Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. (Hey the post I was writing when the thread was briefly locked remained intact!)


    On 12/29/2020 at 3:12 PM, infrared41 said:


    It was a few unnecessary elements away from being a very solid look. It wasn't terrible, there was just too much going on with it.

    I also think it got very stale and if the Pats had just been another team, they'd have gone away more quickly. The jerseys, anyway. 


    On 12/29/2020 at 2:39 PM, the admiral said:

    I think a winning/losing legacy can swing middle-of-the-pack uniforms one way or the other, but has no effect on the extremes. Case in point, the Patriots, whose 2000-2019 uniforms were never great in and of themselves, but the run they had in them makes me look more favorably upon them such that their more traditional uniforms now look like a clear downgrade. Conversely, the mid-'90s Brewers had uniforms that were not the best but not without merit, but the team's incompetence of that era stains them to the point that there's no real appetite for any throwbacks to that stuff outside of completists and contrarians. 


    This is where I tend to lean. I agree with Infrared that more often than not "good is good" and "bad is bad." And certainly, if a classic team like the Dodgers goes on an abysmal run, we're not likely looking at an overhaul.


    But people are going to associate the creamsicle Bucs with historic ineptitude. The above-mentioned Brewers with being forgettable. And while the Broncos had some success in the Orange Crush, the Super Bowl results in those vs. the drab blues is going to come into play.  I suppose the question is "should it?"  I can go both ways. Had the Jags won five Super Bowls in their two-toned helmet, I'd still have said they need to change it the minute the league allows. But as much as I love the creamsicle Bucs and the 1990s Brewers, changing back to those would seem odd for on-the-field reasons. The Broncos? Well, their orange crush uniform looks better and they were not exactly an irrelevant team, so I do think those could fly.


    In the 1990s both the Penguins and Rockets changing it up so quickly after back-to-back titles seemed wrong to me. (Of course they were both downgrades and the Rockets made a particularly awful choice).

  2. 55 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:


    Like most things, it's really a matter of opinion.


    I couldn't believe my eyes in 1997 when I saw those Broncos for the first time. They looked like they were from the future and the rest of the league immediately looked out of date, with the possible exception of the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens.


    The Broncos were probably the most revolutionary step in sports design; certainly at that point and probably ever. Or at least the biggest change in sports design since teams discovered teal in the late 80s/early 90s.


    I agree that without the Broncos we wouldn't have clunkers that still exist today like the Arizona Cardinals or the Favre-era Vikings, but there are plenty of cool designs that have launched because of those Broncos (Seahawks, Vick Falcons, Titans, a millions college teams, etc.).


    I know some people (not saying you specifically, but some) will never accept a football uniform that veers from the Packers/Chiefs/Bills -- and I myself think those teams generally look the best -- but there is a place for modern uniform design, and I think you can trace that to the Broncos.

    I certainly agree that this was a key sports uniform revolution.  Maybe not the most important in all of sports but probably so in the NFL in my memory. 


    Since you're a big NBA fan, I'd be curious to hear what your reaction was to the Mavericks update from royal/kelly to the dark blue side-panelly look they went to a few years after the Broncos.  First, maybe I wonder whether the Broncos helped make this happen (indirectly, anyway) and second, did you see it as revolutionary?  I personally think these uniforms have a lot in common.  They both replaced a vivid color scheme with something a lot darker. They both set themselves apart from the rest of the league a bit. They both precipited a lot of winning (albeit the Broncos were already a key franchise while the Mavs were still kinda floundering).  They both traded some personality in their logos for horses that were bordering on metallic. They both really traded some "personality" in their entire look for some "precision" (that's not the right word...).  And in my opinion, they were both big downgrades and they both are really tired by this point.


    Yeah, I tend to prefer Packers/Chiefs/Bills along with Spurs/Bulls/Pistons but I do think there's room for modernization (I don't even hate the Favre-era Vikes). But I think the Broncos design is just drab and boring. At least the Reebok era Cardinals and Falcons did something with the sleeves.  The Broncos were just kinda minimalist uniforms designed for modern cuts. And I think the Mavs look is even worse.  It's trying too hard to be "sleek" or something.  It's aged terribly...the Broncos logo is at least OK, even if a downgrade.

  3. 13 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:


    I would probably agree that the Broncos version of both the side panels and the curving truncated stripe are as good as the design/style ever got. Especially at home, that bold orange swoosh (hmmm...) that moved from navy to white was extremely visually arresting, no question. My issues with it, in retrospect, are these three;


    One, it created a waterfall of bad design ideas, as every team that partially copied it while putting on their own twist made it worse and worse. True, that isn't the Broncos fault, but I have to say if Nike (it was their original design) had instead sold it to some team other than a classic NFL team destined to win Super Bowls in it, it wouldn't have had the same staying power. That's why the super spreader comment was so spot on.


    Two, it replaced a classic with much more personal and unique color scheme. That weird light blue helmet that didn't quite match the other blues? The top heavy color distribution? I know, as you say, it's all personal opinion, but that kind of mismatched old school design (see the New York Giants) is something I'm a sucker for every time.


    And three, again, personal opinion, but I feel that uniform has way outlived it's expiration date, especially now that they've (rightfully) attempted to reclaim orange as their true primary. It's been tired for at least a decade. It's just time to move on.


    Point one: who knows? Something goofy would have happened.  It might have taken longer and it might have been different, but something goofy would have happened. Though I do agree that the fact that it was the Broncos, vs., say the Seahawks (who were not much of a franchise at the time), probably matters.


    Point two: It makes more sense "on paper" but it totally zapped them of personality. It might be the precursor to the Mavericks going from royal/green to their borderline robotic "streamlined" look.


    I absolutely agree with point #3. I see the uniform as the first acknowledgement that sleeves were going away. At the time, I didn't recognize it and therefore thought "this is just...boring" and was astonished by the numbers being on the shoulders when the sleeves were blank...except for the swoosh. While they were revolutionary, they also totally changed the identity of an important/established team. And, frankly, they're kind of boring. In hindsight, these were kinda destined to age badly.

  4. I actually disagree with both of you...I don't think the Mariners look is tired at all (and I totally agree about the Ravens example, though that was born tired).


    Given some of the other pacific northwest teams cited by the Admiral (not to mention the Kraken), I can see SF's point that the teal could be more vivid, but overall, I feel like the Mariners look has aged fairly well. I don't really see a need for anything major to happen. (Even though I like the trident-star logo of the early 1980s).

  5. 6 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:


    In the NFL, actually tanking has never really been a thing. I mean, sure, fans and TV gasbags spend a lot of time talking about it, but you'll never get 40 some players who are trying to have a career, and coaches fighting for their jobs, to go out and not try. The NBA is different. There are so few players on the floor at any given time that an owner or GM can really effect the games, but I can't honestly think of a time when an NFL team didn't at least try. (And, no, I don't think the Jets choke job against Las Vegas was intensional. If they were activey trying to lose, it never would've gotten that close.)

    I tend to agree.  It's more difficult in the NFL to just rest guys than it is in the NBA. Players try to win win they're on the field/floor but with 22 starters plus special teams in a season that's only 16 games, teams don't have the luxery to water down who's playing the way that NBA teams do. And as you allude to, all but a few NFL players are always performing for their professional lives into next year. A team like the Jags and Jets right now might error a bit more on the side of caution with banged-up players than, say, the Cardinals, but with only 16 games, they're going to want to give everyone the game reps, even Sam Darnold.


    There's also the FOOTBALL! culture about carrying over into next season.

    And I'm not one of those fans that reacts negatively to hoping for a better draft pick. I get frustrated when a non-playoff Viking team wins four of its last five and drops down several picks (and I've been told I am wrong...meh). I've always dreaded the idea of my team making 0-16 history but honestly, if there's a potential HOF QB at stake, I think I'd take it. I don't blame Jets fans that are unhappy about yesterday.

  6. The problem is the name has to be:

    • dignified
    • unique
    • major league
    • timeless
    • "not generic"

    That's really tricky.  That's why I hold less value on unique. I'd rather repeat another name of a big league team than be unique to a fault. I'd rather the Minnesota NHL team be the Eagles, Tigers, or Bulls than Wild. No question.


    I think Spiders works OK.  It's unique in big-league sports. I think it's major league (because to me "minor league" is either two-word or cheesier like Lugnuts or River Monsters). I think it has the opportunity to be timeless (i.e., in 20 years it will be just as part of the culture as the Marlins and won't be jarring like Wild or too modern like Heat). I don't think it's "generic" (a term I use rarely for things like Marauders). Dignified? I can see the argument that it's not and I think trying to make a mean/intimidating logo would impact that.  They'll need subtle imagery.


    Otherwise, I am OK with things that others might find non-unique or generic. I can live with Blues,* Americans, etc.


    MOD EDIT: Let's not fly too close to the sun.

  7. The problem that Cleveland and Washington both have is that these names were around so long that any new name is going to feel like New Orleans Pelicans* or something. That these names were outdated doesn’t make this any less jarring than if the Detroit Tigers had to pick a new name.  They flat out cannot have a timeless name right out of the gate. (I suppose Spiders has some of that feel to history-minded fans, which probably explains its popularity) Like the Minnesota NHL team should have, these teams should think about how the name will seem in 20 years, not next year.


    *I liked the Pelicans name from day 1 but it was still essentially an expansion name and didn’t feel right like, say, Mavericks or Pacers. By now, though, it has kinda blended in, unlike Wild. 

  8. Unpopular opinion: I tend to prefer the phantom yokes. The reason I do is because I prefer the shape it gives to the extra color on the sleeve. For example, the red Wild alternate did not have the phantom yoke and as popular as that jersey was I hated it in part because the green on the sleeve just looked like a box.  When they upgraded it to primary, the phantom yoke gave the green that shape that was reminiscent of jerseys like the white Red Wings jersey, etc. I like that a lot better. Add the stripes to the bottom of the latter jersey and it's better by a mile. The green on the sleeves on the former was just to "boxy" for my taste, I guess.


    t0vafndulbnrlzelu2r064f2g.gif  lb10yb4oszqigldhsihenoaug.gif

    I also don't hate the phantom yoke when there's no barrier between to different colors:

    I understand why most people don't like it but it's kind of a guilty pleasure for me. In this example, I think it looks better than it would without.


  9. I think it's pretty obvious that the NFL makes stuff up as they go and tends to shift based on fan and media outcry. And most of the rationales I've heard for the Ravens and Broncos being treated differently seem a bit flimsy.


    That said, I'm almost surprised by it.  Not because of the Broncos and Ravens but but because of the Steelers.  You'd think the NFL would love to see the Steelers get a game somewhat akin* to the game the Saints just got.


    *I believe the Ravens would have an actual QB, though, so it would not be quite as bad.


    The NFL was kind of on the edge of a cliff early in the year and then they seemed to be leveling of.  But the league is back on the edge now. I can cut them some slack due to everything being unprecedented but that Broncos situation was a disaster.  Thank goodness there were no fans (right) paying for that nonsense, but this was dangerous to Hinton and probably the RBs, too. A forfeit would have been better; the game went exactly how everyone knew it was going to go, so I don't think the free win for the Saints would have been any more unfair to the other NFC South teams than this was, anyway.

  10. If I could change one of these, it would be St. Louis. Not just because I don't like it but because I think that could be unpopular to the point that red and/or asymmetry worm their way back into the look.  The pre-edge is my favorite Blues look and the current, a flawed version of that, is my #2.  I never liked the inclusion of red and I really hope it doesn't make a comeback.

  11. I generally like that Bruins one, but I feel like they should now always include the serifs (save for a true throwback)...The old B just seems to be floating and the serifs help it blend into the rest of the logo better.  Also, death to the flame-snorting horse.

  12. On 11/10/2020 at 7:21 PM, BigEd76 said:

    Confirmation the Twins and Rochester are parting ways, with St. Paul the target for AAA, but this is the first I've seen Wichita and Sioux Falls SD mentioned as alternate options



    As a Twins fan living in St. Paul, I look forward to this possibility. I have never had a lot of interest in the St. Paul Saints as an independent team.  I've been to two games* the 12 years I've been back here. I assume AAA prices would go up, but that's fine with me. The Saints draw well and I suspect it's in part because it's a cheap ticket. So it would be interesting to see how that goes.  I don't think Wichita would make much sense at all.  Sioux Falls kinda does since the Twins like to market to the Dakotas, Iowa, and western Wisconsin. But I'm hoping they end up in St. Paul.


    *The only game I've been to in the fairly new ballpark in downtown St. Paul was a playoff game. While their scheduled regular-season games sell very well, there was almost nobody at this playoff game. I found that amusing but it goes to show how for fans, minor-league ball is more about getting outside and not really about the winning or losing. Well that, and that the playoff games are not scheduled in advance and when they are scheduled only a few die-hards really notice.

  13. NBA is almost as hard to follow as college football. I like some of these uniforms like San Antonio and dislike others like the Knicks. But the number of uniforms, the divergence from team colors, and the lack of difference between home and the road is getting crazy.

  14. 15 minutes ago, LMU said:

    In Turner's defense, as stupid as he and the whole situation were:


    *The whole team had been in a bubble for three weeks in the same hotel as the Dodgers played three series in Arlington

    *Notice of a positive test didn't reach the team until the 7th inning, after Turner had been sans mask around the whole team for all of pregame/6 innings

    *As close as the team has been anyone associated with the team would have already been exposed (e.g. the team had a BBQ dinner on Monday night)

    *In all practicality this was probably more of an optics issue than a health issue as whatever damage would have already been done

    I think the bottom two bullets are a stretch. I'm not sure how the positive test comes out mid-game, but I'll assume nothing fishy's going on there (or else they'd have just waited until today).  But at that point there's no reason to bring him back around his teammates. Yeah, it's too bad he doesn't get to property celebrate, but I don't think we know whether the spread will be worse than they would have been...yeah, it's optics, but it's also just practical and at the very least, a grasp at trying to be smart.


    I'm not sure how it entered the bubble, but once you know it, you kind of have to take the precautions.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.