d be an issue.

 

FFIW, I do agree with the removal of the side panels and an alteration to the number font.

Wow. Somehow I remembered the striping being more intrusive. That doesn’t look bad. I’ve always loved the tiger stripes on the pants. For some reason I was thinking the striping on the jerseys looked closer to a yoke. 

9 hours ago, DNAsports said:

I agree with this. However, I’d also add on by saying anything starting with “Red” is as much of a copout as what the current name is. To satisfy the fanbase, I’d argue they need to get as close as possible to the old name as they can. “Warriors” would be the choice for this. The problem is, they need to get as far away from ‘formerly known as’ as possible to not cause any backlash.

 

Bottom line, stay as far away from the old name as possible.

Warriors is such a generic name though. I’d like something that nobody else in Big 4 sports leagues uses. 

On 1/16/2021 at 5:13 PM, Chromatic said:

This is a bit hyperbolic. The only thing that really makes the Bengals uniforms as bad as they are is the inexplicable side panel. Aside from that while the uniforms aren't perfect they aren't fundamentally flawed like some.

The number font? The side panels? The excessive striping? The Bengals have a good helmet. I’ll give them that. 
 

EDIT: You had already mentioned the side panels, about which we agree. I meant to say drop shadows on the numbers. 

15 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Careful what you wish for. Player involvement doesn't offer much more than fire emojis.

Could the Bengals possibly look worse, though?

16 hours ago, mjd77 said:

Unless they already had something in the works, I believe it's already too late for next season.

Even so, I hope Mixon or Burrow or one of their other young foundational players can get that proverbial ball rolling. 

2 hours ago, Krudler said:

To me the WFT's main look should always be white jersey and burgundy pants. It's what I grew up with, it's what they won their two Super Bowls in.

Three, actually. 

On 1/8/2021 at 12:00 PM, JerseyJimmy said:

 

actually, this reminds me: not only should the Suns keep Phoenix, but the Coyotes and Cardinals should both go back to using Phoenix. two syllables is a whole lot less unwieldy than four.

 

the Diamondbacks using Arizona has never really bothered me, though. weird.

As far as the Cardinals go, you have to realize that the “Phoenix Cardinals” never made a single playoff appearance. It was a moniker that had a short life representing an unsuccessful franchise.