NFL changes 2019

[goforbroke]

10 hours ago, NicDB said:

The last of the small market teams folded in the early 1930s.  Other than Green Bay, obviously.  But even they began playing home games in Milwaukee during that time.

As far as your argument that the playing style back then was too different.  If that's the case, we shouldn't count anything from before 1978 when the pass interference rules were changed.  Or maybe the 1990s because that's when the west coast offense and zone blitz defenses became common.  And I'm sure they'll say the same in 20 years about the current era because hits and tackles that were perfectly legal 5-10 years ago are banned now.

 

Yeah there's def different eras you certainly don't reset your history with every evolution. But I do think the merger / super bowl era is a good line to separate the NFL into the modern era. So I think that's a more important anniversary than  the 100th overall season.   And the NFL sometimes pretends that it was two different leagues, and in a lot of ways it is.  The Post-merger NFL as a whole is very different from the pre-merger as a whole, so I personally don't mind when the NFL pretends that's when their history started.

[joey joe joe jr. shabadoo]

4 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I wouldn't consider the Arizona Cardinals a charter member. Yes, technically they are, but in reality each time they move they forfeit their status and start over as a franchise in my book. City and Team really need to remain consistent for true historical status. 

 

That makes no sense. You aren't reborn whenever you move to a new city. They are the exact same franchise that was founded in 1920. There has never been a break in that lineage. History is carried with you just as players, coaches, scouting staff, ownership, management travel with you to the new city. 

[oldschoolvikings]

4 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I wouldn't consider the Arizona Cardinals a charter member. Yes, technically they are, but in reality each time they move they forfeit their status and start over as a franchise in my book.

 

I think you're the only one who owns that book.

[BBTV]

14 minutes ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

 

That makes no sense. You aren't reborn whenever you move to a new city. They are the exact same franchise that was founded in 1920. There has never been a break in that lineage. History is carried with you just as players, coaches, scouting staff, ownership, management travel with you to the new city. 

 

Legally, on paper, and by any objective measure, yes.  That's indisputable*.  That doesn't mean that emotionally or intangibly via subjective measures that's the case.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for a person to decide that for themselves, the Arizona Cardinals are not the same as the Chicago Cardinals.  When you go back and look at the original league charter, you won't see the Arizona Cardinals there.  Obviously it is the same team and same franchise, but do most people in Chicago consider it their team?  Or St. Louis?

 

 

*the Cleveland / Baltimore deal really screwed this up and made it disputable, but that's a one two three off.

[FightingGoldenDevil]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Legally, on paper, and by any objective measure, yes.  That's indisputable*.  That doesn't mean that emotionally or intangibly via subjective measures that's the case.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for a person to decide that for themselves, the Arizona Cardinals are not the same as the Chicago Cardinals.  When you go back and look at the original league charter, you won't see the Arizona Cardinals there.  Obviously it is the same team and same franchise, but do most people in Chicago consider it their team?  Or St. Louis?

 

 

*the Cleveland / Baltimore deal really screwed this up and made it disputable, but that's a one two three off.

It's obviously harder when teams change their name like the Ravens and Titans did. But people accept that the Baltimore and Indianapolis Colts are the same team, the Cleveland, St. Louis, and LA Rams are the same team, The LA and San Diego Chargers are the same team, and most notably in everyone's mind, The Oakland, LA, and Las Vegas Raiders are the same team. Saying a team resets when they move means there's no charter members left because both the Cardinals and Bears have relocated

[oldschoolvikings]

7 hours ago, goforbroke said:

 

But why??  What are you honoring? A terrible team that no cares about, that won like 5 games over 5 years?    To me thats way worse than when the Jets would throwback to the Titans... at least there's SOME legacy to that .. its the same team, and its a throwback to the original name.  Even the Toronto Raptors playing as the Huskies makes a tiny bit more sense... its the same city and that team played in the first NBA game.   But even still... it just SCREAMS lets sell some different jerseys.

 

Especially on these boards when we kill teams for black for black sake... why should teams wear throwback for throwback sake?  When you throwback you should be honoring something and have a reason.  Why honor a terrible team and barely won a game.. just because they had a pretty cool name?

 

 

OK, let's clear a few things up here...

 

Firstly, they weren't a terrible team that no one cares about... I've already mentioned I care. And in their 5 years of existence, the Duluth Eskimos (who began as the Duluth Kelleys) went 16 - 20 - 3.  Not great by any measure, but I think it's safe to say the Browns, Jets, Raiders, and Niners would have loved to have only lost about half of their last 39 games.

 

Secondly, there actually is a reason the Vikings might have to honor them.  This following bit is from the Eskimos' Wikipedia page;

 

"In 1927, owner Ole Haugsrud sold the team back to the league at the end of the season. When Haugsrud did this, part of the deal gave him first rights for any future NFL team in Minnesota. When the NFL voted to expand in 1960 to the Twin Cities, Haugsrud was able to buy 10% of the Minnesota Vikings"

 

So there you go... shared ownership.  A more than good enough reason IMO for the Vikings to establish a connection to the Eskimos.

 

And lastly there's this, also from Wikipedia... "A distinction of the Eskimos is they were one of the first NFL teams to use a logo."   So it isn't "just because they had a cool name"... they really didn't.  It's because they had a cool logo.  And need I mention why this board should find that so important?

 

 

[dont care]

41 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

OK, let's clear a few things up here...

 

Firstly, they weren't a terrible team that no one cares about... I've already mentioned I care. And in their 5 years of existence, the Duluth Eskimos (who began as the Duluth Kelleys) went 16 - 20 - 3.  Not great by any measure, but I think it's safe to say the Browns, Jets, Raiders, and Niners would have loved to have only lost about half of their last 39 games.

 

Secondly, there actually is a reason the Vikings might have to honor them.  This following bit is from the Eskimos' Wikipedia page;

 

"In 1927, owner Ole Haugsrud sold the team back to the league at the end of the season. When Haugsrud did this, part of the deal gave him first rights for any future NFL team in Minnesota. When the NFL voted to expand in 1960 to the Twin Cities, Haugsrud was able to buy 10% of the Minnesota Vikings"

 

So there you go... shared ownership.  A more than good enough reason IMO for the Vikings to establish a connection to the Eskimos.

 

And lastly there's this, also from Wikipedia... "A distinction of the Eskimos is they were one of the first NFL teams to use a logo."   So it isn't "just because they had a cool name"... they really didn't.  It's because they had a cool logo.  And need I mention why this board should find that so important?

 

 

This board isn’t the general public, and the fact that only a few of us even know about the eskimos (and it took someone else actually reminding us) says a lot. Such a small percentage of the regular fan base wants an eskimos throwback by any team, or a triangles or what ever other team happened to exist at that time that it doesn’t make sense for the league and Nike to even bother to make the uniforms.

[andrewharrington]

46 minutes ago, dont care said:

This board isn’t the general public, and the fact that only a few of us even know about the eskimos (and it took someone else actually reminding us) says a lot. Such a small percentage of the regular fan base wants an eskimos throwback by any team, or a triangles or what ever other team happened to exist at that time that it doesn’t make sense for the league and Nike to even bother to make the uniforms.

 

The general public doesn’t know about the Eskimos, so they don’t know that they want to see an Eskimos throwback yet.

[IceCap]

15 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I wouldn't consider the Arizona Cardinals a charter member. Yes, technically they are, but in reality each time they move they forfeit their status and start over as a franchise in my book. City and Team really need to remain consistent for true historical status. 

Nope.

Besides, the current ownership stretches back to the days in Chicago. It's one of the few things that date back to their original locale.

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

The general public doesn’t know about the Eskimos, so they don’t know that they want to see an Eskimos throwback yet.

 

Which is actually true of most throwbacks.  Few people know about that chapter in history before they see it on the field. 

[AnPheitseog]

All depends on how they want to perceive themselves.

 

Colts are the same team, as are the Cardinals , Dodgers, giants and similiar.

 

Change the name, and it's a new team to me. The Orioles started in 1954, and all relevant history starts then for that team. 

 

Ravens are the same (ignoring the legal fact they are two seperate franchises).

 

The titans are the only weirdos

[WavePunter]

19 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

All depends on how they want to perceive themselves.

 

Colts are the same team, as are the Cardinals , Dodgers, giants and similiar.

 

Change the name, and it's a new team to me. The Orioles started in 1954, and all relevant history starts then for that team. 

 

Ravens are the same (ignoring the legal fact they are two seperate franchises).

 

The titans are the only weirdos

I typically agree to a certain extent, but I feel like the Orioles are a unique case.. they took a regionally relevant name (in more ways than one) and kept a similar color scheme.. as an Orioles fan myself, I have a soft spot for the Browns' history.. in the same vein, I could let it go for the rebirth of the Browns though, if there was another expansion granted to St Louis

[Teal]

I know this is a 2019 thread but the Browns, Rams and Panthers are getting new sets in 2020. 

[FightingGoldenDevil]

1 hour ago, Teal said:

I know this is a 2019 thread but the Browns, Rams and Panthers are getting new sets in 2020. 

Any info on what they might look like or just heard that it's happening?

[Teal]

Edit - please delete. 

[tigerraven]

Browns are rumored to be changing to a white helmet.

[dont care]

1 minute ago, tigerraven said:

Browns are rumored to be changing to a white helmet.

Theyre not, that’s the one thing they didn’t touch last redesign, they don’t want the fan base to riot

[tigerraven]

they definitely changed the orange and added a textured pattern to the stripe.  Just sayin..

[-Akronite-]

2 hours ago, tigerraven said:

they definitely changed the orange and added a textured pattern to the stripe.  Just sayin..

 

Those are tweaks, not complete re-designs. It's not outside the realm of possibility but they'd be stupid to drop the ONE consistent piece of the brand that no one needs to change.

[pepis21]

7 hours ago, Teal said:

I know this is a 2019 thread but the Browns, Rams and Panthers are getting new sets in 2020. 

 

I'm curious what happens if opening of Rams new stadium is postponed to 2021? Because IIRC their rebrand was depend of that. They'll unveil new look or wait?