throwuascenario

1 minute ago, MJWalker45 said:

You would think so, but the NFL has proven time and again they're happy to chase bad money with more money when it comes to quarterbacks. 

Honestly though, we haven't seen these kind of misses on big QB deals before. We've seen countless draft busts but how many players/teams have just totally tanked after giving a QB a big contract? Not many that I can think of. I think we're in uncharted territory here.

27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Watson leaves Cleveland on the hook for $64 million from 2024-26. No one else should cry about how much money they're wasting on quarterbacks until they get within $10 million of that. 

I'd imagine we see these crazy QB contracts dwindle with all the misses lately. Forgot Kyler Murray and Daniel Jones too.

On 11/10/2023 at 7:29 PM, Unocal said:

Hot Take:

 

Carolina would have been better off retaining Steve Wilks as HC

Dude benched Baker Mayfield for PJ Walker. He was as good as gone the second he made that call.

11 hours ago, BBTV said:

What the hell was Carolina thinking drafting this kid?  You can be undersized and have success, but this kid doesn't even look like an adult.  I can't believe he was successful even in college.  Shame on their scouts - he's got no chance, and that franchise is screwed for years.

 

Look up the Panthers' owner's comments on Young. He literally said that Young doesn't need elite receivers because he's such a good "point guard" who can spread the ball around.

During the pregame, one of the analysts was talking about a conversation he had with decision makers from the Panthers. Apparently, they are totally convinced that Young would look great in Houston too and he just doesn't have the weapons in Carolina. I don't think I've ever heard such a delusional statement in my life. What weapons does Stroud have in Houston?? They're literally the one team with less WR talent.

7 hours ago, BBTV said:

I'd wager when the average American hears "Raleigh", all they think of "Raleigh-Durham Airport", which would raise the ire of a former member here, but is likely true.

 

Raleigh's population density, while higher than I would have thought (3,148 / sq mi) is still on the low side, if not the lowest in MLB.  On par with the mostly strip-mall cities in the south west.  Without public transit (other than a tiny bus system), asking people who need to drive from sparse suburbs to fill a 40k stadium 81 times a year is a recipe for problems, especially if/when the team isn't doing well (and as we've seen, even when a team is doing well, that doesn't mean anyone will actually show up.)

 

 

I always hated the airport being called Raleigh-Durham. It's not like a DFW or twin cities situation. Durham is not a large or important enough city to necessitate having its name on it.

The thing about sparse suburbs though is that practically everyone has a car and driving is very easy. The other thing having a small urban core is that the suburbs are not very far away. And while MLB stadiums hold 40k, very few sell that many tickets. Only 4 teams averaged that or better last year. 13 teams out of 30 averaged 25k or less. I don't think that's that big of a stretch for a city that was top 2 in the league in attendance in the NHL last year.

Charlotte would be a better market, but there are other current markets (St. Pete, second team in Chicago, Miami) and prospective markets (Montreal, Portland) that would be worse than Raleigh.

4 hours ago, Burmy said:

I still think that if the Triangle gets an MLB team, they should be called the Durham Bulls.

Recognizable name, full of history, protagonists of the most realistic baseball movie ever...the team doesn't even have to play in the city of Durham for it to work.

I totally agree. The brand really is that strong. I doubt they would do it though. Especially because any team would likely play in Raleigh and the Bulls would most likely continue to play in AAA. So there would be an MLB Durham Bulls in Raleigh and then a likely-unaffiliated AAA Durham Bulls in Durham. Would be all kinds of confusing.

2 hours ago, fouhy12 said:

These current Patriots uniforms are a nice mix of the historic uniforms with the modern brand in terms of style. You've got the striping pattern from the 60s on the jerseys with the block font combined with the coloring of the Brady years.

 

If the goal was to incorporate the modern colors into a traditional Patriots uniform, you couldn't do a better job of it than this IMO. 

 

They should've kept the previous font though. The block numbers are what have never looked right on this set. 

Quote

I have no problems with the jersey. It's a fine looking jersey. Unfortunately, the jersey is not the only part of the uniform. And I simply cannot ignore the complete disaster that is their pants/socks decisions. Until they fix that, the new Patriots uniforms are firmly bottom-tier.

This is exactly how I feel about the Colts new alternates. I absolutely love the jersey. I wouldn't even be mad if they made those their primaries. But the mono-blue and especially the black helmet completely ruin the look. Put that jersey with white pants and helmet, it would be one of the best looks in the NFL.

5 hours ago, DustDevil61 said:

Also a Panthers fan. While I can’t say that I’ve had the opportunity to see all of Bryce Young’s play, I lay the blame at the feet of one person—team owner David Tepper. Releasing the string of QBs as Carolina did to get to this point reeks of knee-jerk reaction after knee-jerk reaction.

 

Are we sure Tepper’s not trying to pull some kind of Major League situation here? I wouldn’t entirely be surprised if we found out he’s been on the phone with San Antonio, San Diego, or St. Louis groups for a while now.

 

Oh yeah, the whole thing is on Tepper. Remember that when he got there in 2017, they were fresh off their 4th playoff appearance in 5 years, including 3 division titles and an NFC title. He basically decided that wasn't good enough and dismantled the entire team before he realized he had no clue how to put it back together.

And at this point, I wouldn't even care if they move. I'd welcome it, honestly. I grew up in NC as a Panthers fan so I feel I have to stay loyal, but I currently live 15 minutes from Lucas Oil Stadium and would love the excuse to jump ship for the Colts.

I've seen that theory before though and never understood the logic. Why couldn't he still move the team if they were good? There's nothing in the lease about low attendance allowing them to move as in the movie (I think, I've never seen it). Wouldn't it be easier to some extent to get tax dollars in any city for a stadium for a good team than for a terrible team?

Lastly, why would he want to move the team at all? There's no market that doesn't have a team that would be even close to as attractive a market as Charlotte. And his hometown (Pittsburgh) will never ever get a second team.

I definitely could see him moving the team, don't get me wrong. But that would be because he doesn't get the stadium deal he wants, not because he wants the team in a different market. So how could he have known in advance he wouldn't get a stadium deal? It just doesn't make sense.

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Thank you for clarifying about the Panthers’ QB situation and how much of a mistake it was to pick Young over far better talent.

 

Keeping Cam Newton, even after his skills had plummeted, would’ve been better than the QB cavalcade since Richardson sold.

Probably biased, but I never thought it was all that clear that his skills had "plummeted". Declined, sure. But the first half of 2018 before his shoulder injury was his best half season of his career. 2019, he didn't play. 2020 he took probably the worst roster in the NFL to a .500 record. Look what Mac Jones has done with that team with more talent the last two years. 2021 he played only 2 games start to finish, and had the worst coach of all time in doing so. Never in his career has he played horrendous like a Carson Wentz. He gave top-half of the league QB play in an extremely tough situation in New England in the last real action we've seen from him. His last healthy (half) season before that, he was playing MVP level.

I don't think we've seen enough to say he's done but sadly, we may never know. I do think if the Panthers had never been sold, he would've been a first-ballot HOF. There's no real reason to think he and the team wouldn't have continued to succeed.

On 10/27/2023 at 12:23 AM, Walk-Off said:

The last time that I can recall any semblance of an active campaign for a Charlotte MLB team was at least two decades ago.  Since then, I have had an impression that the Charlotte area's business elite, media, and general public have all been resting on their proverbial laurels and assuming rather strongly and stubbornly that their metropolis has had a lock on getting an MLB team either through a relocation or from the next batch of expansion franchises.  To use a metaphor inspired by Aesop, I think that in terms of having a future as the home of an MLB club, Charlotte has been a hare while the likes of Nashville, Portland, Salt Lake City, and -- to use an example from within North Carolina -- Raleigh have all been tortoises.

 

The owner of the Carolina Hurricanes has made clear his desire to get an MLB team for NC. He has said that it could be in either Raleigh or Charlotte though.

On 11/5/2023 at 7:19 AM, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

       It’s made all the more stupid that the team’s named after a freaking  state and could just have easily been the Minneapolis Vikings if not to appease Little Brother Across the Mississippi.                           I tried to quote @LMU but the     mobile site is messed up  and keeps randomly deleting stuff.                  as a fan of the first two teams to use a state for its name, I'm fine with teams choosing their geographic marker                As long as it's obvious what state(s*) the team is in                     * see Carolina Panthers            

I prefer state over city every time if the city is named for the state. Minnesota Vikings > Minneapolis Vikings. Indiana Colts > Indianapolis Colts. Oklahoma Thunder > Oklahoma City Thunder. And so on and so forth. But other than that, neither way really bothers me. I do think the more encompassing names just make more people feel like fans, which is a good thing. I would assume people in Maine, for exaple, associate more with the New England Patriots than the Boston Celtics even though they're farther away but I could be totally off on that.

Damn though, the Raleigh Hurricanes would've been something. Having a major league team legitimizes a city and a metro as a serious large city but all that is a waste if no one knows they're there. Can't tell you how many people I've met assume the Hurricanes play in Charlotte. Doesn't help that the far more known Carolina Panthers share a location name but play in a completely different city. It also doesn't help the city that there's no adequate highway access to downtown Raleigh which has turned the area into sprawl central, but that's a different discussion.

But yeah, the city of Raleigh had nothing to do with the financing or building of PNC Arena so they didn't even have a seat at the table for the name discussion. The state financed the entire taxpayer-funded portion of the arena so they had no motive to push for the "Raleigh" name. And I guess the Canes decided they didn't want to be known by a location no one had heard of. Even less so in 1997 than now.

On 11/6/2023 at 11:51 AM, Sport said:

 

And the Texans are a better landing spot for a rookie QB?

 

I argued that Stroud and Young were neck and neck as draft prospects go and normally I'm not one to focus on size, especially as a guy who was undervalued in my own athletic career because of my size, but if two guys are tied then go with the bigger dude. Young looks tiny and limited.

 

If we have any Panthers fans here who've watched him more than me they can rightfully tell me to f*** off and eat s*** if I'm wrong, but do you feel like you scored landing Bryce Young right now? 

Panthers fan. I did not want him going into the draft and that feeling has only gotten worse with each passing week. I would be willing to bet anything he is not the Panthers' starting QB going into 2025. He has practically no physical talent to play QB. His whole hype was that he was an "elite processor". Well, he is not that either. He makes some of the most boneheaded decisions you will ever see.

Size was never one of my concerns, and it doesn't appear to me to have affected him at all. No injuries, not many batted balls. It's the arm. It's not strong enough to play QB in the NFL.

I think he will limit the mistakes and turnovers. I can attribute that to being a rookie. The worst part is that he has shown NOTHING. It's not like he's a Favre-type gunslinger who will sandwich highlight reel plays between picks. He literally NEVER even attempts to throw the ball down the field. On the rare occasion he does, he usually throws the ball 10 yards over the receiver's head. The 3 or 4 times all year he's thrown it down field on the field of play, his throws just die. He has no arm strength whatsoever. And then add in the fact that he turns it over as much as anyone in the league. He literally does it on screens and checkdowns. It's almost impossible to play as safe as he does and still turn it over that much. Twice this year, he's thrown a pick to someone less than 10 yards away from him at the moment he threw the ball.

And no, the Texans were not a better landing spot. Robert Woods and Nico Collins might be the only 1-2 punch in the league that make Thielen and Chark look good. On paper we had the "dream team" coaching staff. Our defense has actually played very well minus a couple games against elite offenses with lots of injuries in the secondary. This is a team that is only a DJ Moore and D'onta Foreman away from the team that went 7-10 (not great but not 1-7) last year with Darnold and Walker at QB.

In summary: He is a game manager ceiling player who was supposed to have a high floor but has been the worst QB we've had in the last decade plus.

My order of preference of what I wanted them to do in the off-season:

1. Stay at #9, draft Carter (possibly the best player in the draft). Either trade up in round 2 for Levis or start Corral or Dalton or sign Cam back.

2. Draft Anthony Richardson #1

3. Draft CJ Stroud #1.

4. Draft Anderson #1.

5. Fold the team.

6. Draft Bryce Young #1.

The Steelers and Patriots have proven that picking athletically limited QBs in the first round is a complete waste of a pick and we fell for it anyways.

It's tough to swallow the fact that we released the most important player in franchise history for this: Teddy Bridgewater, Sam Darnold, PJ Walker, Baker Mayfield (who I actually like but we completely misused and benched after like 5 games), and now Bryce Young.

We would've been in a much better spot just keeping Cam all along and keeping all the picks and cap space we've wasted.

11 hours ago, ruttep said:

The Patriots are just completely embarrassing themselves with their current uniforms.

1 hour ago, hormone said:

My .02 on Pittsburgh…if anyone knows me, I’m anti-gray mask, but I feel these need one to differentiate themselves from just an alternate. Yes, you and I see the difference of font or no chest patch, but I’m sure the average person does not.

So you think the average person wouldn't notice the chest logo or the font but would notice the facemask color? That's probably legitimately the last detail that any casual observer would notice.

4 hours ago, Chawls said:

To me, this is the perfect solution to maximizing a franchise’s best and most defining look. The Bills are also examples of this design philosophy. 

I agree in general, although I hate the Brewers' current brand. I never liked the ball in glove logo, and the navy and yellow is easily their worst color scheme in franchise history. Both the royal/yellow and navy/gold blow it out of the water. I loved the scheme and logo of their preivous set. The wordmark was too busy, but the brand just felt "brewers" in a way their current one doesn't. Instead of a modernization, it feels like they're trying to mash eras together which isn't the same thing at all.

And if they were going to mash eras together, I think they picked the wrong elements from every era. It should've been royal and gold, with the previous M logo and a simplified wordmark.

2 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

1. I don’t think the Aquafresh Miami Dolphins are currently using their best logo. Nor the Washington Commanders - I understand the dislike for the logo of the side-facing indigene, but their various logos involving feathers and/or spears (but no actual humans) would all be better than the current. I also think the Jets’ best logo was the 1978-97 script. 
 

2. The Jets’ shade of green is (gorgeous and) juuuuuust light enough that it can contrast properly with black. The Eagles’ shade, actually a dark teal, does not contrast well with black. 

1. I would prefer the Dolphins to have a helmet-wearing logo to what they have now. But I don't think any of the incarnations that they've used actually executed it well enough to be considered better than their current logo. The 90s one was too cartoony and all previous versions are completely outdated, over-designed relics. And I considered the Commanders to be separate from their previous brands, so their current logo would be their best as their only logo so far. I don't think the Jets have ever had a good logo. Maybe their first logo they used for one season? I don't think script logos work for NFL teams at all, and all of their logos have used them in one way or another. But anyways, I think containing it in the oval is still better than it just being a script on its own.

2. The Eagles shade may not contrast well with black, but I don't think it needs to. It still serves the purpose of making the look crisper while being subtle. I much prefer it to just dropping it and using midnight on its own. The only color that might replace it more effectively is silver.

On 10/30/2023 at 7:19 PM, Cujo said:

 

When it works:

 

When it doesn't:

A double outline is different than a ghosted outline. A double outline uses three colors  - none of which match the jersey. And then there's the variation of the ghosted outline where the outer outline matches the color of the number, like the Cowboys navy jerseys.

Single outline (Panthers for example) > double outline (49ers shown above, Patriots) > ghosted outline with different color (80s Dolphins shown above, Canadiens) > single-color number (Jaguars) > ghosted outline with same color (Cowboys, Lightning)

10 hours ago, BadSeed84 said:

 

I think it also depends on the current uniforms as well.

I would argue, yes the Buccaneers current identity should be their primary look.

 

Yeah, I moreso meant that I'd be "fine" at minimum with any of the throwbacks being full-time. Some are better than the current look and some are worse. For what it's worth, I think the creamsicles are only worse than their currents because the logo drags it down so far. Same thing with New England.

Side note: It's crazy to me that while uniforms go up and down in quality so heavily, NFL logos have almost exclusively gotten better and better. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the Rams and the Buccaneers are the only two teams not using their all-time best logo as their current primary logo. 

6 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

I agree that the jersey design and the helmet wing design are both better now than before. The real problem to me is they keep shoehorning black in there, and the midnight green is too dark to contrast properly. That, plus their insistence on wearing tacky plain white socks. 

I actually don't mind the black as accents on the green and white jerseys. Same as the Jets. I think a 2-color scheme works better than a 1-color scheme in most cases so I don't mind black being that color when used sparingly. I think both the Eagles and the Jets primaries would look worse without black. Where it goes off the rails is when they decided they needed to have black helmets, jerseys, pants, etc... Those are complete trash for both teams.

2 hours ago, BadSeed84 said:

I get his point.

Hell we are seeing it with the Buffalo Sabres, in the late 2000s when they brought back the blue & yellow with the Buffalo & sabres, yes that is what they should always wear! But now they have the goathead throwback alts and you're hilariously seeing the nostalgia cycle for that.

 

Like for the Eagles, I think the Kelly Green's should always be an alt, but what I would like to see if them change the current uniforms as well to have the simpler numbers without the junky charcoal & black outline with a drop shadow.  And I still would like there to be a black alt option as well (Tho if they wanted to have Kelly green in that instead of midnight, it would be much better)

So I am always for a modernization of an old look coming back, the Blue Jay's & Brewers being the best examples.

I basically have the opposite view from him. I'd be fine seeing any of these throwbacks (except the Oilers) coming back full-time. But until then, I don't want to see them. Trying to use two brands simultaneously inherently waters down your primary brand. I want to see teams pick one brand/uniform and stick to it. I'd much rather see alts that are just recolors and stay within the same brand.

1 hour ago, timjameskohler said:

 

He just doesn’t think like us. “Hey those [fill in the blank]  throwbacks are a much better uniform than the over-designed nonsense they’re wearing now.” Just doesn’t occur to him. Look at how good the Titans could look as opposed to….whatever they’re wearing now? “Who cares? Leave the past in the past.”

The Titans previous look was much stronger than the Oilers look. Especially considering that all of their history occurred in it and none of their history occurred in the Oilers look. Yeah, practically anything would be better than their current primaries. But that says more about those than it does about the Oilers look or any other look. They should just go back to their original Titans set and leave them forever.

Another unpopular opinion: I much prefer the Eagles' midnight uniforms to the kellys. Yes, I am younger, so I never saw them play in the kellys. So to me, the midnight is just what the Eagles look like. But beyond that, the kellys are way too plain looking. Something about the block numbers, the horrible wing design, and the way too detailed sleeve logo just don't go together. I actually really like the number font and the sleeve logos on their current uniforms and the helmet design is 100x better. Maybe if they just recolored that one kelly, I'd prefer it.

On 10/18/2023 at 10:14 AM, Sport said:

For my money those are the worst uniforms in NFL history. There isn't a single good decision anywhere in that steaming pile. 

I'd agree with this. I don't think the current Titans are far behind though. The Cardinals previous set, the Bills Losman set and the Commanders black alt are all honorable mentions.

On 10/20/2023 at 11:47 PM, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I want all black helmet to socks for one game per season.

I'd much rather see them wear a black helmet and pants with the white jersey than going for the mono-look.

On 10/30/2023 at 10:08 AM, raysox said:

who says no

 

 

 

For the love of god, no alternates in the playoffs - let alone the Super Bowl. Bad enough we have to see them in the regular season.

15 hours ago, Sport said:

I wouldn't miss the Texans if they did a HornetsPelicans with the Oilers, but I'd miss the logo. The Texans are the Wild of the NFL - A fantastic logo saves the awful name. The uniforms are nothing to get excited about, but they're not terrible either, which counts for something now. I'd even go as far to say that they wear a handsome look and it's kind of immune to combination :censored:ery. They look good more often than they don't and if they were given to the league office to redesign I can only imagine what Titans-like BS we'd get - I'm picturing a Texas flag that covers both shoulders and stars down the pants leg. 

I think the Oilers colors are much better than the Texans. The logo is much better for the Texans. The names are a wash. Both are strong names IMO. The uniform template is better for the Texans, but look worse because of the colors

Honestly, even though I love the powder and red, it wouldn't look right on the Texans. The navy jerseys are bland and forgettable. The whites and reds pop and are pretty much perfect for them. If they swapped the red and navy jerseys (or just ditched the navy jerseys entirely), they'd have a perfect set to keep forever. So, of course, they will ruin it next year or whenever they're changing.

PS: You forgot the Kraken and the Golden Knights. It's actually crazy there are 3 NHL teams with great logos with horrendous names.

1 hour ago, Lights Out said:

 

I also prefer their current uniforms. Even the number font - the curves give it a slight Art Deco feel that's appropriate for Miami. The throwbacks have a worse logo, the exact same sleeve stripes that the Browns and Steelers are already struggling to make work on modern jersey templates, and a glaring mismatch between the helmet and pants stripes. If they absolutely have to go full-time throwback, the 1987-1993 uniforms were so much better.

I like the number font generally. It's just the 1 and maybe the 7 that need work.

I actually like Cleveland's white over brown look. The orange and white are both better, but the brown looks good too imo. They're probably the only team in the league that can really pull off three different pants colors with the same jersey. The only other one that comes close is the Ravens with the purple, white, and black pants with white jersey. But the lack of stripes on their black pants ruins them.

Also unpopular but: the Dolphins current uniforms are mostly better than the throwbacks. I like the old shade of aqua better and the current number font totally botches some numbers. But other than that, I think they're superior. That throwback logo is unusable as a modern NFL logo. The 90s logo is a little cartoonish but miles better than that one.

11 hours ago, ruttep said:

Yeah, I never understood the 2013 rebrand. Their uniforms without the hurricane pattern didn't really have any character to them.

Original reds > current reds > 2013 reds > original blacks > reverse retro reds > current blacks

Original whites > 2013 whites > current whites

But yeah, it made no sense. Doesn't help that those are associated with the worst period in franchise history.

3 hours ago, Nordiks_19 said:

Probably yes, but i feel like they took the easy road for an introduction of these for an eventual switch to those full time (everyone was expecting a black version of their original red, wich would've sold like crazy) but since it didn't sell well they backed out at the last minute.... for now

I mean, their alternate from 2008-2016 was pretty much a black version of the originals, with only the logo changed. A straight black recolor wouldn't have been all that different from that.

It doesn't seem like they had many places to go with the reverse retro. Besides doing Whalers in black and red or Canes in green and blue (either of which would've been awful), never having changed colors in their history really limited their options for that.

They made it clear this offseason that they would've brought back the classic reds if they hadn't already committed to the current reds. These things are definitely planned ahead of time, so they definitely didn't plan to bring the reverse retros back at all.

The diagonal lettering is so synonymous with the Rangers that I don't think it looks right on anyone else.

12 hours ago, ruttep said:

 

Where they should stay.

And ditch the white verions while they're at it. They should be using the original uniforms with no changes. Second choice would be their current reds with a matching white version. Anything else is just continuing the visual mess they started in 2013.

On 10/19/2023 at 6:55 PM, Kevin W. said:

That would be a shame since the current reds are better.

The current reds are a better hockey jersey but the original reds are a better Hurricanes jersey.

2000-2009: Two-thousand blank every time

2010-2019: Mixture of two-thousand blank and twenty blank, with it trending more towards twenty as the decade went on

2020-2099: Twenty blank every time

The middle category is the only one where neither sounds weird to me. Twenty-thirteen and two-thousand thirteen both sound fine. Neither Twenty oh three nor two-thousand twenty three sound right to me.

Quote

This practice was the norm for people born in the mid-19th century and the early 20th century.  The norm changed to "ninteen oh (whatever)" probably for people born in the late 1930s or early 1940s.

This is extremely interesting to me. I wonder what caused the change. That structure wouldn't have worked this century, as there would've been no way to delineate 2003 (twenty-three) from the shorthand of '23 for 2023.