Titans: No Oilers Throwback Uniform Until NFL Changes Rules

[Jungle Jim]

Two thoughts on Amy Adams' statement:

 

1.  You're stating something that all informed NFL fans already know.

2.  What was the excuse from 1999 to 2017?

[C-Squared]

35 minutes ago, Jungle Jim said:

Two thoughts on Amy Adams' statement:

 

1.  You're stating something that all informed NFL fans already know.

2.  What was the excuse from 1999 to 2017?

 

Probably didn't want to muddy the rebrand by using the exact brand they were trying to replace... their "state-mandated" '09 throwbacks were great, though.

 

Now that the Titans brand is two generations removed from the Oilers (and considering how garish they now look), a simple, true-to-form throwback would be great!

[tBBP]

23 hours ago, mafiaman said:

Is there THAT big of a movement in Tennessee to wear Oilers stuff?  

 

In a word: no. Read on...

 

22 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

They've worn Oilers gear before, and they sell Oilers throwback merch. I don't know if it's extremely popular, but it seems to be reasonably popular amongst the Tennessee fanbase.

 

Regardless? It's the Titans' history. They even played as the Oilers in Tennessee, so you don't even have a clear dividing line where you can say all of the Oilers' history belongs in Houston. It's the Titans', and will likely remain that way.

 

First, the bolded. Having lived in Nashville the past five years, I can tell y'all this: Barely anyone around town cares about the Oilers identity. (Much of that can be attributed to Nashville being transient Central these days, but still...) The Pro Shop at the stadium sells some Oilers stuff (or at least they did, last time I was in there about a year ago--& even then it was just some 47 Brand caps and t-shirts), but you'd be extremely hard-pressed to see anyone wearing any Oilers stuff out around town. Speaking of the stadium, there's exactly one wall in one of the corridors dedicated to their Oilers history--that's it. So while the organization does acknowledge their Oilers history, suffice it to say that--nah, Nashville really doesn't care much if at all about it.

 

Quote

 

Honestly? If I had my way? I'd ditch the Titans brand entirely. Just be the Tennessee Oilers. Why not?
 

 

 

Well I can give you three reasons:

 

For one, the alliteration sounds good. 

 

For two, Tennessee's not particularly known for oil production, barons, or wildcatters. (Again, .)

 

For three, this upcoming season will be their 21st season as the Titans--they're old enough to legally drink now! (Um, ahem....) Seriously though, that means now, just like Jacksonville, an entire generation has now been born and grown up knowing and seeing their team--in this case, as the Tennessee Titans--while older generations are, well, "crossing over to the other side". And to quote a half-bar by Jay-Z, "time don't go back, it goes forward". So while many in Texas and older generations certainly lost one, many in Tennessee and younger generations, and some who chose/choose to follow the franchise, gained one. (And if that reference missed you, don't worry about trying to catch it. Lol)

 

And that segues nicely into another point that may spark some nerves, and is one I'm finding myself challenged with right now. This whole fiasco with the Oilers/Titans (& to a certain extent other relocated franchises as well) really illustrates the problem we humans have with letting...things..go, especially of the past. I'm telling you, we'd need much happier and much less stressed people if we can just learn to honor and respect the past, but accept and embrace the present. I know that's gonna jostle some people, but think about it. In regards to this, the people of Houston and whatever fans the Oilers had outside Houston lost their team/identity...many with no personal connection to Houston are crowing louder about the Oilers than people in Houston are! (And I'm in the weird position of having a personal tie to both Houston and Nashville, so perhaps I see all this from a unique perspective.)

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, Jungle Jim said:

2.  What was the excuse from 1999 to 2017?

They wore Oilers throwbacks in that timeframe. 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Buc said:

For two, Tennessee's not particularly known for oil production, barons, or wildcatters. (Again, .)

That’s fair, but we also live in a world with the Utah Jazz, Los Angeles Lakers, and Indianapolis Colts. I think if these examples have worked out due to longevity than hypothetically the Tennessee Oilers would be fine given a long enough passage of time. 

 

For me it’s a matter of just preferring the Oilers to the Titans as far as brand goes. The Titans’ identity was never that strong in my opinion, and it lost a lot of lustre once its turn of the millennium stylings grew dated. The recent redo could have refreshed the Titans’ brand but it only made it worse. Saved only by the Bucs’ clownsuits when it comes to “worse in the league” standings. 

 

While people do tend to overrate the Oiler’s brand, I think it’s far stronger than anything the Titans have trotted out in years. And its main drawback- its overall simplicity- is excusable given their “charter AFL member” status. 

I get that at the time the two “Tennessee Oilers” seasons weren’t the most popular but I think going back to it could be done. Especially if the Titans brand continues to be plagued by underwhelming football. 

 

1 hour ago, Buc said:

This whole fiasco with the Oilers/Titans (& to a certain extent other relocated franchises as well) really illustrates the problem we humans have with letting...things..go, especially of the past. I'm telling you, we'd need much happier and much less stressed people if we can just learn to honor and respect the past, but accept and embrace the present.

Thing is though? If the discussion isn’t “maybe the Titans could be the Oilers again/wear Oilers throwbacks” it’s “the Texans should be the Oilers!” 

The entire thing is rooted in people looking to embrace the past. If not in Tennessee then people in Houston who can’t accept that the NFL team that plays there now never was the Oilers and never will be the Oilers.   

 

In so far as Jay-Z goes? I think part of the problem of modern sports design is an inability to go "that old look was pretty good, maybe we ought to bring it back?" The need to fiddle can result in cleaning up a great old look, but it can also stop teams from doing the obvious and just reverting back to a superior design.

I mean I have no nostalgic connection to the Oilers. They've been the Titans for most of my time as a football fan. I just think the Oilers brand is better than anything the Titans have rolled out. I'm not looking to obsess over the past, I just think the Oilers have a better look. I don't think it's fair to write that off as failing to embrace the present.

 

1 hour ago, Buc said:

For three, this upcoming season will be their 21st season as the Titans--they're old enough to legally drink now! (Um, ahem....) Seriously though, that means now, just like Jacksonville, an entire generation has now been born and grown up knowing and seeing their team--in this case, as the Tennessee Titans

This is a good point, however, and it’s one I’ve used to defend the Raptors against suggestions that they should be the Huskies. 

[The_Admiral]

My stance, as I've said a thousand times, is that there shouldn't be a relocated Houston Oilers team to have this conversation about in the first place. Relocations blow, and the Oilers' was a particularly disgraceful one.

[Gothamite]

That’s fair, but we also have to deal with what is.

 

it would be nice to live in the parallel dimension with the Brooklyn Dodgers and Milwaukee Braves and LA Rams.     But we live in the darkest timeline.

[SFGiants58]

20 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

That’s fair, but we also have to deal with what is.

 

it would be nice to live in the parallel dimension with the Brooklyn Dodgers and Milwaukee Braves and LA Rams.     But we live in the darkest timeline.

 

That timeline has the Minneapolis Giants and the Dodgers playing in Flushing Meadows.

 

 

Also, you want dark?

 

 

How’s that for dark? 

 

P.S. If Tennessee Oilers was fine, then the same goes for Denver Pirates. A rebranding in both cases would be ideal, but an awkward name can suffice.

[Gothamite]

The point is that in this timeline, there isn’t any relocation.  So Stoneham doesn’t run away from his problems, he doubles down and rebuilds the baseball culture in northern Manhattan.  And all of those other concepts seem as ludicrous to the residents of that timeline as they do in ours.  

[SFGiants58]

16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The point is that in this timeline, there isn’t any relocation.  So Stoneham doesn’t run away from his problems, he doubles down and rebuilds the baseball culture in northern Manhattan.  And all of those other concepts seem as ludicrous to the residents of that timeline as they do in ours.  

 

Are the Browns still stewing in St. Louis, eternally in the Cardinals’ shadow?

 

If anything, the concepts show how things could be darker. Besides, you listed the Milwaukee Braves, not their Boston predecessors. 

[Gothamite]

27 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Are the Browns still stewing in St. Louis, eternally in the Cardinals’ shadow?

 

If anything, the concepts show how things could be darker. Besides, you listed the Milwaukee Braves, not their Boston predecessors. 

 

Hell, the first quarter-century the Browns were the more popular team in St. Louis.  I’m not sure that under better ownership the Cardinals wouldn’t have forever been in their shadow. 

 

And I tend to exempt the Braves from “relocation is bad” conversations only because of how profoundly unwanted they were in Boston.  When they moved during Spring Training of 1953, they had to refund their season ticket holders.  All 26 of them.  

 

Or maybe the Browns would have stayed in Milwaukee and the Braves wouldn’t have moved away and the Cream City would been a two-team town.  Which makes this an odd timeline at least.   

 

[SFGiants58]

23 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And I tend to exempt the Braves from “relocation is bad” conversations only because of how profoundly unwanted they were in Boston.  When they moved during Spring Training of 1953, they had to refund their season ticket holders.  All 26 of them.  

 

Or maybe the Browns would have stayed in Milwaukee and the Braves wouldn’t have moved away and the Cream City would been a two-team town.  Which makes this an odd timeline at least.   

 

 

NOW you’re taking my language! I’m also sure that in this timeline the Milwaukee PD’s greatest contribution to society won several Oscars:

 

 

On a serious note, some relocations are good ones.

 

It was the right call to move two established teams out west to properly expand baseball beyond the East/Midwest. Two expansion teams or an integrated PCL wouldn’t have worked as well, especially with how terrible the 1961/62 expansion teams were in their first few years.

 

The Browns were right to escape St. Louis and establish themselves in Baltimore. The Chiefs leaving Dallas was good for the league in the long run, as was the Flames moving to Calgary. I don’t think many people would argue that the Thrashers’ departure was such a great loss.

 

Besides, relocation has given us so many amazing identities. The Ravens, the original Titans, the Avs, the Texans, the Brewers, and the new Jets are all products of relocation. The Texans and the 1999-2018 Titans have infinitely better designs than the Oilers. I’d also take the Avs’ restoration of their original design over any of the Nordiques’ offerings.

[Gothamite]

[MilSox]

I like the alt history scenarios where Bill Veeck is allowed to move the Browns back to Milwaukee. The Dodgers play in a dome on Flatbush Ave, and the PCL does declare itself the third major league (though every scenario I've come up with still ends with those teams folded into the other leagues).

[SFGiants58]

27 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Only the greatest police training video ever! It fuels abusive paranoia, features decent gore effects, and showcases the thickest midwestern accents this side of American Movie!

 

 

11 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I like the alt history scenarios where Bill Veeck is allowed to move the Browns back to Milwaukee. The Dodgers play in a dome on Flatbush Ave, and the PCL does declare itself the third major league (though every scenario I've come up with still ends with those teams folded into the other leagues).

 

I like that too, especially since it kind of parallels MLS’ current expansion pattern. However, we still get the Minneapolis Giants in that timeline, which irks me a little. 

[The_Admiral]

Okay but Congress still should have been right up the NFL's ass for violating the terms of the antitrust exemption and allowing any of those 26 teams to relocate. (Maybe an exception for the St. Louis Football Cardinals. No one likes St. Louis and no one likes the Cardinals.)

[Joe Kane]

Players frequently change their helmets throughout the season so it's odd the NFL still puts up this front as if its a safety precaution.

[Sec19Row53]

23 minutes ago, Joe Kane said:

Players frequently change their helmets throughout the season so it's odd the NFL still puts up this front as if its a safety precaution.

For the nth time:

 

A player can choose to change helmets and that isn't the NFL's fault. If the NFL mandates a second helmet, it is their legal responsibility.  How is this so effing hard to understand?!?!

[Joe Kane]

19 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

For the nth time:

 

A player can choose to change helmets and that isn't the NFL's fault. If the NFL mandates a second helmet, it is their legal responsibility.  How is this so effing hard to understand?!?!

 

Take a breath. 

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, Joe Kane said:

 

Take a breathe. 

"breath".