oldschoolvikings

Moderators
  • Content Count

    13,239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

Everything posted by oldschoolvikings

  1. Well, I guess I was wrong. I've been telling every Lions fan I know that they needed to dial back their expectations. I don't get it. Stafford is not a bad quarterback, by any means, but... what? He's got a ton of mileage on him. In the past couple seasons he's had a back injury, a neck injury, he's never won a playoff game, his record again winning teams makes you cringe, he's good for a half dozen head scratching bad decisions a season. Oh, well. I guess that's why I'm not an NFL executive.
  2. But it isn't just the amount of times you could wear it that causes the mass confusion, it's the combinations. 2 helmets, 3 jerseys, and 3 pants means 18 possible combinations, and that's not even adding in the socks. Teams like Jacksonville and Tennessee would literally never wear the same thing twice.
  3. See, there you go. After a half dozen posts saying "throwbacks only" someone posts this. How long do you think it would take some team to think something similar? Here's the problem. We think about what looks good to us, what we'd like to see on the field. So, of course, we can say the NFL can just pass a rule to make it throwbacks only, and problem solved. Because on this board, the only consideration, really, is aesthetics. But the NFL doesn't care about that. They don't. It's like all those weekly complaints on here about both teams wearing navy pants, or something. They don't even think about it because they couldn't possibly care less. If the NFL is considering bringing back multiple helmets, it's about money. There must be some sort of financial consideration in play, or they wouldn't even be discussing it. So the question is, what about a team, say, Houston, who've always had the same color shell? What if they want the chance to market a second helmet? If it's all about aesthetics, sure, just tell them no. But it's not, because the league doesn't care about that, except where it affects the bottom line. I could be wrong, but I just find it very hard to picture that multiple helmets would be allowed for throwbacks only, and that it would just stay that way. Teams who don't need a second helmet for a throwback would eventually want in too.
  4. No confirmation on that, yet. And if that decision had been made early enough that teams would already be making design decisions over it, I'd think we'd have heard by now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't happen.
  5. That's weird, because I really haven't heard any uproar over the logo since the uniform was released. Seems to me everyone's shock over the gradients, bone uniforms, and horn split pushed any worry about the logo completely out of mind. I know I haven't given the logo much thought since summer.
  6. Yeah, I think more streamlined would've been welcomed. With all the gimmicks they went with, I'm not sure how even someone who likes this uniform could describe it as streamlined.
  7. Honestly, in my years on this board, that has "finally" been said about a thousand times. Usually when someone has a minority opinion and they're feeling attacked by hearing everyone express the opposite opinion. Look it's a message board... it's basically all opinions. What do you want, everyone to preface every post with "In my opinion..."?
  8. I've mantained from the start that the Rams put the bone and bright white edge to edge deliberately, to show off the odd color choice. I think their idea was that if they simply replaced all true white with bone, you might miss the difference, or just see they result as looking dingy. If they place a few elements of bright snow white up against the dull gray, it is supposed to emphasize that the new color is a choice, and by implication, bold, new, whatever. I'm not saying it works, but it certainly isn't an accident or a mistake.
  9. Oh, you're right... I completely missed the goofy name tags. Yeah, they gotta go.
  10. My guess is that the average Bengals fan would tell you the team has only had two uniforms... The one with the letters on the helmets, and the one with the tiger stripes on the helmets.
  11. This was about as good as it got for the Rams this year; It helps if you're getting a TV shot that's far enough away that the atrocious number gradients don't really register. Every other possible combination they trotted out was pretty much a disaster. The all blue sucked, any combination that included the dishwater jerseys or pants was terrible, anytime the socks and pants were the same color. All bad. That said, the fix is fairly simple. Change the numbers to plain yellow (no stupid gradient, but also get rid of those cheap plastic-y add-ons) and the home jersey is fine. Get a white (WHITE!) jersey that matches the home, and only wear the above pants and socks, home and road, and they would remove themselves from the bottom five.
  12. I had that exact conversation with a Viking fans a few years ago. To him, the plain white numbers and sleeve stripes equaled throwback to the 70's/80's, and everything else was just not noticeable or important enough to even talk about.
  13. Kelly green or gold throwbacks? I'm enthusiastically in.
  14. I like color on color in football whenever UCLA and USC are playing and also... Ok, that's pretty much it.
  15. Last year we had to listen to two weeks of complants about the fact that both teams coincidentally wore red, and weird theories/ideas about how they should avoid just wearing their uniforms. It's the Superbowl. The home team should wear their primary home uniform and they road team should wear their primary road uniform. Whoever wins needs to look like themselves while doing it. Nothing else is as important as that.
  16. That sock has blue at the top, touching the blue pants. It creates a lack of contrast and obscures the line between the pants and socks. It's a bad look.
  17. Since they don't have white socks with stripes that match the white jersey, the all white socks are their best choice. Anything is better than blue on blue.