Gothamite

1 hour ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

No one has posted the white Rams jersey yet? Wrong thread?

which one is that?  Go for it. 

7 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Teams don’t have to wear those alternates, though. Both the Ravens and Packers have Color Rush jerseys that they didn’t wear last season, but wore the season prior.

That's true.

But while teams aren't required to wear their alternates every year, those alts still can't be replaced until after five seasons.  

19 hours ago, gothedistance said:

They had navy and royal blue as the alternates in the previous design. I guess the current ones are modified versions of those.

Doesn’t mean they should be using them all in the same set. 
 

pick a blue and stick with it, boys. Just commit. 

On 7/2/2021 at 10:13 AM, SFGiants58 said:

Joe Montana never wore uniforms with drop shadows. Jerry Rice spent the first half of his career without those hideous drop shadows. 
 

I just associate anything with the drop shadows as akin to the uniforms worn during the team’s nadir. Heck, ‘94 is far less memorable than ‘88, ‘81, and ‘84, to me. 

Oh, I get that.  And I certainly appreciate how we emotionally relate to uniforms based on the years they represent. 
 

But in a vacuum, going solely on aesthetics, I like the black dropshadows for them. 

On 7/1/2021 at 3:33 AM, DNAsports said:

Now that the 49ers have a throwback home and away set, I hope this doesn’t turn into a Dolphins situation where everyone is clamoring at the idea of “They should just wear them full time.”

 
pair those jerseys with the regular pants and helmet and they should just wear them full time.  Love the drop shadows. 

Wow.  That’s gorgeous. 

On 6/25/2021 at 12:22 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

what I said was, when the rule finally went away, I didn't believe there was any way it was going to be just throwbacks.  Too many teams who don't want to wear throwbacks, too much money to be made, too much Nike.  When it happened,  alternate helmets would mean alternate helmets.

 

 

 

So... you know... just for the record, I was right.

Absolutely, but in fairness it didn’t exactly take Nostradamus to say “the league that has already abandoned most of its once-sensible uniform regulations can’t be trusted with multiple helmets.”

Amen.  
 

@oldschoolvikings, this is a heartbreaking concept.  The Packer should adopt it, but won’t. 
 

the only and I mean ONLY thing I’d change is the collar of the navy jersey.  It should be gold all around, even when it drops lower than the yoke. 
 

32 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

 

 

Yep.  That's about the size of it.

I understand the need to educate white Americans about a holiday that has largely gone unacknowledged until recently.  But spread awareness of the holiday itself, and you don't need to label the flag.

With Juneteenth on the verge of being recognized as a federal holiday, there's a lot of focus on the Juneteenth flag.  And I love it.

The idea came from a Boston activist, and the design from illustrator Lisa Graf.  She describes the symbolism this way:

Quote

"The Juneteenth flags represent the history, and freedom the American Slaves and their descendants. The design of the Juneteenth flag depicts a bursting "new star", on the horizon. The star represents A NEW FREEDOM, A NEW PEOPLE, A NEW STAR. The red, white, and blue colors communicate that the American Slaves, and their descendants were all Americans."

A couple years later, somebody added the date as an alternate version.  Major, major downgrade.

And now, like with many public domain designs, there are a bunch of unofficial versions.  

Shame.  They haven't improved upon the original.

On 5/29/2021 at 9:13 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Next up, Green Bay.  A number of small changes (road sleeve stripes, home collar, sock stripes, 60's number font), probably unnoticeable to the average fan, but to me they would make a huge overall impact.  I'm not sure they'd ever really need to wear the all-white option, but there it is anyway.

 

This is absolutely what the Packers should be wearing.

The changes are simple enough that many Packers fans wouldn't notice, and even those who did wouldn't get upset since you're returning elements of the classic Lombardi uniform as it was meant to be.  I especially love the simple number font - the Packers bought those for the 1960 season.  If anything, they could be a little bit bolder:

Bravo, man.  Well done.

On 6/11/2021 at 3:02 PM, NicDB said:

Not bad.  But keep in mind that the Packers used several fonts in the 60s as that sort of thing wasn't nearly as regulated in those days.  I've seen team photos of Henry Jordan (74) and Forrest Gregg (75) wearing completely different 7s. 

You are absolutely correct, sir.  In the Packers' case, they bought a bunch of new jerseys every year, and took whatever stock number font the manufacturer used.  But in addition to buying new ones, they also re-used old jerseys for several seasons, resulting in many different fonts on the field at once.

This photo was taken on December 1960:

Most players are wearing the 1960 numbers, but Emlen Tunnell in the back is wearing a 1959 jersey with serifs.

I love when this creeps into team photos.

And, of course, this thrifty habit goes way back.

Dig the 4s.

4 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Hmmm... I've seen that picture before, but I've always suspected it was artificially colored, and therefore might be incorrect.  Gridiron database has them in canvas colored pants that season, although I'm sure that site has it's mistakes...

 

 

 

Hey, @Gothamite, you want to weigh in?  Did the '44 Packers wear gold pants, or tan/canvas pants?

Gridiron Database is wrong.  The pants were gold.

It's an easy mistake to make,  and one the Packers themselves keep making.  If you look at the Hutson and Lambeau photo, you can see that the pants were made of a couple different types of fabric (which were also different from the jersey).

That fabric sometimes appears on film as a khaki color. 

But look at this still from the same game film - more gold.   The pants here look like a matte version of the shiny gold numbers.

Not a lot of pants from the period have actually survived.  I know of two in private collections and have seen one pair in my life, and they were gold.  The interior leg fabric had faded quite a bit, but the exterior leg fabric was still bright and vivid gold. 

On 6/3/2021 at 8:44 PM, Red Comet said:

Reading that article, it sounded more like the original USFL owners want to find out who just got loaded from selling merchandizing rights that they have no right to and are willing to work with Fox. I don't know who just earned ill-gotten gains but it should be interesting. 

 

As for reviving Firefly? That show is neat, but I liked it better when it was called Cowboy Bebop. 

 

 

Intro is amazing and there is no other reason at all why I'd post it. 

 

I think it's time we blow this scene.
Get everybody and the stuff together.

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

No but I think it gave MLS the confidence to allow similar set ups going forward in ATL, NYCFC, Nashville, and even the move back to Chicago proper. 

It really didn't.   I can say that with absolute certainty for NYCFC. 

Nashville was admitted after they got their own stadium plan passed.  Atlanta got in under the rule that existed before Seattle was admitted.  If Seattle was that kind of game-changer, we'd see other expansion teams in NFL stadiums unrelated to their ownership groups.  Which we haven't.

And Chicago?   That's more desperation than anything.  But it's also not an expansion club.

9 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Didn't hurt that the Sounders can nearly fill their NFL venue on a weekly basis. 

They don't, actually.  They don't usually open the upper levels, unless it's a rivalry game or playoff.  Not that I'm knocking them at all for that; it's still very impressive. 

But nobody knew that at the time they were admitted into the league.  That's not why they were allowed to play in an NFL stadium.

And it is never a "jerk move" to defend your copyright.

Even if they had waited until the league folded, so what?  Somebody could have bought the league's assets out of bankruptcy and used them.  And the NFL might not be able to do anything at that point, having failed to take action earlier.

On 6/1/2021 at 7:22 PM, waltere said:

I may be wrong, but isn't the case with MLS that their preferred option is an SSS, but they'll allow otherwise as long as there's ownership crossover between the team and the stadium, because it's about not having their teams be tenants of somebody else. Hence how Arthur Blank's Atlanta FC are allowed to share Megatron's butthole with the Falcons, NYCFC sharing with the Yankees, and I assume the Sounders must therefore share owners with the Seahawks.

You are absolutely correct.  
 

when the Sounders came into the league, they shared ownership with the Seahawks. 

On 6/1/2021 at 7:31 PM, Red Comet said:

NYCFC isn’t for lack of trying, though. Just a cursory look into the situation tells me I really need to look into that whole saga because it looks like one hell of a doozy. I don’t think NYCFC is in any danger of moving at all but it really is reminiscent of the DC United situation with RFK and that team’s near 2 decade long fight for a stadium site.

The difference is that MLS was so desperate for a New York team that they were willing to put the club in a stadium situation nobody liked. 
 

And also, don’t forget that MLS had previously spent several years trying to build a NYC stadium on their own.  They knew how hard it was, they knew what they were getting into, and the upside was still important enough to them that they went right ahead with it. 

On 6/1/2021 at 3:24 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Seriously, Inter Miami should suck it up and play there. MLS in general should remove the SSS requirement from the league. 

MLS does not have a SSS requirement.

It has a “control your stadium” requirement, to ensure that its teams aren’t tenants in somebody else’s park, without access to the revenue streams that a primary tenant controls even when someone else is using the stadium.

So when MLS teams share ownership with the primary tenant of a stadium (like in Seattle or New York City), MLS can write the contract guaranteeing the soccer club a measure of most-favored status in the stadium, they’re plenty happy to put its club in a non-SSS. 

I’m guessing that they thought a full-on version would be too derivative. 
 

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Believe it or not, it's apparently from Packer.com!

 

https://www.packers.com/news/infographic-100-seasons-of-packers-uniforms

That doesn't surprise me in the least.  Football teams are just about the worst caretakers of their own history. 

I've lost count of the times the Packers have goofed up their own historical uniforms.

10 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I suspected that was the case. Nicely designed graphic, tho. 

Yes, the design is great.   If only it was half as accurate. 

Where did it come from?

On 6/6/2021 at 9:44 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Not sure how accurate this image is, but it does give a lot of choices...

 

Not very.  Some good, some wrong.  Some missing. 

17 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

...and Browns and 49ers. Not sure why all these teams are waiting so long...

Last time, the Packers unveiled their throwback alternates in August. 

On 6/6/2021 at 3:20 PM, SFGiants58 said:

So, would the Forrest Gregg home uniform ever be ok to come back?

 

Not until they get rid of the white jersey elements designed to go with that uniform.