2020 NFL Season week by week uniform match-up combos: From HOF Game to Super Bowl LV

[DCarp1231]

1 hour ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

Those were a holdover from a pre-nike era. Similar to the cowboys. 

Speaking of which, aren’t the Packers the only team left that uses Ripon instead of Nike jersey material?

[SFGiants58]

3 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

The Bills would look so much better with a red helmet.

 

Absolutely not. The red streak gets lost on the old red helmet. Heck, the blue-heavy logo makes the whole thing look too busy. It's an awful helmet that gets too much undue praise.

 

 

The logo really pops and looks amazing on a white helmet. Heck, it was designed for a white helmet!

 

 

 

[CreamSoda]

13 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Absolutely not. The red streak gets lost on the old red helmet. Heck, the blue-heavy logo makes the whole thing look too busy. It's an awful helmet that gets too much undue praise.

 

 

The logo really pops and looks amazing on a white helmet. Heck, it was designed for a white helmet!

 

 

 

 

Meh, the red completes the whole uniform much better. Its too blue and white heavy.  The Jim Kelly era looked vastly superior to either of those uniforms.

 

[SFGiants58]

6 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Meh, the red completes the whole uniform much better. Its too blue and white heavy.  The Jim Kelly era looked vastly superior to either of those uniforms.

 

 

I like the blue/white look a lot more. It's much cleaner than the Jim Kelly set, which has always looked awful to me. The current set and the OJ set are so much better than the gross red helmet.

[CreamSoda]

5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I like the blue/white look a lot more. It's much cleaner than the Jim Kelly set, which has always looked awful to me. The current set and the OJ set are so much better than the gross red helmet.

 

Agree to disagree!  Maybe it is just nostalgia, but the Bills just don't look right to me in this current uniform.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

The red streak gets lost on the old red helmet. 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't say it gets lost. It's perfectly clear in every photo. I've never looked at the red helmet and wondered "Where did the red streak go?"

 

 

If the buffalo were red on a red helmet (with a blue streak), then I'd say there was an issue of a logo getting lost...but not in this case, not with the red streak sandwiched in the big blue logo. 

[Dynasty]

All the red helmet reminds me of is the four straight SB loses.

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

All the red helmet reminds me of is the four straight SB loses.

 

Admittedly, the white helmet comes with the baggage of having an eventual double murderer on the team.

 

 

The Naked Gun movies are a good pallet cleanser after an OJ documentary. Watching him fall victim to slapstick comedy/fictionalized life-threatening injuries is fun! 

[AstroCree]

9 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

All the red helmet reminds me of is the four straight SB loses.

Alternatively, you can say the red helmets were part of 4 straight AFC Championship titles.  

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, insert name said:

Alternatively, you can say the red helmets were part of 4 straight AFC Championship titles.  

 

...when the AFC lost thirteen straight super bowls. When the NFC Championship game was the "real super bowl."

[ManillaToad]

36 minutes ago, insert name said:

Alternatively, you can say the red helmets were part of 4 straight AFC Championship titles.  

 

If this were baseball I'd applaud them on 4 straight pennants, but conference championships really just don't mean much. If I were a Bills fans I'd definitely cope by thinking of the 1964 & '65 AFL titles before I'd celebrate four consolation prizes

[AstroCree]

44 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

...when the AFC lost thirteen straight super bowls. When the NFC Championship game was the "real super bowl."

if you wanna look on negative side of it then go ahead. it was still the most successful period in Bills history.

 

10 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

If this were baseball I'd applaud them on 4 straight pennants, but conference championships really just don't mean much. If I were a Bills fans I'd definitely cope by thinking of the 1964 & '65 AFL titles before I'd celebrate four consolation prizes

Now why does an NL/AL Pennant hold more weight than a Conference Championship when people can view them as the exact same thing? 

[ManillaToad]

33 minutes ago, insert name said:

Now why does an NL/AL Pennant hold more weight than a Conference Championship when people can view them as the exact same thing? 

 

Because the NL and AL were completely separate leagues from 1901-1999. Winning the pennant meant you actually won your league. The NL predates the modern World Series by over 25 years, so the only thing to win for more than two decades was the pennant. From 1903-1961 the only way to reach the WS was by winning a 162-game marathon; there was no postseason beyond the WS. So you've got 16 charter franchises competing amongst each other for 60 years (longer than either half of the NFL's history) for the right to say they won their League.

 

Naturally that will elevate the prestige of winning the league pennant, and that prestige only waned slightly with the introduction of the League Championship Series. It waned further with the Division Series, and took a serious blow with the introduction of the superfluous wild card game. So while the glory of a pennant is cared about less and less as time goes on, the tradition and legacy will always exist.

 

For a tangible example, look at how many MLB teams will celebrate pennant-winning teams that lost the World Series, with things like pre-game ceremonies or various kinds of merch . When have you ever the seen the Bengals trot out the 1981 squad and hand out commemorative rings?The NFL likes to honor their pre-Super Bowl history, yet they almost never acknowledge NFL/AFL championships unless they're talking about the Packers or Bears

[WSU151]

43 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

If I were a Bills fans I'd definitely cope by thinking of the 1964 & '65 AFL titles before I'd celebrate four consolation prizes

 

Do you think every Bills fan is older than 65?

 

It’s easier to remember wins in the ‘90s than AFL wins in the ‘60s. 

[ManillaToad]

On 1/19/2021 at 7:49 PM, WSU151 said:

 

Do you think every Bills fan is older than 65?

 

It’s easier to remember wins in the ‘90s than AFL wins in the ‘60s. 

I've never found it difficult to look fondly on the accomplishments of my favorite teams from before I was born so I (perhaps wrongly) assume everyone else can do the same.

 

I get a lot more satisfaction from watching a video of the Cardinals celebrating winning the 1967 World Series than I do reminiscing on the Rams winning the NFC in 2001

[dont care]

46 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Because the NL and AL were completely separate leagues from 1901-1999. Winning the pennant meant you actually won your league. The NL predates the modern World Series by over 25 years, so the only thing to win for more than two decades was the pennant. From 1903-1961 the only way to reach the WS was by winning a 162-game marathon; there was no postseason beyond the WS. So you've got 16 charter franchises competing amongst each other for 60 years (longer than either half of the NFL's history) for the right to say they won their League.

 

Naturally that will elevate the prestige of winning the league pennant, and that prestige only waned slightly with the introduction of the League Championship Series. It waned further with the Division Series, and took a serious blow with the introduction of the superfluous wild card game. So while the glory of a pennant is cared about less and less as time goes on, the tradition and legacy will always exist.

 

For a tangible example, look at how many MLB teams will celebrate pennant-winning teams that lost the World Series, with things like pre-game ceremonies or various kinds of merch . When have you ever the seen the Bengals trot out the 1981 squad and hand out commemorative rings?The NFL likes to honor their pre-Super Bowl history, yet they almost never acknowledge NFL/AFL championships unless they're talking about the Packers or Bears

You could say the same about the NFL/C championship since it predates the Super Bowl by almost 50 years. AFL/C predates the super bowl by 6 years.

[ManillaToad]

6 minutes ago, dont care said:

You could say the same about the NFL/C championship since it predates the Super Bowl by almost 50 years. AFL/C predates the super bowl by 6 years.

 

We could (and should), but we don't

[gosioux76]

18 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I wouldn't say it gets lost. It's perfectly clear in every photo. I've never looked at the red helmet and wondered "Where did the red streak go?"

 

 

If the buffalo were red on a red helmet (with a blue streak), then I'd say there was an issue of a logo getting lost...but not in this case, not with the red streak sandwiched in the big blue logo. 

 

So when someone says the red streak gets lost on a red helmet, you're interpreting that literally? Because @SFGiants58's point which, in addition to being fairly obvious in meaning, was also a really valid point and one I hadn't really considered before. On this '90s era helmet, the streak is just one more red element in a sea of red. On the white helmet, it becomes a much more prominent feature, giving balance to the whole look.

 

I don't feel that strongly about which helmet I prefer, but the suggestion that the logo displays much better on a white background is 100% true. 

 

I mean, of course a red buffalo on a red helmet would get lost. Who's even suggesting that? 

 

[WSU151]

12 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

So when someone says the red streak gets lost on a red helmet, you're interpreting that literally? Because @SFGiants58's point which, in addition to being fairly obvious in meaning, was also a really valid point and one I hadn't really considered before. On this '90s era helmet, the streak is just one more red element in a sea of red. On the white helmet, it becomes a much more prominent feature, giving balance to the whole look.

 

I don't feel that strongly about which helmet I prefer, but the suggestion that the logo displays much better on a white background is 100% true. 

 

I mean, of course a red buffalo on a red helmet would get lost. Who's even suggesting that? 

 

 

I think it's pretty prominent either way. I don't have an issue with a red streak on a red helmet, because of the direct contrast with the blue. The streak is like 90% sandwiched in the blue buffalo. It's completely obvious what it is.  It's not a red streak on a sea of red. I don't see it as "getting lost". 

 

I don't think the white helmet is bad, I just prefer the red helmet. 

[SportsFan12]

I'd welcome a red helmet on the Bills simply because they look too similar to the Colts and Giants currently. There isn't really a team that embraces red and blue evenly anymore. Maybe the Giants do between the home and road set, but we don't have a team that wears red AND blue elements together regularly.