throwuascenario

May have already been discussed, but has the NHL actually said why they're so deadset on making it work in Arizona? They have no arena and minimal fan support. There would be practically nothing to lose by moving. There are plenty of cities that have an arena already ready and none could really do worse in terms of fan support.

I agree. I'd love to see the Cardinals add yellow to their scheme. The only thing egregious about the concept is the gradient number on the white jersey.

I hate navy as a color for sports branding. It's just too bland and adds nothing. Other colors don't pop off navy like they do black and it's too boring to carry a scheme by itself. All teams that use navy would look better with either a lighter shade of blue or black. The only teams that should use it are ones that always have historically (Yankees, Red Sox) but even they would look better in black and it wouldn't even be that noticeable with how dark of a shade they each currently use. This goes double if there is no secondary color, just navy and white. Another one, unrelated: I like the idea of a templated Super Bowl logo. It gives the game a cohesive brand and the similar patches tie all the games together. I don't love the execution, but it could be worse.

The only stipulation to have colors that don't "suck" in my book: have exactly 2 of them. Not counting white. If you do that, you literally can't have terrible colors. Not to say you can't have a good scheme with 1 or 3 colors, but it's not automatic like 2. In other words: all bad color schemes in sports have either just one color and white or have some combination of 3 or more colors. But some do make it work.

Does this count? Same design but different template. Madden counts them as entirely different uniforms and the striping in particular does look clearly different.

Any Cardinals redesign that involves changing the logo is a non-starter for me. Their logo is completely perfect now and should never be messed with again.

Reminds me more of ®

After thinking about it more, I wonder if it’s COVID related. Just no as not to cram so many people into a small indoor space. As for why they ever did it in the locker room in the first place, that beats me. It always looked so weird on TV.

Not as a 3 dimensional image. Unlike the Vikings helmet though, the horn (at least the old one) looks good even as a 2d image.

Not sure this is the right thread for this, but: Does anyone know why the Bengals had their trophy presentation after the AFC Championship game at midfield? For years, they've always had it in the locker room if the away team wins. I never really understood the rationale for doing that in the first place nor for changing it now.

With Harbaugh announcing he's staying with Michigan, it looks like my Panthers are stuck with Rhule for another year. It was a pipedream, but I really thought we had a shot at excising that cancer from our organization. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait a year. Sadly, this means we have virtually no shot at bringing Cam back and do have a realistic chance of running it back with Darnold. May as well just skip to 2023.

I have never, ever been able to get my brain to see the effect that they're going for on the Minnesota Vikings helmets. I know what it's supposed to be, but I just can't make myself see it as a 3D image. I've tried many, many times. For that reason, I do not like it as a helmet design. Their logo would look a lot better on a helmet.

The name isn't the worst possible option, but it's on the shortlist. My order of names I heard (best first): Pigskins, Washington Football Team, Wolves, Red Wolves, Red Tails, Commanders, DCFC. Uniforms are absolute trash. They didn't need new uniforms at all and already had among the best in the league. They're now in the bottom 3 of overall sets and have 2 of the 5 worst standalone uniforms in the league. If I was a fan, I would've switched to the Ravens this morning. There's always hope a bad uniform set gets changed, but you're never coming back from "Commanders".

I like their most recent uniforms 100x better than these. Which seems like an unpopular opinion here. The yellow looks so much better than the gold and the outlined numbers are a lot better.

Those teams are welcome to go back to those identities at any point. Until then, they should wear the brand that they've chosen to represent their team.

I don't think any of these are nearly as bad. The most recent Rams-Cardinals game combines two horribly designed uniforms with the bonus of monochrome. Plus bone. Plus red numbers on BFBS jerseys. All of these above have at least one team in a decent jersey if nothing else. That Cardinals - Vikings matchup above is right up there though.

If they came out with those Day 1 as a franchise, that would be their identity. That's just what the Lightning would look like. No one would care that they sort of look like the Maple Leafs. That doesn't change the fact that they're horrible, bland, uninspired uniforms. But that's a different issue.

I would argue that the Lightning look bad - not because they look too much like the Maple Leafs - but because they don't look enough like the Lightning.

I don't think any of those are particularly good uniforms, and all of them would be much better with a single outline. The only one that's even close is Dallas because it matches their logo. But I still think that a white number with silver outline would look better. On all the rest, the numbers look small and weak. Look at the Dolphins' change a few years back and how much of a difference a single outline can make.

This would only really be an unpopular opnion around here. But I don't think that every single team in each league needs to have a completely unique color scheme. I think it's fine that the Oilers and the Islanders used to have similar color schemes. Or the Penguins and Bruins. Or all the navy/red teams in baseball (although I hate the color navy in sports branding, but that's a whole different topic). If two teams look right a certain way, there's no reason for one to change just so that they're different.

I hate the floating outline. I don't like a contrasting double outline either. Nor do I like a single color number. Exactly one outline is how every jersey, in every sport should be.

Cam had 20 touchdowns last year. It makes no sense to exclude rushing touchdowns. Mac Jones is on pace for 16 touchdowns (less) and 16 interceptions (more). I'm not saying Cam was great last year, but he was better than Mac Jones has been so far in every conceivable way. With a much worse supporting staff. They chose to start a rookie over a veteran, so I don't get why that would change anything. I'm not criticizing Jones, I'm criticizing Bellichick/McDaniels. These are the facts. The Patriots are scoring fewer points this year. The Patriots are winning fewer games this year. Mac Jones is on pace to score fewer touchdowns while throwing more interceptions this year. I just think the way that that those facts have been spun is funny.

I don't have a problem with Mac, I just don't think he's done anything to validate the Mac over Cam decision. The Patriots scored more points per game and had a higher winning percentage last year with a roster that clearly wasn't as talented. I also think that if Cam had started this year and had the Patriots with the 27th ranked offense, everyone would be talking about how washed up he is. But when Mac does it, he's heralded as the next king. It almost seems like the narrative was written before the season and was going to be applied no matter what actually happened on the field. No matter what, Cam was going to get crucified if he had started and Mac was going to get every excuse imaginable thrown his way. The Patriots are on pace to go 4-12. At what point does that become disappointing? Year 2? Year 3? Never? Cam did better (points scored per game) in the exact same offense last year (except for not having their current top 3 receiving options).

Cam had arguably the worst receiving corps this millennium last year. He didn't get any excuses from anyone so I wouldn't give Mac any. I don't know, I just think if Mac was so much smarter and so much more accurate, they would score more points or win more games than they did with Cam (neither of which are happening). And it's unfair to compare him to other rookies, because he wasn't competing with a rookie. He was competing with a former league MVP who by any measure has outperformed him in a Patriots uniform so far. I would take Lawrence, Lance, or Fields over him. I feel like the others have so much more athleticism that gives them room for improvement. Jones is far closer to his ceiling and the Patriots offense has been basically horrible. A lot of that has to fall on the QB. My main gripe is with his hype though. If announcers want to point out that it's his rookie year and he'll get better, okay. But to act like he had a fantastic game that Patriots fans should rejoice over when they scored 17 points is crazy.

I don't understand Michaels and Colinsworth's love for Mac Jones for the life of me. Am I missing something? The Patriots have the NFL's 27th ranked offense and are 1-3 with their only win coming against the Jets. They're averaging 18 points per game. Didn't he throw 3 picks last week? Cam at least had them .500 last year with no receivers and no defense. I can't think of what more he would have to do to prove everyone who wanted him over Cam wrong. Someone please help me out.