• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by whitedawg22

  1. Those are basically the same, other than sock color and the tiger logo on the sleeve, as the 1980s Bengals that went to two Super Bowls:
  2. That old husky head looks like the husky is melting. It's the second-worst husky logo of all time.
  3. I wore #10 in HS football because I was a big Pearl Jam fan. Of course, Pearl Jam named that album after sports - the band was originally called Mookie Blaylock before they were informed that that name could lead to trademark difficulties, so they named their first album "Ten" after Blaylock's jersey number.
  4. I don't get the love for these - at all. They're about as generic and cartoonish as possible, and there's nothing appealing about the design. I appreciate good modern uniforms, but these deserve to be left in the dustbin of history.
  5. Agreed in principle, but the Old English also looked awesome, as did the classy navy-and-gray block numbers.
  6. To expand on this with some examples, last season 15 players wore #6 and 22 players wore #9. In 1997-98 (20 years ago), only 8 players wore #6 and 16 players wore #9. And in 1992-93 (25 years ago), only 6 players wore #6 and 3 players wore #9. In addition to Bradley and Muresan, I think the wider use of non-traditional numbers was due to the influx of international players (and the use of NBA players in international competitions). Amateur basketball in the U.S. only allowed the use of digits 0-5, so most American players would start their careers with those numbers, and mostly keep them when they reached the NBA. But until 2014, FIBA required players to use numbers from 4 to 15 for international competitions, and national leagues could allow any 1- or 2- digit number. So NBA players had to use non-traditional numbers for the Olympics (which is why Jordan wore #9) and a lot of international players came in wearing different numbers (e.g., Toni Kukoc wearing #7).
  7. Removal of Old English font = downgrade. It was a unique brand within FBS; now they're just another "impact italics" team.
  8. Cynically, I wonder if the wordmark was shrunk as a test to open up jersey space for more/larger ads. WNBA wordmarks tend to be smaller for this reason, so that they can fit huge ads on the jersey:
  9. The Dallas Cowboys used to have their players wear a funny little tie-down on the bottom of the jersey collar: As far as I know, they were the only team to do this. It seems to have gone away in the flywire and post-flywire eras, though.
  10. That's pretty awesome - I never knew he played for the Cowboys. And it turns out that he didn't in the regular season, just during the 1975 preseason. Also under wrong uniforms for Zorn: the Packers and Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
  11. How do people play on black turf on a hot, sunny day? Do people who get tackled burn themselves? Or does this only work in the PNW where it's never sunny?
  12. In my opinion, the Titans' new set is OK, but that's one of the two big problems. The other is the red Nike logos, which are incredibly distracting because red is the only eye-catching color in their palette and they logos are the only red on the uniform. This feels like another attempt by Nike to showcase their logo at the expense of the overall look, like they did with the Seahawks' sleeve design.
  13. The sharpness of the cutoff at the neck, and the weight of the thick outline, are really distracting. I think they would have been better served leaving the neck "open," like when the Carolina Panthers' logo is on a black background:
  14. The plain orange helmets look like bowling balls, especially with their weird satin sheen.
  15. The white jerseys never had side panels:
  16. The 80s-90s Oilers, mentioned above, are a great example of this - a classic uniform that will probably never be a throwback because of historical events. Pretty much perfect color balance on both the home and road uniforms. And I also agree with the commenter above about the Dan Reeves-era Falcons. The home uniform was still a little drab and overly black, but the road uniform with the red numbers was spectacular:
  17. The Dolphins are a design lesson on how a small tweak can make a world of difference. And I like the Jags' new uniforms better after seeing them on the field than I did during the reveals. Not perfect, but better.
  18. I think they work better if you see them as a macro image of the falcon's wing. They're complex, for sure, but they're also the only significant design element on the jersey, so I don't think they're too busy.
  19. The writing is on the wall - no team is going to have a redesigned uniform with block font. Since Nike took over the NFL's uniform contract in 2012, every single redesign has featured a custom font. This is true even when a redesign pushes the team in a "traditional" direction, like the Jaguars. I can think of only one team in recent memory (15+ years) who had a significant redesign using block font - the Bills, when they went to their current throwback-ish look in 2011. But that was under Reebok's watch, and even then, the Bills had never stopped using a block font. Given this observation, it would be extremely out-of-character for the Dolphins to go to a strict throwback for their primary look.
  20. Even that uniform at least has a unique and distinctive logo (with or without the bizarre cap striping). The 1971 Brewers uniform just uses a block M. The use of a block letter logo is fine if there are other distinctive elements to define the team's look (for instance, the current Cleveland Indians' jersey script), but that Brewers uniform doesn't have any.
  21. I like where this is heading! Now maybe just use "Jets" instead of "NY" in order to stand apart from the other New York team, and use a font that's not completely generic - maybe something that contains a subtle nod to the image of a jet:
  22. I think piping can work if it has a purpose and works into the rest of the design. The problem is that during the piping craze of the early- to mid-2000s, teams slapped piping thoughtlessly all over their uniforms. I think the Falcons are an example of how it can work. Their entire design (both logo and uniform) is based on vertical lines and thin wedges of color getting wider, and the piping on their uniforms reflect that - it's vertical, and widens into a wedge on the pants that mimics the falcon's wing. On the other hand, I think the Cardinals are a great example of how it doesn't work when it's just applied randomly. They have piping going randomly over the shoulder that broadens into a stripe going under the shoulder and down the side of the uniform, with a random white armpit blotch. And that's supposed to connect into a pants stripe that narrows for some reason. The somewhat swoopy effect of the whole thing clashes with the plain, bold, blocky logo and helmet. And then there was college football in this era, which introduced completely pointless piping on virtually every uniform for no particular reason.
  23. This is interesting because Boise State has a trademark on non-green athletic fields. They've granted permission for a number of other schools (e.g. Eastern Washington - red, Eastern Michigan - gray, Coastal Carolina - teal), but as far as I know, they've never approved another blue football field. That said, the University of New England doesn't compete with Boise State in any way, shape, or form, so it's pretty reasonable for them to approve this.
  24. I don't understand the love for these Brewers uniforms. They're almost literally as generic as a uniform can get. Even the new Jacksonville Jaguars uniforms have more personality than these. It's possible to have a classic/traditional uniform without stripping away all interesting design elements.