JWhiz96

Eek, the Bengals field in real life looks kinda Frankenfield-esque due to the overlap of white and orange, but I always appreciate teams going above and beyond with their fields, so it's still welcomed. (side note, I love the Bengals white-out unis)

Eagles should just go to kelly green at this point. Just a wholly more appealing color, both on the unis and the field.

15 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Wyoming would get Buffalo Bills games during Josh Allen's rookie year. That region is generally Broncos/Seahawks territory but there was an island of Buffalo Bills. 

 

Speaking of Broncos, Seattle is getting Broncos/Texans instead of Bucs/Saints. Seattle generally gets an AFC West game unless there's something more compelling; you could flip a coin between those two games though the locals probably want to channel flip between the Hawks and Broncos game to see how Russ is doing.

I think it may have to do with the Seahawks being a former AFCW team. There's still some animosity between them and the Broncos (though of course those two teams have history after the conference swap).

42 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

CBS is doing a soft focus thing after plays that they did for the first time during the Super Bowl. The NBA did the same thing during the Finals. It looked dumb then and it looks dumb now.

CBS did it the entirety of last year, though it was utilized more often in the SB than the regular season. I don't think it looks dumb, but I do think it looks out of place in a sporting event - especially in the NFL, when such a thing as "NFL Films" exists for that very purpose.

A side note, the Rams endzone design looks gorgeous. I hope they never change it from tonight.

Most Heartbreaking:

1.) 2004 AFCCG Steelers loss to Patriots, 41-27. Spurred my hatred of anything related to Tom Brady (Pats were clearly the better team though).

2.) 2008 Stanley Cup Final Penguins loss to Red Wings, 4-2. Wings were the favorite and the better team, but seeing the playoff run come to a bitter end was devastating.

Most Frustrating:

1.) 2013 ECF Penguins loss to Bruins, 4-0. This teetered on embarrassing actually, given that the Pens were the #1 seed.

2.) 2015 WC Pirates loss to Cubs. Watching Garrett Cole implode was agonizing.

Most Embarrassing:

1.) 2017 AFC Divisional Steelers loss to Jaguars, 45-42. How tf do you score 42 points at home in a playoff game and lose to Blake Bortles?

2.) 2020 AFC Wild Card Steelers loss to Browns, 48-37. Would be #1 if I didn't feel sympathetic to the Browns, because yikes, what a disaster.

3.) 2011 AFC Wild Card Steelers loss to Broncos, 29-23 OT. Steelers go from being one game out from the league's best record to one-and-done versus Tebow.

4.) 2016 AFCCG Steelers loss to Patriots, 36-17. I've never seen the Steelers look as uncompetitive as they have in a winner-take-all scenario as I did in this game.

On 7/24/2021 at 4:58 PM, PittsburghSucks said:

 

So hopefully the Browns playoff win against the Steelers means the rivalry is back? BTW, I had a job in the mid 90's where Pittsburgh was my territory. I spent 2 days a week there. The Browns only beat the Steelers once while I had that job. And one of the years they beat us 3 times. My customers were great people. Loved talking sports with them. And they were just as pissed as I was when Modell announced the move to Baltimore. 

Oh yes, the rivalry is back indeed. One of my employees is actually a Browns fan (native to Ohio too), and he and I talk football all the time.

Hell even after the WC loss, I was low-key rooting for the Browns to upset the Chiefs the next week.

On 7/4/2021 at 12:34 PM, PittsburghSucks said:

It's July and training camps will be opening this month. The off season went by fast. So looking forward to the 2021 NFL season. Especially for my Cleveland Browns. Who for the first time in 30 plus years are actual Super Bowl contenders. So lets get this thing started...

I'm still super salty about last year lol but you guys deserve all the good fortune. I know quite a few Browns fans and have family in Berea so I'm happy for them too. Just embarrass Baltimore this year instead of us.

On 11/11/2020 at 4:11 PM, pitt6pack said:

2005 Weeks 9 and 10

One of my least favorite end zone designs: partially painted end zones. They were all the craze in the aughts (Steelers and Titans jumped in as well), and it feels like someone who can't make up their mind. It's not difficult: just paint the whole damn thing.

Part of me hates the wacky design of the Jaguars' 90s fields, but another part of me loves them. If anything, their fields were more inspired back then, certainly more than they are now.

On 9/24/2020 at 8:13 PM, RayFinkle said:

I wonder what goes into the decision of putting either the City or the Teams name into the endzones.

For the multi-use stadia the city name is often put in for cross use (i.e. Hard Rock stadium for the Dolphins and Hurricanes). I don't quite know the reason for full city names in other stadia, though I have to imagine it's likely due to the pride of locality over team name: for instance, the Eagles are synonymous with Philly, having been their team name since 1933, but the Jags have only existed since 1995, with a significant amount of people having more pride in the county name over the team name.

My thoughts on the 2020 fields we've seen so far:

Falcons: The midfield logo is too large and obnoxious in my opinion. They really had to span it from both 40s? They make up for this with the unique end zone design though, gotta admit I'm a fan.

Ravens: Good field as usual, though I'm still upset they ditched the number and yard-line trimming.

Bills: Good as usual, though the NFL logos at the 25s are a bit large.

Panthers: Clean and succinct, better than many teams, but a clear downgrade from their longtime design. Hopefully they return to the painted end zones later on.

Bengals: Still the best end zone design in the league, but the field is still a downgrade from the 2005 design (I know it's not returning, still pining for it though).

Broncos: Massive upgrade with the classic logo in the end zones, good field.

Lions: I'll never get tired of seeing the Honolulu blue end zones in Detroit. Good field.

Jaguars: At some point, this team needs to solidify its field design. Much like their unis, the team seems to have an identity crisis and can't figure out what it wants. The current field is not terrible, but like the uniforms, is among the most boring in the league.

Chiefs: Downgrade by returning to one of the more boring designs in the league.

Rams: For how bad their logos and uniforms are, the field is actually decent. Can't complain.

Vikings: Still my favorite field in the league.

Patriots: Decent field, good number font change.

Saints: Much like their uniforms, this field has frustrated me since it debuted in the early-00s. For all the versatility they have on Field Turf and in a dome, they continually use the most boring field design in the league. I understand the dome hosts plenty of events annually, but they could at least have stitched "Saints" end zones in reserve like the Cowboys and Giants. It just reeks of laziness.

Giants: Speaking of the G-Men, their field was downgraded by the lack of a conference logo, as already mentioned by pitt6pack.

49ers: Still among the best designs in the leauge.

WFT: Honestly, an upgrade due to the fully-painted end zones. The gold wordmark in the burgundy end zone just works so well.

9 hours ago, JagMatt said:

What’s the likelihood of the numbers being outlined this year?

Somewhere between 0% and none.

On 1/14/2020 at 12:26 PM, pitt6pack said:

I like the columbia blue as an endzone color better for the Titans, but it doesn't go as well with theur wordmark. I think overall, the Titans Navy endzone is better. As for the 49ers, the classic wordmark is far above the modern one.

I completely agree with the Titans and navy. While the Columbia blue is certainly a more unique and overall better color than navy (as far as the NFL goes), their wordmark screws them over from using it. Navy is the only option in which their end zones don't look like complete crap (the red version you did earlier looks even worse than the Columbia).

While I do prefer the 49ers saloon font, I actually don't mind their current font either, and I find it one of the better customized fonts in any of the four major leagues. If they were to go with it in the Super Bowl I wouldn't be upset one bit.

Judging by any of the potential SB field matchups, I'd prefer it if it would be 49ers/Titans, though 49ers/Chiefs wouldn't be a bad matchup either. I fear the NFL would get lazy with a Chiefs/Packers matchup and go with all-yellow end zones - especially with the Chiefs painting their home end zones yellow multiple times this year. While that's not the worst problem in the world (and it would also be a nod to Super Bowl I), it would deny us a matchup of red/forest green which was only done once (Super Bowl XXXI). On another note, it would be fascinating if they replicated Super Bowl XXXIV and went with a Columbia/Gold look for a Titans/Packers matchup.

On 12/10/2018 at 6:07 PM, pitt6pack said:

 

 

Not a bad look. I'd say this wordmark and the helmet logo, on gold or blue would be the best look. Gold is what the Rams used in Super Bowls XIV and XXXIV, and they did go with gold with the helmet logos back in XIV. 

 

 

Seeing how the Browns field got just that much better by adding extra paint makes me miss the days they painted the numbers and 20/50 for the past Super Bowls. Last time we saw numbers and the 20's/50 painted in Super Bowl was XXXV. Closing in on 20 years, which is hard to believe.

Rams need to utilize this should they make it. And an unpopular opinion, the Bears should use orange should they make it, it looked so much better than the muddled end zone in 2006.

Also I believe the last Super Bowl to paint the 20's/50 was XXXIX in Jacksonville.

On 12/7/2018 at 2:34 AM, neo_prankster said:

If the Rams use the helmet on their endzone, wouldn't the background be better if it was gold?

Would it be better? Yes. Would the NFL consider it? No, because the worst option is always the best option. Remember in 2004 when the Eagles made the Super Bowl and they used a midnight green endzone even though they had the same color helmet.

The Browns got creative (for today's standards) and trimmed the numbers in orange and the 20/50 yard lines in brown. Gotta say their field looks spectacular today.

On 11/6/2018 at 12:49 PM, The Gambler said:

1988 cincinnati bengals - Riverfront Stadium

That has to be the easiest field to create. Plain end zones, no midfield logo, no trimming on the numbers or the 20 and 50 yard lines. Hands down the worst field 'design' in league history.

I would like to see the late-80s/early-90s Raiders field with the silver end zones. I've always liked how it popped better than the black even if the design wasn't exactly unique (Seahawks used silver throughout the 80s and Eagles used silver in the Super Bowl).

On 11/20/2018 at 7:42 PM, pitt6pack said:

LAR's best field design. I really feel like this should be the look going forward, much like the Super Bowl XXXIV field looked better than their home field that same year.

Lions debuted a new endzone design yesterday: Honolulu "LIONS" with silver and white trim. I thought I would hate it given the fact I hate ghost wordmarks (i.e. 49ers recent playoff fields), but in all honesty, I don't think it's that bad. Certainly adds more character to a rather plain look.

5 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

So I take it the Packers don't color in the green part of the midfield logo since the grass is already green? Makes sense I guess.

The Packers did trim the "G" in gold and forest green before the 2007 season, but stopped for the golden anniversary of Lambeau. I don't know why they stopped, it looked much better trimmed in its proper color than the natural grass.

31 minutes ago, Saintsfan017 said:

I'd like to see what it would look like if the team colors were painted on the 25's, and the 50 yard line outlined with the red and blue stripes, sure wish somebody could insert the team color stripes on the 25's and the red and blue stripes at the 50

Wish granted.

Also painted the 2-point conversion lines.

Yes to the red end zone. Good troll job, NFL. 

Overall, this is probably the best Super Bowl field since XLVII, though that's not saying much.

46 minutes ago, ahowe6464 said:

Where did you find this?

Judging from the portrait-type pic, I'm guessing Twitter.

The Patriots' end zone being navy comes as no surprise. In fact, their end zone looks half-decent, and way better than the one in Super Bowl XLIX. Still wish there were conference logos, though.

There is no consistency anymore with Super Bowl fields. I'm not quite sure what to expect for Atlanta.

Still not a big fan of the helmets in the field of play, but it does look nice in this instance.

On a semi-related note, Pitt6Pack, I wonder if Chris Creamer would allow you to post the fields in their respective teams' section on the main website. It would be cool to scroll down and see the playing fields, much like the NBA teams.

Wow, the Falcons actually look better with a black end zone. The Steelers needn't change from a yellow one, though.

14 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

I'd say he is spot on for the endzone colors for the four teams.  The only year that I recall alternate/secondary color endzones was SB34 when Tennessee has light blue over navy and the Rams had gold over royal.

 

As for the Steelers, have they ever had a black Super Bowl endzone?  SB42 and SB45 both had yellow for sure, and I believe 40 did as well.

The NFL used to used secondary colors in the end zone often, mostly due to clash with the helmet colors (this is why the Giants' end zones were red in 1986 and '90). And the Steelers have only had a black end zone once, a preseason game in 1970. Would be cool to see a return, though.

As an aside, I actually don't prefer the helmet-field look of the previous Super Bowls; I've always thought helmets were more equipment-oriented rather than team design. I would much rather see the SB XLII format with outlined numbers and trimmed 20/50 yard lines. The helmet look does run circles around the current format though.

Seeing as the Super Bowl fields have been terrible since SB XLIV, I don't doubt that they'll keep the current template. The Steelers/Falcons field would look the best, though Pats/Falcons would look nice as well.

My bad, I meant fields. Guess I'm too used to be talking about end zones.