• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by whitedawg22

  1. 10 hours ago, monkeypower said:

    In saying that for all you traditionalists, most players in the CFL, especially on offence, usually end up picking/getting numbers that “fit” the position anyways (i.e. no QB’s #34 or RB’s #82), but it’s something I think the NFL should adopt or at least relax the rules.


    RBs wearing #82? The NFL would never allow for such a travesty!


  2. On 4/26/2020 at 12:02 PM, 1908_Cubs said:

    I always find the "Patriots can't wear read because it's historically inaccurate" point to be a little unfair.  No one says "Well, Eagles aren't green".  Hell, eagles eat fish. and sometime fish have green scales.  We can play this game for probably 33% of the league, if not more.  And I don't mean to call any single person out, it's just an observation that seems to come up with the Patriots over every other franchise.  Kind of seems if we're going to be calling for a team to be historically accurate for one, we should apply that logic to all teams.  Or, just take a step back and let it go for everyone.   If you think that, that's okay, just an observation, no digs meant.  Maybe I've missed these convo's in the past, I've been mostly a lurker, only been more recently active (it's been an interesting and active season for uniforms, so, ya'll get to have me around a little.  Lucky you 😉), so do forgive me if I had.  Hell, I literally teach the American Revolution for 45 days out of the year, every year.  I totally get the pedantic historic arguments (one of the reasons I can't stand historical movies, I get far too pedantic with them).  


    I'm fine with the arguments against the Pats being a red team.  I think the old red uniforms look sharp, myself.  They're clean, pleasing to the eye.  I like the red-dominant red/blue team in a league where it tends to be blue dominant on red/blue teams (Houston, Giants, Bills).  I also understand a lot of people have connections to the Patriots in blue.  I'm not a Pats' fan (Eagles fan, to be clear), and I grew up as a kid throughout the 90's...so they've always been blue to me.  They've played in blue long enough to say they're a blue dominant team.  I'm fine with them being a red OR a blue team.  Just always feels like the argument for the Patriots being historically accurate just seems to apply to them, on conversations no one really has on other teams.  I can let the historical fact that the British wore red go, as long as the Patriots look good, personally.  


    Agreed. As far as I've seen, nobody has a problem with the Philadelphia 76ers wearing blue some of the time and red some of the time, and they have the same basic theme as the Patriots.

  3. 17 hours ago, hawk36 said:

    The only conclusion is whomever is making the final decision, Kraft?, is completely void of design sense. Strange for an otherwise well run organization. 


    I agree, somebody needs to give Kraft a hand. Design-wise, I mean.

  4. 3 hours ago, leopard88 said:


    Agreed.  This is the look that these uniforms are attempting to emulate . . . shoulder loops that go all the way around.




    Instead, this set has bastardized stripes that barely go over the shoulder and look more like epaulets.




    The problem isn't unique to the Patriots.  Most teams that used to have shoulder loops have truncated stripes now that only resemble the original shoulder loops in passing.




    It seems hard to believe, but the situation is actually better now than when Reebok was using its super-stretchy uniforms and the shoulder stripes were literally just on top of the shoulder.



    The frustrating thing is that Nike has the ability to fix this. For instance, the Panthers' stripes go all the way around, and even LSU's stripes are extended down to the armpit. There is no reason why they couldn't do a "full" UCLA stripe on a modern template.


  5. 1 minute ago, Magic Dynasty said:

    Such a small change, but that actually makes it a lot better.


    Disagree. I don't hate the white stripe, but I like the bolt better flying free across the uniform. It looks more spiky and dynamic. The bolt is effectively a stripe, so it doesn't need to be stuck inside another stripe.


    I always liked it that way on the Alworth-era pants, and was hoping they would go back to those, but it always bugged me how that set had a "free" bolt on the pants but a striped bolt on the shoulders.


  6. 1 hour ago, 8BW14 said:

    My only real complaints are (broken record time) the solid socks that match the pants on the monochrome alternates and the helmet numbers. Otherwise this looks really great. I would like to see actual uniforms on actual players, but it looks like the Chargers nailed it.


    But an underrated part of this uniform is that, unlike almost every "modern" uniform, the primary home and away uniforms don't have socks that are the same color as the pants (and can't, since there are no powder blue pants). If the color rush uniforms are used 1-2x per year each, that means that for most of the schedule, the Chargers will wear socks that contrast with their pants, which is great.

  7. Has anyone started the "Patriots New Uniforms for 2025" thread yet?


    My overall impression is that these are just underdesigned... maybe not even designed at all. The shoulder stripes may or may not match the pant stripes, and even if they did, they would still look like crap since Nike doesn't bring them down below the collarbone. The number font is kind of traditional, but not really (see the "4" on the Hightower jersey), and is kind of reminiscent of their 2000-2019 set, but not really. The only options at this point are monochrome home uniforms and leotard socks for both home and away. The uniform is red, blue, and white, but the helmet is red, blue, and silver. No single element is offensive, but literally none of them work together, and the overall effect is of a create-a-uniform on Madden.

  8. 6 minutes ago, Froob said:

    Oh my god was that their uniform they originally planned on using?


    This was still before uniform reveals were a big marketing event. I think that by the time Madden had to implement uniforms, all they had was the helmet, and they just created a generic uniform around that. I haven't seen any evidence that the Texans were planning on going full Penn State.

  9. On 4/17/2020 at 9:28 PM, DNAsports said:

    A white Texans helmet has always seemed off to me, but I can’t figure out why


    The Texans originally planned to wear white helmets, but switched to blue before their first game.



    This wasn't a case of the 49ers "one-day" helmet, either - the white helmets were around for long enough that the Texans' helmets in Madden 2002 were white.


  10. I think the Patriots' helmet with a silver mask looks very plain.


    Here's an idea for a "rule" for helmets: a helmet should have either a facemask that is a different color than the shell, or a center stripe. A helmet with no stripe and a facemask the same color as the helmet is too boring.


    The Bears and the Texans are the only teams in the NFL that currently have a same-colored facemask and no center stripe, and their helmet is uber-traditional, which the Patriots' isn't. If the Bears' helmet was a new helmet released today, I'm sure it would be considered boring. The Texans' helmet is boring - although they have one of the best logos in the NFL, I don't think anyone classifies them among the great helmets of the NFL.


    Even the great plain college football helmets, like Ohio State and Alabama, have center stripes.

  11. These appear underdesigned, if anything. From the front, they appear to be a solid color, with no stripes or trim, and multiple garish ads. They look like uniforms you'd get for a weekend basketball tournament where each team is randomly assigned a different color and is sponsored by the local car dealership.

  12. 10 minutes ago, kimball said:


    I wish they went away from the 90s look a bit more, but I love the black and "liberty green" colorization. 


    It's interesting that many people are describing the color as "seafoam," when it's always been a part of their palette as the weathered copper color of the Statue of Liberty.



    If anything, they're simply updating the logo to get rid of the forced Knicks colors and better reflect how their uniforms have always looked.

  13. 2 minutes ago, daniel75 said:

    I’m guessing the players had the most input on the gradient one.


    Do they indicate that players had any input on any of them? Unless they say that's the case, I don't think teams usually give players any input. But I agree that the gradient jersey is the one that's targeted at the youth market, which is the demographic of most of the players.

  14. 6 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

    The Rams’ color rush uniform is the best look in franchise history, so I’m all for yellow being the primary color. That said, the yellow jersey has to be worn with blue or yellow pants if there is no white on the jersey and/or helmet. Make an all-white road set with blue numbers and yellow outlines that can be worn with blue or yellow pants and a blue alternate and you’re good to go. Pretty much Michigan’s overall look, but with the Rams’ horns instead of the Wolverines’ wings. 


    That's the problem with yellow jerseys. They look great in a vacuum, but what pants do you pair them with?  Pairing them with blue pants creates an unbalanced look (as does any uniform where a non-white jersey is a lighter color than the pants, in my opinion).  Pairing them with yellow pants is too much yellow. And pairing them with white pants looks strange if there isn't much/any white on the rest of the uniform. The blue pants are probably the best option out of those three, but this looks more like an alternate look than something that can be a team's core identity:


  15. 14 hours ago, WBeltz said:

    I feel like Under Armour has dropped the ball with Wisconsin's football uniforms. I know you can do so much with a red & white color combo, but I absolutely LOVED this combo when they were with adidas.



    The black stripes and facemask are gross. That said, I do like red pants for Wisconsin - it just looks much better if they're all red-and-white:


  16. On 9/15/2018 at 10:55 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

    I used to think it was just a relativity thing, meaning that of course players looked older to me when I was younger than them, but those same players should appear younger to me now that i'm older than them, but that's not the case.  I don't know if it's just that they treated their bodies differently (or not at all), or drugs, partying all the time,  or what, but lots of athletes from even as recently as the early 90s look 10-15 years older than they are (by today's standards.)


    It could also be the hair styles.  If you got rid of the mustaches on the players, maybe their faces would appear to be their actual age?  Or if you shaved the sides of the horseshoe-bald guys like as is done today, maybe that helps?


    Let's just look at John Kruk from as recently as '94, compared to another Phillie with similar hair style.  


    Kruk is and Werth are both 32 in these photos.  Granted, Werth isn't a fat pig (albeit a pig that was a hell of a hitter), but he looks considerably younger than Kruk, even if he too looks to be older than his age.


    117339.jpg  61f5640f16b9b387db2e1af980c5dbaa.jpg




    Y.A. Tittle was 37 years old in this famous photo:



    I used to think that was so old. Now I'm six months away from that.

  17. On 9/17/2018 at 7:59 AM, leopard88 said:


    True . . . but that was even before my lifetime.  ?


    Off topic -- Someone today should use that Redskins number font.  It's pretty simple, but not quite standard block, so it would be unique in today's NFL.


    It looks like the number font USC used before it changed to its current custom font: