infrared41's Best and Worst of the Week - Season Finale

[infrared41]

You should do a best and worst list for the playoffs too.

Agreed

There just aren't enough teams to do a playoff version. However, I am kicking around the idea of doing a Best and Worst of the Bowls once college football wraps up.

[GriffinM6]

You should do a best and worst list for the playoffs too.

Agreed

There just aren't enough teams to do a playoff version. However, I am kicking around the idea of doing a Best and Worst of the Bowls once college football wraps up.

I was thinking you could just rank the 4 games in order. It wouldn't be that hard to do. I'm liking the idea of bowl game best and worst though.

[infrared41]

You should do a best and worst list for the playoffs too.

Agreed

There just aren't enough teams to do a playoff version. However, I am kicking around the idea of doing a Best and Worst of the Bowls once college football wraps up.

I was thinking you could just rank the 4 games in order. It wouldn't be that hard to do. I'm liking the idea of bowl game best and worst though.

Of course it wouldn't be difficult, it just seems kind of pointless to do a list for just four games.

[OffCenteredScoreboard]

You should do a best and worst list for the playoffs too.

Agreed

There just aren't enough teams to do a playoff version. However, I am kicking around the idea of doing a Best and Worst of the Bowls once college football wraps up.

I was thinking you could just rank the 4 games in order. It wouldn't be that hard to do. I'm liking the idea of bowl game best and worst though.

i like the bowl game idea

[leopard88]

I think the problem with the Ravens is that they're a team who doesn't know what their primary color is. Is it purple, or is it black? You can even make a case for white, actually (which probably isn't what you'd want to do with a team called the Ravens). Granted, they've handled having two dark colors better than say, the Eagles (mostly due to their wiser use of white and use of gold trim), but they'd be well served to either pick a primary color and stick with it, or fully embrace the dual-dark look and find ways to improve it.

I'm a Ravens fan by the way, so I'm a tad bit biased when it comes to their uniforms.

Black is obviously a prominent color in the Ravens scheme, but I think purple is clearly the primary color. It is the color of the primary jersey. Also, most of the merchandise I see is purple and most of the decoration at M&T Bank Stadium is purple (ex., wall wrap on the sidelines and endzones).

Personally, I would be fine if they ditched the black pants completely. I really dislike the stripeless ones they use now and never really liked either of the prior versions (solid white stripe from 1996 or white-purple-white stripe from 1997)*. The white pants look very crisp and sharp to me and go well with all three jerseys.

* -- Overall, I don't think I've ever seen black pants that I have really liked. I also disliked the Saints black pants with gold-white-gold stripes from the late 70s-early 80s and the Falcons black pants from their most recent rebrand..

[BBTV]

When worn with the purple jerseys, the Ravens black pants are the only stripeless non-gold pants that I like. However when worn with the white jersey, the lack of stripe annoys me.

I don't think the solution is to have two sets of pants, nor do I think it is to eliminate the black all together.

I like the thick white stripe they originally had over the purple stripe in the later years, but I'm thinking an asymmetrical stripe of white, gold, purple might work (kind of like the Eagles black pants, but with purple and gold instead of green and charcoal.) Maybe go a lttle thinner on the white.

[leopard88]

I agree that the current black pants look better with the purple jersey than the white one. The white jersey accentuates the lack of stripes for some reason.

I would be curious to see how your idea would look. That said, it would still be tough to sell me on black pants.

[Bigdogshark62]

Thanks for the weekly fun! I pretty much agree with everything this week.

Seattle-St Louis might have been better if the Seahawks had worn their grey pants. Dallas-Washington and Chicago-Minnesota were near-classic good looking matchups. Jets looked good, Dolphins not so much. I also thought GB and Detroit looked pretty good.

[infrared41]

Thanks for the weekly fun! I pretty much agree with everything this week.

Seattle-St Louis might have been better if the Seahawks had worn their grey pants. Dallas-Washington and Chicago-Minnesota were near-classic good looking matchups. Jets looked good, Dolphins not so much. I also thought GB and Detroit looked pretty good.

My pleasure. I really appreciate everyone taking the time to read my little lists every week.

If Seattle had gone with gray pants and the Rams had gone with gold pants, that game would have looked a whole lot better.

[dennisbergan]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Did the Rams need a stripe on their solid gold pants when they went to the SB? Of course they didn't. And its still the best look they've had in about 40 years.

Stripes would look out-of-place on the Ravens black pants. The Ravens uniforms are pretty basic and clean. Besides the black outline around the collar and the thin black outline around the sleeve cuff, there are no stripes on the jersey. The helmet has that tapered deal, which really doesn't count as a "stripe".

One of the best looks in all of the NFL is the Ravens Purple jerseys/black pants. Probably because its only worn 3-4 times a year max. It just works so well together and is bad ass. It might not be popular here, but that's not really surprising. Its clean and unique and you know its Baltimore on the field. And they haven't screwed it up with striped socks or striped pants, which have no place with the Ravens uniforms.

Again, not all football teams HAVE to have a stripe on their britches just because. Not all 32 teams have to follow the same boring and standard script on how to look. A few can actually, gasp, look a little different from all the standard professional garb.

The Saints black pants look more out of place because of the 3 stripes on the helmet. The Aints used to have pants that matched that pattern. But don't anymore. So either they need to make the helmet stripe a solid black (to match the gold pants) or take the stripe off altogether (to match the black ones). That helmet has always bothered me since the Saints have been wearing this era of uniforms. Its mismatched. (And btw, the Saints wore the gold pants much more then once this year. Counting the pre-season (which DOES count since everyone pays the exact same price to get in the game and its one of 20 games each year), I believe they wore them about 8 times total. In a league where some numbnut franchises don't wear jerseys or pants AT ALL during a given year and run a home or road look into the friggin ground every single week (I guess to bore people to death) I dont' think NO deserves any criticism at all.

The Rams would look infinitly better if they were wearing solid navy pants. Dump the white britches and bring back the solid gold pants that everyone liked. The stripe pattern on the navy pants just looks out-of-place with the rest of the STL/LA uniform. The Rams are another team that doesn't need any stripes but seem to have them just because. And it downgrades their look.

Other then that, most other teams look fine with striped pants. Their is some uniformity with most other teams. That's really what counts the most.

[Cosmic]

Pants without stripes of some kind look like women's yoga pants or ballet tights. Especially black pants. It's that simple.

Edit:I was going to post a picture for humorous reference, but after my Google image search, woo boy you're on your own.

[dsaline97]

Pants without stripes of some kind look like women's yoga pants or ballet tights. Especially black pants. It's that simple.

I think that's more of a problem when you have plain black socks that go with it.

That's why I really don't have a problem with the Brown's white-brown look on the road, because they wear the white striped socks to match. Sure, striped pants may be better, but that doesn't automatically make what they have now garbage.

Mono-brown at home? That's garbage. I'll agree to that.

[IceCap]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants?

They have to have stripes on their black pants because they look like without them. I look forward to your annual emergence in September where you berate us for not being "with it," as per tradition.

[Xist2inspire]

They don't "have" to, but I think they'd look a bit better with them than without.

[BBTV]

The Saints need stripes because their uniform is otherwise pretty traditional, has traditional stripes on the helmet, and they wear black socks, creating the tights look.

The Browns need stripes since there's stripes everywhere else, it looks like the pants are from a different era than the rest of the uniform.

The Rams don't need stripes on their gold pants because... well, it just looks great.

The Ravens don't need stripes on their pants when worn with the purple jerseys because despite some of the same issues as with the Saints, they just look good IMO.

So essentially, if the pants look bad without stripes then they need stripes. If they look good without stripes, then they don't need stripes.

[oldschoolvikings]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Quick answer... because they would look better.

(I wish all of life's questions were this easy.)

[infrared41]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Did the Rams need a stripe on their solid gold pants when they went to the SB? Of course they didn't. And its still the best look they've had in about 40 years.

Stripes would look out-of-place on the Ravens black pants. The Ravens uniforms are pretty basic and clean. Besides the black outline around the collar and the thin black outline around the sleeve cuff, there are no stripes on the jersey. The helmet has that tapered deal, which really doesn't count as a "stripe".

One of the best looks in all of the NFL is the Ravens Purple jerseys/black pants. Probably because its only worn 3-4 times a year max. It just works so well together and is bad ass. It might not be popular here, but that's not really surprising. Its clean and unique and you know its Baltimore on the field. And they haven't screwed it up with striped socks or striped pants, which have no place with the Ravens uniforms.

Again, not all football teams HAVE to have a stripe on their britches just because. Not all 32 teams have to follow the same boring and standard script on how to look. A few can actually, gasp, look a little different from all the standard professional garb.

The Saints black pants look more out of place because of the 3 stripes on the helmet. The Aints used to have pants that matched that pattern. But don't anymore. So either they need to make the helmet stripe a solid black (to match the gold pants) or take the stripe off altogether (to match the black ones). That helmet has always bothered me since the Saints have been wearing this era of uniforms. Its mismatched. (And btw, the Saints wore the gold pants much more then once this year. Counting the pre-season (which DOES count since everyone pays the exact same price to get in the game and its one of 20 games each year), I believe they wore them about 8 times total. In a league where some numbnut franchises don't wear jerseys or pants AT ALL during a given year and run a home or road look into the friggin ground every single week (I guess to bore people to death) I dont' think NO deserves any criticism at all.

The Rams would look infinitly better if they were wearing solid navy pants. Dump the white britches and bring back the solid gold pants that everyone liked. The stripe pattern on the navy pants just looks out-of-place with the rest of the STL/LA uniform. The Rams are another team that doesn't need any stripes but seem to have them just because. And it downgrades their look.

Other then that, most other teams look fine with striped pants. Their is some uniformity with most other teams. That's really what counts the most.

Whatever.

[martymcfry]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Did the Rams need a stripe on their solid gold pants when they went to the SB? Of course they didn't. And its still the best look they've had in about 40 years.

Stripes would look out-of-place on the Ravens black pants. The Ravens uniforms are pretty basic and clean. Besides the black outline around the collar and the thin black outline around the sleeve cuff, there are no stripes on the jersey. The helmet has that tapered deal, which really doesn't count as a "stripe".

One of the best looks in all of the NFL is the Ravens Purple jerseys/black pants. Probably because its only worn 3-4 times a year max. It just works so well together and is bad ass. It might not be popular here, but that's not really surprising. Its clean and unique and you know its Baltimore on the field. And they haven't screwed it up with striped socks or striped pants, which have no place with the Ravens uniforms.

Again, not all football teams HAVE to have a stripe on their britches just because. Not all 32 teams have to follow the same boring and standard script on how to look. A few can actually, gasp, look a little different from all the standard professional garb.

The Saints black pants look more out of place because of the 3 stripes on the helmet. The Aints used to have pants that matched that pattern. But don't anymore. So either they need to make the helmet stripe a solid black (to match the gold pants) or take the stripe off altogether (to match the black ones). That helmet has always bothered me since the Saints have been wearing this era of uniforms. Its mismatched. (And btw, the Saints wore the gold pants much more then once this year. Counting the pre-season (which DOES count since everyone pays the exact same price to get in the game and its one of 20 games each year), I believe they wore them about 8 times total. In a league where some numbnut franchises don't wear jerseys or pants AT ALL during a given year and run a home or road look into the friggin ground every single week (I guess to bore people to death) I dont' think NO deserves any criticism at all.

The Rams would look infinitly better if they were wearing solid navy pants. Dump the white britches and bring back the solid gold pants that everyone liked. The stripe pattern on the navy pants just looks out-of-place with the rest of the STL/LA uniform. The Rams are another team that doesn't need any stripes but seem to have them just because. And it downgrades their look.

Other then that, most other teams look fine with striped pants. Their is some uniformity with most other teams. That's really what counts the most.

Whatever.

He makes a compelling argument, but with Baltimore, they have stripes on the white pants, so that's what makes it weird to have none on the black pants (and there's the argument that it just looks better). Same deal with New Orleans.

St. Louis is like a whole bunch of other teams: over piped and basically a reebok mess. IMO the Rams should never use only the navy pants, their monochrome look is the worst in the league.

And preseason doesn't count. Too many teams use a different color schedule in the preseason then they do in the regular season for it to count (ex. Tennessee used Columbia Blue jerseys in preseason but not in regular season)

[IceCap]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Did the Rams need a stripe on their solid gold pants when they went to the SB? Of course they didn't. And its still the best look they've had in about 40 years.

Stripes would look out-of-place on the Ravens black pants. The Ravens uniforms are pretty basic and clean. Besides the black outline around the collar and the thin black outline around the sleeve cuff, there are no stripes on the jersey. The helmet has that tapered deal, which really doesn't count as a "stripe".

One of the best looks in all of the NFL is the Ravens Purple jerseys/black pants. Probably because its only worn 3-4 times a year max. It just works so well together and is bad ass. It might not be popular here, but that's not really surprising. Its clean and unique and you know its Baltimore on the field. And they haven't screwed it up with striped socks or striped pants, which have no place with the Ravens uniforms.

Again, not all football teams HAVE to have a stripe on their britches just because. Not all 32 teams have to follow the same boring and standard script on how to look. A few can actually, gasp, look a little different from all the standard professional garb.

The Saints black pants look more out of place because of the 3 stripes on the helmet. The Aints used to have pants that matched that pattern. But don't anymore. So either they need to make the helmet stripe a solid black (to match the gold pants) or take the stripe off altogether (to match the black ones). That helmet has always bothered me since the Saints have been wearing this era of uniforms. Its mismatched. (And btw, the Saints wore the gold pants much more then once this year. Counting the pre-season (which DOES count since everyone pays the exact same price to get in the game and its one of 20 games each year), I believe they wore them about 8 times total. In a league where some numbnut franchises don't wear jerseys or pants AT ALL during a given year and run a home or road look into the friggin ground every single week (I guess to bore people to death) I dont' think NO deserves any criticism at all.

The Rams would look infinitly better if they were wearing solid navy pants. Dump the white britches and bring back the solid gold pants that everyone liked. The stripe pattern on the navy pants just looks out-of-place with the rest of the STL/LA uniform. The Rams are another team that doesn't need any stripes but seem to have them just because. And it downgrades their look.

Other then that, most other teams look fine with striped pants. Their is some uniformity with most other teams. That's really what counts the most.

Whatever.

He makes a compelling argument, but with Baltimore, they have stripes on the white pants, so that's what makes it weird to have none on the black pants (and there's the argument that it just looks better). Same deal with New Orleans.

The thing about dennisbergan is that it's an act. He's admitted as much. If he makes a salient point it's only as a byproduct of his larger goal, which is troll those he sees as "old timers" who only like "boring" traditional looks. He doesn't take part in the conversation so much as he yells at one part of it with a megaphone hoping to be noticed. Then he disappears after football season in the US ends, only to emerge around September when the NFL and NCAA start gearing up.

[patsox]

Quick question...why do the Saints and Ravens "have" to have stripes on their dark pants? Why is it such a prerequisite for some of you?

Did the Rams need a stripe on their solid gold pants when they went to the SB? Of course they didn't. And its still the best look they've had in about 40 years.

Stripes would look out-of-place on the Ravens black pants. The Ravens uniforms are pretty basic and clean. Besides the black outline around the collar and the thin black outline around the sleeve cuff, there are no stripes on the jersey. The helmet has that tapered deal, which really doesn't count as a "stripe".

One of the best looks in all of the NFL is the Ravens Purple jerseys/black pants. Probably because its only worn 3-4 times a year max. It just works so well together and is bad ass. It might not be popular here, but that's not really surprising. Its clean and unique and you know its Baltimore on the field. And they haven't screwed it up with striped socks or striped pants, which have no place with the Ravens uniforms.

Again, not all football teams HAVE to have a stripe on their britches just because. Not all 32 teams have to follow the same boring and standard script on how to look. A few can actually, gasp, look a little different from all the standard professional garb.

The Saints black pants look more out of place because of the 3 stripes on the helmet. The Aints used to have pants that matched that pattern. But don't anymore. So either they need to make the helmet stripe a solid black (to match the gold pants) or take the stripe off altogether (to match the black ones). That helmet has always bothered me since the Saints have been wearing this era of uniforms. Its mismatched. (And btw, the Saints wore the gold pants much more then once this year. Counting the pre-season (which DOES count since everyone pays the exact same price to get in the game and its one of 20 games each year), I believe they wore them about 8 times total. In a league where some numbnut franchises don't wear jerseys or pants AT ALL during a given year and run a home or road look into the friggin ground every single week (I guess to bore people to death) I dont' think NO deserves any criticism at all.

The Rams would look infinitly better if they were wearing solid navy pants. Dump the white britches and bring back the solid gold pants that everyone liked. The stripe pattern on the navy pants just looks out-of-place with the rest of the STL/LA uniform. The Rams are another team that doesn't need any stripes but seem to have them just because. And it downgrades their look.

Other then that, most other teams look fine with striped pants. Their is some uniformity with most other teams. That's really what counts the most.

Whatever.

He makes a compelling argument, but with Baltimore, they have stripes on the white pants, so that's what makes it weird to have none on the black pants (and there's the argument that it just looks better). Same deal with New Orleans.

The thing about dennisbergan is that it's an act. He's admitted as much. If he makes a salient point it's only as a byproduct of his larger goal, which is troll those he sees as "old timers" who only like "boring" traditional looks. He doesn't take part in the conversation so much as he yells at one part of it with a megaphone hoping to be noticed. Then he disappears after football season in the US ends, only to emerge around September when the NFL and NCAA start gearing up.

It might be an act, and usually I would say it is, but this argument he made here makes perfect sense and I agree 100%. I personally think the reason for the Ravens not having stripes on their black pants is that there isn't enough contrast between their black and purple. And a triple stripe (with white separating black and purple) wouldn't match their jerseys. As for them having stripes on their white pants, I think they should get rid of those for the reason I just said about not matching the jerseys.