Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[OldRamsFan]

39 minutes ago, throwmesomepics said:

The thing is that with those throwbacks, there would be mismatching eras. If two classic franchises had a throwback game, it could work. But otherwise it would be a 50s fauxback vs the Seahawks in wolf grey.

Well yeah, they are from different years (1940 and 1945), but they have the same style/look. I don't understand the Seahawks wolf gray comment. Would you please dumb it down for me?

[OldRamsFan]

21 minutes ago, dont care said:

Also look far too similar to packers throwbacks

That they do. Do the Packers still use them, I wonder?

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

I presume that's a reference to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which chose to feature in its coverage of the move a very measured opinion piece headlined "Stop Whining, LA".

 

The Rams are vanished, headed to the Midwest, and in Southern California they are in the early throes of a hot-blooded tantrum. Some rather vitriolic analysis is coming over the transom as angry journalists and bitter team boosters accuse the Rams of treason and other high crimes.

What an interesting snippet in light of how St. Louis fans reacted when the Rams returned home.

[ramsjetsthunder]

24 minutes ago, OldRamsFan said:

Well yeah, they are from different years (1940 and 1945), but they have the same style/look. I don't understand the Seahawks wolf gray comment. Would you please dumb it down for me?

I believe he is saying that a 40s throwback would not match well with modern opponents, specifically the Seattle Seahawks.

[DCarp1231]

3 hours ago, Digby said:

Lurker to mod in one post flat ... that's legendary hustle.

Probably how he felt-

[Ridleylash]

1 minute ago, DNAsports said:

Probably how he felt-

I'll bet he was blasting Ode to Joy as he joined the boards.

[OldRamsFan]

17 minutes ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

I believe he is saying that a 40s throwback would not match well with modern opponents, specifically the Seattle Seahawks.

Okey doke, I understand now. Thanks!

[AndrewMLind]

1 hour ago, throwmesomepics said:

The thing is that with those throwbacks, there would be mismatching eras. If two classic franchises had a throwback game, it could work. But otherwise it would be a 50s fauxback vs the Seahawks in wolf grey.

We see college and professional teams wear throwback uniforms all the time without regard for what the other team is wearing. Modern templates and equipment would make it seem less out of place, as well. 

[throwmesomepics]

4 minutes ago, AndrewMLind said:

We see college and professional teams wear throwback uniforms all the time without regard for what the other team is wearing. Modern templates and equipment would make it seem less out of place, as well. 

That is true, but personally, I believe that throwbacks look better when paired against other throwbacks.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

that article seemed a little unnecessary. There’s always the other side of things when a city gains a team through relocation, but honestly, the fans don’t - and shouldn’t - care about the other side, and it’s best for everyone to just focus on what’s ahead. I wouldn’t revel in another city’s hard feelings. As a fan, I’d probably put my head in the sand and just try to pretend the team was brand new (another reason I think most (not all) teams should change their name when they move). 
 

Regardless, the fans had nothing to do with it, and losing a team, even in a lousy market, hurts some people hard.

 

it’s beyond immature to accuse another city’s fans of “stealing” a team. They had nothing to do with it, and hey - put yourself (not literally you) in your shoes - would you say “no, sorry we don’t want someone else’s team”. Of course not. You’d be like “sweet! We have NFL football!”

 

It’s really petty to say “I don’t feel anything for those people.”  They’re people just like anyone else, and just collateral damage. Be mad at the execs, but stop it with this fan v fan stuff. 

 

Counterpoint: I've been pretty happy with the OKC Thunder's successive failures year over year.

[sky1324]

33 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Counterpoint: I've been pretty happy with the OKC Thunder's successive failures year over year.

Even though I'm not from Seattle, I agree, seeing OKC fall is wonderful. That entire team is marked with the stain of Clay Bennett and his underhanded tactics to quite literally steal the Sonics away from Seattle (by the way, Sonicsgate is a great documentary and I highly recommend it). An NBA team in OKC is fine, but they way it happened is awful and both cities deserve better. Can't wait until the Sonics return.

 

Of course, this extends to the Pelicans for me. George Shinn is a piece of  and the move out of Charlotte was similarly underhanded and grimy, even if the primary motive was fans didn't come to games because the owner was human garbage. I've got nothing against Pelicans fans inherently (Saints fans, on the other hand) but the Hornets never should've moved and I will forever stand by that fact.

[BBTV]

55 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Counterpoint: I've been pretty happy with the OKC Thunder's successive failures year over year.

 

I wasn't clear enough.  I was speaking more from the perspective of the fan base gaining the team, rather than the one losing it. Obviously people feel some pain, and it's natural for many to hate the organization and revel in their failures, just don't hate on the fans - they did no wrong.  I meant the fan base receiving the team should just focus on their gain and the team movingforward, and not the other's loss. 

[hawk36]

1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I wasn't clear enough.  I was speaking more from the perspective of the fan base gaining the team, rather than the one losing it. Obviously people feel some pain, and it's natural for many to hate the organization and revel in their failures, just don't hate on the fans - they did no wrong.  I meant the fan base receiving the team should just focus on their gain and the team movingforward, and not the other's loss. 

And this is EXACTLY why when teams move, they should be required to re-brand and leave the old brand with the city it left, especially when they are historic franchises in the city. There are a few exceptions of course (Rams back to LA or Raiders back to Oakland). But if I have to say anything good about the OKC organization, it's that they didn't steal the name too. Still I hate everything about that franchise with a passion.

[BBTV]

5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

And this is EXACTLY why when teams move, they should be required to re-brand and leave the old brand with the city it left, especially when they are historic franchises in the city. There are a few exceptions of course (Rams back to LA or Raiders back to Oakland). But if I have to say anything good about the OKC organization, it's that they didn't steal the name too. Still I hate everything about that franchise with a passion.

 

This is how I feel too, but I'm a little torn because we'd've lost iconic brands like the Dodgers, and other long-running ones like the A's.  As a kid, I thought it was cool to look up pictures of the Dodgers in Brooklyn, the A's in KC and Phila, the Giants in NY, etc.  But then you have the Colts, who probably should have changed and left behind, though there's certainly no guarantee of the jilted city getting a team back for decades, if ever at all.

 

I've mostly come full circle on the Cleveland deal.  Every team that moves should have their franchise 'retired' or 'held in abeyance', and then be given a new one that makes them a 'legally' different team.  Then if a team moves to the old city or there's expansion, the franchise is 'reactivated' (unless the team chooses to start totally anew) and that team becomes the 'legal successor' of the original team.  It defies continuity and lineage, but in a way makes it easier because you don't have a Ravens player breaking a team record that was set by a Browns player.

 

I remember ripping someone to pieces - I mean literally, I think he PMd me crying or something - for making that exact point.  And now here we are.

[dont care]

2 hours ago, OldRamsFan said:

That they do. Do the Packers still use them, I wonder?

They were going to drop them this year and switch to another. Sounds like they are waiting for the 2 helmet rule though so they might wear them again this year. Regardless it’s too soon to wear virtually the exact same uniform other than pants.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

13 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

This is how I feel too, but I'm a little torn because we'd've lost iconic brands like the Dodgers, and other long-running ones like the A's.  As a kid, I thought it was cool to look up pictures of the Dodgers in Brooklyn, the A's in KC and Phila, the Giants in NY, etc.  But then you have the Colts, who probably should have changed and left behind, though there's certainly no guarantee of the jilted city getting a team back for decades, if ever at all.

 

I've mostly come full circle on the Cleveland deal.  Every team that moves should have their franchise 'retired' or 'held in abeyance', and then be given a new one that makes them a 'legally' different team.  Then if a team moves to the old city or there's expansion, the franchise is 'reactivated' (unless the team chooses to start totally anew) and that team becomes the 'legal successor' of the original team.  It defies continuity and lineage, but in a way makes it easier because you don't have a Ravens player breaking a team record that was set by a Browns player.

 

I remember ripping someone to pieces - I mean literally, I think he PMd me crying or something - for making that exact point.  And now here we are.

 

I always preface these conversations in my mind with "it's sports so who really cares," which to me makes having logical consistency less important. I.e., it's okay that Los Angeles got the Dodgers name and also okay that Cleveland kept the Browns.

Some franchises never quite click in their initial markets, so it's no great shame that they take their team name with them: Vancouver --> Memphis Grizzlies, or Atlanta --> Calgary Flames.

 

Other franchises have a ton of equity with local fan bases and were moved because of dickhead owners and/or late-stage capitalism, so it's good the names stayed with the initial markets: Cleveland Browns, Seattle SuperSonics

 

What's left are the edge cases, where the support on either side isn't exactly clear so you can default to what makes the most sense: LA --> St. Louis --> LA Rams, Charlotte Hornets --> New Orleans Hornets --> New Orleans Pelicans, sad market --> Charlotte Bobcats --> Charlotte Hornets.

 

You can make a case why each of these scenarios work best for each affected market and I think that's just fine.

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, OldRamsFan said:

That they do. Do the Packers still use them, I wonder?

The Lambeau blues were supposed to be replaced with a new throwback this year, but the Packers pushed it back to 2021.  No idea if they’ll wear the alts this year. 

[HoopsCoach55]

1 hour ago, QCS said:

Even though I'm not from Seattle, I agree, seeing OKC fall is wonderful. That entire team is marked with the stain of Clay Bennett and his underhanded tactics to quite literally steal the Sonics away from Seattle (by the way, Sonicsgate is a great documentary and I highly recommend it). An NBA team in OKC is fine, but they way it happened is awful and both cities deserve better. Can't wait until the Sonics return.

 

Of course, this extends to the Pelicans for me. George Shinn is a piece of  and the move out of Charlotte was similarly underhanded and grimy, even if the primary motive was fans didn't come to games because the owner was human garbage. I've got nothing against Pelicans fans inherently (Saints fans, on the other hand) but the Hornets never should've moved and I will forever stand by that fact.

As an Oklahoman with family working in the Thunder organization..... We weren't really thrilled with how it happened either. It always felt like Bennett was going to take the franchise from Seattle no-matter-what, and most Okies never felt that was right. Obviously, we love that we have the Thunder, but just about nobody here considers anything in Sonics history to be Thunder history, no matter what they say on TV. Westbrook or Harden are the two players considered the First Draft Picks in franchise history, not anyone from Seattle. Speaking for myself, I desperately want the Sonics back, because that will be one hell of a rivalry, and also to push OKC into the SW division with the Texas teams and New Orleans. Just add a second team in the West and send Memphis to the Eastern Conference.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I always preface these conversations in my mind with "it's sports so who really cares,"

 

True 'dat.  It's essentially pro wrestling, no matter how much people want to romanticize the old days "when it was a game".

 

I've never lived in an area that had a team move to it, but I can't really think of many teams who's identities I'd want.  LIke if the St. Louis Blues moved here, would I really want the Philadelphia Blues, and wear a modified St. L Blues sweater?  Or the Philadelphia Jaguars?  It's like dating a girl that has kids that aren't yours.  Yeah, you learn to love them, but you know they're really someone else's.  I'd rather the team just start fresh as the Philadelphia Mother Fers or something totally new.  That way it's my kids, and not her scummy-abusive ex's.

 

 

[colortv]

NFL schedule release is Thursday, has a uniform other than the Rams been revealed before the schedule release in recent memory?