Future of NFL "Color Rush"

[bosrs1]

1 hour ago, JWhiz96 said:

Back to Color Rush, this week should be one of the better ones. The Vikings' CR unis are serviceable, but the Cowboys' CR unis are very good. In fact, if they were to pair the tops with silver pants, their CR unis would be superior to their normal home whites IMO.

 

Hearing rumors on the radio that the NFL is considering killing Thursday Night football after the 2017 season. Which would mean we only have one more year of these generally poor uniforms to endure.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

21 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Super-supersonic, as it'll need to get them in and out so fast they don't feel jet lag. 

 

If each visiting team flew into London on Monday morning after its previous game, the players would have six days to get acclimated to the London time zone before their game there.  And if they then flew out of London on Sunday night after the game, they'd have plenty of time to get set for the following week.

 

The London team would have homestands of three or four games; so they'd be making a trans-Atlantic flight only about once a month. For their stretches of road games, they'd surely operate out of a base in the U.S.; during these periods their travel would be comparable to that of any other team.

 

So jet lag would not be an issue.

[mjd77]

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Hearing rumors on the radio that the NFL is considering killing Thursday Night football after the 2017 season. Which would mean we only have one more year of these generally poor uniforms to endure.

 

I'm sure we'd get a league-wide color rush Sunday then.  What I'd rather see is the entire league do a throwback or fauxback weekend.  Lots more potential for good stuff there.

[bosrs1]

16 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

I'm sure we'd get a league-wide color rush Sunday then.  What I'd rather see is the entire league do a throwback or fauxback weekend.  Lots more potential for good stuff there.

 

Agreed. I don't even like the Patriots old red uni, but seeing a league wide return to say the merger year for a Sunday would be very interesting.

[JWhiz96]

24 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

I'm sure we'd get a league-wide color rush Sunday then.  What I'd rather see is the entire league do a throwback or fauxback weekend.  Lots more potential for good stuff there.

Yep, one week per year where the NFL tries its best to replicate The Teletubies. Don't give them any ideas.

[colinturner95]

1 hour ago, JWhiz96 said:

Yep, one week per year where the NFL tries its best to replicate The Teletubies. Don't give them any ideas.

I'd take one week of awful looking teams over aroundabout 16 weeks where two teams potentially make fools of themselves. 

[dsaline97]

45 minutes ago, bkknight95 said:

I'd take one week of awful looking teams over aroundabout 16 weeks where two teams potentially make fools of themselves. 

I would only watch to prepare myself for infrared's weekly list.

[elevenstraight]

On 21/11/2016 at 0:21 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Disagree..

 

I stand corrected ?

 

I also wouldn't mind if they kept the logo on the sleeves and added the stripping pattern to the collar instead. Like the Packers collar. 

[BroncoBuff]

On 11/28/2016 at 3:39 AM, jc... said:

Throwback Thursday would be better than Color Rush. 

 

 

Agreed, and in fact many teams treated it just like 'Throwback.'  And that's the problem with Color Rush, the lack of uniformity from one team's design to another team's design.  

 

Examples: Broncos jersey below is identical to the last iteration of the uniform generation that ended in 1996 - add to that the same helmet logo and their 'Color Rush' was nothing more than a throwback with orange pants. The Cowboys and Bengals apparently ignored the term "color" in Color Rush when they actually subtracted color from their standard duds to over-embrace the white ... and the fat white borders around the Chargers's iconic shoulder bolts made the same mistake ... after all, we know their old AFL uniforms had no white trim between the light blue jersey and shoulder bolts, nor between the yellow pants and the bolts up their legs (easy....)

 

 

  , , , , , .. . . . . .

 

 

 

COLOR RUSH should be just that - a rush of color. NO WHITE, just color. The Jets', Colts' and Raiders' mono-chromatic imagination gaps might exempt them, but every other team should have complied, or NFL Properties should have followed these specs when designing and selecting each teams' uniforms.  

 

It wasn't hard, in fact some teams - maybe half or more - did follow these specifications.  Moreover, it's nothing new to Michigan and Southern Cal, both these schools have LONG sported just such designs. The only white you'll find on a Trojan or a Wolverine is the mandatory road jerseys and lower socks. (Just realized they're also the only two teams that beat Colorado this year - wearing these same uniforms in Ann Arbor and Los Angeles)

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . 

 

 

My point is that an NFL Feature Promotion like "Color Rush" should have avoided hodge-podge mix-n-match at all costs.  Making these specifications mandatory would have ensured a "uniform" look every week ... and probably most important to the League, would have resulted in far more brisk sales of 'Color Rush' memorabilia.

 

I loved our 1996-era uniforms, but COLOR RUSH deserved something different. Borrowing from Syracuse, here's my proposal:

 

[BroncoBuff]

On 11/25/2016 at 4:25 PM, the admiral said:

 

Their records from about 1991 (last 25 seasons) on are surprisingly similar, or at least much more similar than a HERITAGE CHARTER FOUNDING LEGACY FRANCHISE™ and a twice-relocated punchline ought to be:  

 

Bears: 191-209, six playoff appearances, lost a Super Bowl, lost an NFC championship game

Cardinals: 167-233, five playoff appearances, lost a Super Bowl, lost an NFC championship game

 

Much more similar than I would have guessed ... but what I missed was the comparison the poster (you?) was making re: Elite Franchise List .... does he think the Bears, or the Cardinals, or Neither, or Both deserved inclusion in the list of "ELITE FRANCHISES."

 

Again, this "LIST" of mine is entirely arbitrary, and is selected based on criteria that I alone choose, criteria sure to result in the BRONCOS being included as charter members of that LIST.  As before - I heartily encourage ALL to whom these letters shall come - formulate a LIST of your own, with criteria of your own choosing.  Feel free to choose criteria that result in the EXCLUSION of the Broncos if you remain hostile to my list. Please state your criteria so invite comment. 

 

 

 

      CRITERIA for INCLUSION:  

• Franchise History
• Overall onfield success
•    (stress recent successes and
•    consistence making playoffs)
• Minimum one Super Bowl victory
• Ownership Stability & Influence 

 

 

      N F L ELITE FRANCHISES

.  .  .  . .NEW YORK GIANTS 

   . ..WASHINGTON REDSKINS

 . .  .  . .DALLAS COWBOYS

. . . . . . DENVER BRONCOS

. . .NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

.. . . .PITTSBURGH STEELERS

 

 

49ers nearing re-instatement after DeBartolo troubles

Seahawks' petitioning to make list, nearing inclusion

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, BroncoBuff said:

... and the fat white borders around the Chargers's iconic shoulder bolts made the same mistake ... after all, we know their old AFL uniforms had no white trim between the light blue jersey and shoulder bolts, nor between the yellow pants and the bolts up their legs (easy....)

 

 

  , , , , , .. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

Maybe I don't understand the "white trim between the light blue jersey and shoulder bolt" but they've long had the big white around the bolts on the shoulders.

 

[Sec19Row53]

47 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

Much more similar than I would have guessed ... but what I missed was the comparison the poster (you?) was making re: Elite Franchise List .... does he think the Bears, or the Cardinals, or Neither, or Both deserved inclusion in the list of "ELITE FRANCHISES."

 

Again, this "LIST" of mine is entirely arbitrary, and is selected based on criteria that I alone choose, criteria sure to result in the BRONCOS being included as charter members of that LIST.  As before - I heartily encourage ALL to whom these letters shall come - formulate a LIST of your own, with criteria of your own choosing.  Feel free to choose criteria that result in the EXCLUSION of the Broncos if you remain hostile to my list. Please state your criteria so invite comment. 

 

 

 

      CRITERIA for INCLUSION:  

• Franchise History
• Overall onfield success
•    (stress recent successes and
•    consistence making playoffs)
• Minimum one Super Bowl victory
• Ownership Stability & Influence 

 

 

      N F L ELITE FRANCHISES

.  .  .  . .NEW YORK GIANTS 

   . ..WASHINGTON REDSKINS

 . .  .  . .DALLAS COWBOYS

. . . . . . DENVER BRONCOS

. . .NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

.. . . .PITTSBURGH STEELERS

 

 

49ers nearing re-instatement after DeBartolo troubles

Seahawks' petitioning to make list, nearing inclusion

Umm, if the Packers aren't on the list, what with 13 NFL Titles and the most stable ownership group in all of sports, your list is invalid.

[BroncoBuff]

2 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

 

Maybe I don't understand the "white trim between the light blue jersey and shoulder bolt" but they've long had the big white around the bolts on the shoulders.

 

 

Yes, you're right ... I must have been thinking of the pants only. 

 

It was merely an example of how the ALL-color, ONLY-color uniform design could be accomplished without much trouble.....

 

It can be done, though and look pretty darn good:

 

 

   

[hawk36]

1 minute ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

Yes, you're right ... I must have been thinking of the pants only. 

 

It was merely an example of how the ALL-color, ONLY-color uniform design could be accomplished without much trouble.....

 

It can be done, though and look pretty darn good:

 

 

   

I'm with you on that. I've long hated the big white next to the bolt. Works by itself on the helmet, should be used by itself elsewhere too.

[BroncoBuff]

44 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Umm, if the Packers aren't on the list, what with 13 NFL Titles and the most stable ownership group in all of sports, your list is invalid.

 

 

"Invalid" ... really?  How DARE you!

 

Problem is, including the 1950s and early 60s means the Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions have numerous Championships as well. One criteria I did not mention is there must be some measure of exclusivity.  If half the teams qualify, it's not "elite" by definition (and is therefore invalid). 

 

My list is Super Bowl era, which is what I know, what I'm comfortable with.

 

 

Make your own list!

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, BroncoBuff said:

      CRITERIA for INCLUSION:  

• Franchise History
• Overall onfield success
•    (stress recent successes and
•    consistence making playoffs)
• Minimum one Super Bowl victory
• Ownership Stability & Influence 

 

 

      N F L ELITE FRANCHISES

.  .  .  . .NEW YORK GIANTS 

   . ..WASHINGTON REDSKINS

 . .  .  . .DALLAS COWBOYS

. . . . . . DENVER BRONCOS

. . .NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS

.. . . .PITTSBURGH STEELERS

 

So which of your criteria do the Packers not meet?  

 

"History" and "overall success" are a no-brainer, they've got three spares above your "minimum one Super Bowl Victory", they've made the playoffs in the past seven seasons (and 18 of the last 23), and ownership stability is second to none.

 

You'd have a much harder time making the case for Washington or the Broncos, using your own criteria.

[Sec19Row53]

36 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

 

"Invalid" ... really?  How DARE you!

 

Problem is, including the 1950s and early 60s means the Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions have numerous Championships as well. One criteria I did not mention is there must be some measure of exclusivity.  If half the teams qualify, it's not "elite" by definition (and is therefore invalid). 

 

My list is Super Bowl era, which is what I know, what I'm comfortable with.

 

 

Make your own list!

I don't care if I or anyone else makes a list of what I consider "elite" teams.  By your own criteria, neither Detroit nor Cleveland qualify, as they don't have recent success. I'm just pointing out what I see as the absurdity of your opinion :-)

[goforbroke]

30 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

 

"Invalid" ... really?  How DARE you!

 

Problem is, including the 1950s and early 60s means the Cleveland Browns and Detroit Lions have numerous Championships as well. One criteria I did not mention is there must be some measure of exclusivity.  If half the teams qualify, it's not "elite" by definition (and is therefore invalid). 

 

My list is Super Bowl era, which is what I know, what I'm comfortable with.

 

 

Make your own list!

 

A- if you set criteria specifically to include the Broncos then your criteria is inherently flawed

B - even with your criteria, how could the Packers not make the list? they meet all the criteria and then some.

C- The Seahawks are no where near this list. They have had a lot of success the past decade, but only 1 super bowl and not long sustained success in the Super Bowl era.   If you are going to be a team like that - like the Seahawks where the majority of your success is recent than you better be the Patriots and have had a BUTT LOAD of recent success.

D - If your criteria is only the Super Bowl era, then to be honest some teams don't belong there-- like for example the Giants who have 2 championship "eras" of lets say 5 years but very little success otherwise IN THE SUPER BOWL era. They meet the ownership but what else?

 

CRITERIA

1- Several eras of championship success (Includes pre-super bowl era)

2- nothing else.

*championship success weighed for recent success above past success (for example as you mentioned the Lions and Browns are no longer elite even if they once were)

**successful eras of non-super bowl winning success taken into SMALL account above non-contention (for example the early 90's Bills has a very good era in the early 90's even without a championship. The 49ers had a very good mini era the past few years even without a championship. these eras count slightly better than a team that didnt make the playoffs for 5 years)

 

Packers
Steelers
49ers
Patriots
Giants
Bears

Cowboys

Teams like Lions Browns and Redskins not included because lack of recent success. Patriots included for opposite reason.

[BroncoBuff]

Quote

goforbroke -    if you set criteria specifically to include the Broncos then your criteria is inherently flawed

 

Can't argue with that, you are correct.

 

My mistake was admitting that was my Prime Criteria ....... 

 

However, if my list is INVALID for that reason, then ...............

 

 

Quote

goforbroke - 

CRITERIA

1- Several eras of championship success (Includes pre-super bowl era)

2- nothing else.

*championship success weighed for recent success above past success (for example as you mentioned the Lions and Browns are no longer elite even if they once were)

**successful eras of non-super bowl winning success taken into SMALL account above non-contention (for example the early 90's Bills has a very good era in the early 90's even without a championship. The 49ers had a very good mini era the past few years even without a championship. these eras count slightly better than a team that didnt make the playoffs for 5 years)

 

Packers
Steelers
49ers
Patriots
Giants
Bears

Cowboys

 

. . . shouldn't a set of criteria formulated to EXCLUDE the Broncos also be invalid?

 

I know I know  ...... you never SAID that was a critera, so taking you at your word - which I'm glad to do because you made a list:

 

To the extent your criteria says "Several eras..." then the 49ers and Patriots should be out.  I read your 'addendum' on mini-eras, but I don't believe this recent period constitutes a "mini-era."

 

Good list! But with just one criteria, it's not really an 'Elite List,' but rather a list OF THAT criteria.

 

 

 

[AgentColon2]

...off the rails...