NFL 2020

[Brian in Boston]

28 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Hey that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinions! I couldn’t agree to disagree more!  

 

If only our nation - indeed, the world - could come together like this! 

[DCarp1231]

 

[Jojopeligreeno]

Any truth to rumors of Cardinals changing uniforms for next year? When the face of the franchise goes on record to say he doesn’t like the uniforms and they are dated I would say that might be something to keep an eye on .

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Jojopeligreeno said:

Any truth to rumors of Cardinals changing uniforms for next year? When the face of the franchise goes on record to say he doesn’t like the uniforms and they are dated I would say that might be something to keep an eye on .

 

What rumor?

[FinsUp1214]

I don’t recall any Cardinals rumors posted. The only Cardinals news is that Murray doesn’t like the uniforms, but nothing’s been said about the Cardinals actually changing anything, or even considering a change. 

[Chundrew]

Anyone know if the 49ers are gonna continue to wear the '94 throwbacks?

[beachperroAZ]

On 4/28/2020 at 3:59 PM, Brian in Boston said:

I couldn't agree less.

To the "ship has sailed" argument against the Arizona Cardinals changing up their look, I say, "Malarkey!"

It's been said that the one constant in life is change. That's true even in the world of sports branding. The looks of professional sports franchises change. This is a fact. The logos, colors, design elements of the uniforms... they're all subject to change. Sometimes the changes accompany new ownership taking the helm of the franchise. Sometimes the changes go hand-in-hand with relocation to a new market. Sometimes the changes are meant to put the specter of a losing era behind a team. Sometimes the changes are made with little more than  an eye towards stimulating the sale of licensed product. Sometimes the changes take place fairly early in a team's existence, sometimes after decades have passed. Frankly, the reasons for sports branding changes are beside the point. 

There was a time when the Green Bay Packers opting to wear green actually constituted a break with tradition. There were years in which the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, and Los Angeles Rams donned red. The "Orange Crush" nickname wouldn't have made any sense in Denver in the early 1960s. There were seasons when the San Francisco 49ers were decked out in red and silver, while the Oakland Raiders were taking the field in black and athletic gold. And, in the wake of the Patriots unveiling new uniforms last week, there were members of this community wondering why the team didn't take the opportunity to return red to a place of prominence in their palette. After all, hadn't the Pats placed the color front-and-center in their identity for more than three decades?

As for the Cardinals, they've worn jerseys in at least five different shades of red over their 100-plus years. Trotted out blue jerseys in at least 18 seasons, as well. Plus, white jerseys and a decade's worth of black alternate jerseys. Helmets? They've been primarily white, but the Cards also donned a number of different shades of solid red helmets, as well as lids that combined red with either white or gray. Hell, they sported red helmets as late as 1957. And for those who would bemoan the prospect of tan and/or gray being "introduced" into the Cardinals' color palette, please understand that is "the ship that  has sailed". If a pro football franchise has been kicking around for anywhere close to a century, it is a virtual certainty that said team's players sported some shade of beige/ecru/eggshell/khaki/tan or gray pants during - at the very least - the first decade of the club's existence. The Cardinals? They had 17 NFL seasons under their belts before said belts were holding up white knickers. And there were a dozen years when striping/piping of tan or gray appeared on their jerseys.

Now, with regard to the "massive achievement" that is the Cardinals' 100-plus years of existence... well, it is and it isn't. Yes, the franchise's lineage as a business entity traces back to the team that took the field in Chicago, Illinois in 1920. And the longevity of the franchise should be recognized. I'm sure there are NFL history buffs who do just that. Still, the heart is only going to race so fast while cheering, "Hey, check out the date on this franchise certificate!"  

The Cardinals are a team that has twice pulled-up stakes and relocated. It wasn't a franchise covered in glory that opted to move from Chicago to St. Louis. It was a team on the verge of bankruptcy. A team that had mustered a record of 155-258-25 over 40 seasons. A team that had a disputed, "named" NFL Championship in 1925 to its credit. A team whose 1947 and '48 seasons - which, admittedly, included a legitimate NFL championship win in '47 - were the lone true bright points in the midst of a moribund 40-year run, 27 under Bidwill Family ownership. When owner Violet Bidwill - who'd been left the team upon her husband's death - remarried to a St. Louis businessman, the writing was on the wall. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Exit, pursued by 'Da Bears'"... who'd long since overshadowed the Cardinals. 

It wasn't a triumphant franchise that ditched St. Louis for the Valley of the Sun. The team was the second-most beloved Cardinals franchise in St. Louis from the get-go. Barely five years into their tenure in St. Louis, Bill and Charles "Sonny" Bidwill - unhappy with playing second-fiddle to the baseball Cardinals in the hearts and minds of local fans, as well as growing tired of Sportsman's Park as a venue - were already rumored to be eyeing a move to Atlanta. Local political leadership was able to get the Bidwills to commit to staying in St. Louis with the promise of what would become Busch Memorial Stadium. Still, when owners are already considering a relocation to another market just five years after moving to your city, let's just say that's not the sign of a relationship forged in steel. By 1972, Bill Bidwill had bought out his brother. Over the next 16 seasons, the Cardinals would go 107-125-4 under Bill Bidwill's stewardship, good for an overall mark in St. Louis of 186-202-14. The mid-1970s were the high-point for the team, with a pair of divisional titles and trips to the playoffs. It wasn't enough. The football Cardinals could never quite outshine their baseball brethren. Busch Stadium, though only 20 or so years old, began to show its age. Bidwill started to cast his gaze towards other markets to play host to his NFL franchise. The Phoenix area landed the prize.

Here's the tough thing about selling the "massive achievement" of 100 years of Cardinals NFL history and tradition to the team's current market: 68% of that history and tradition took place somewhere else. A great deal of it, took place an awfully long time ago.

Sixty seasons have come and gone since a Cardinals football squad last took the field as the home team in  Chicago. Those who would truly long for the good ol' days of Chicago Cardinals football have not only moved on, they've likely passed on. Thirty-two NFL seasons have rolled by since the St. Louis Cardinals trotted onto the gridiron. While I'll concede that there are clearly more people who were fans of the St. Louis Cardinals still drawing breath, I'm not certain that they're at all invested in the fortunes of the Arizona Cardinals. After all, when you think about how the St. Louis market has been treated by the National Football League since 1987, I'm going to guess that most football fans from "The Gateway City" - those of the St. Louis Cardinals, included -  would just as soon tell Roger Goodell to get bent, as waste energy focusing on whether or not the Arizona Cardinals are upholding, preserving, and advancing the legacy that the franchise established prior to arriving in the Valley of the Sun.                 

And actual Arizona Cardinals fans? My gut tells me that the majority don't spend a great deal of time focusing on 100-plus years of NFL Cardinals football. I'm sure that most know that the team's presence in Arizona is the result of a franchise being relocated from St. Louis. I don't doubt that some are even aware that the team played in Chicago prior to moving to St. Louis. That said, I just don't believe that a significant number of Arizona Cardinals fans are deeply invested in the team's history stretching back to Chicago. I don't buy that they're at all well-versed in what the team accomplished in St. Louis. Rather, for all intents and purposes, I see most Arizona Cardinals fans as people rooting for what amounts to being a 32-year-old NFL franchise that represents the Grand Canyon State.

I mean, I suppose that I could be wrong. Maybe Arizona Cardinals pre-game tailgates are peppered with mentions of Driscoll, Trippi, Hart and Dierdorf. Perhaps the pro shop can't keep Goldberg, Matson, Lane and Wehrli jerseys in stock. For all I know, whenever Kliff Kingsbury engages in questionable play-calling, countless Arizona Cardinals fans are grousing, "You wouldn't have seen Conzelman or Coryell make that call!"

There are plenty of sports franchises that I feel should very carefully consider the ramifications of straying too far away from their traditional branding history - as well as their team heritage - while even contemplating a uniform change. Frankly, I don't think the Arizona Cardinals is one of them.    

I agree with you as someone that has lived in Arizona for a long time.  They really should put Est. 1988 like the Dodgers do on their merchandise Est. 1958.  

 

Most fans here are not aware of Chicago.  They are only a little aware of St. Louis if they started following the team in 1988.  What is worse is a lot of people here didn't start following the team till they actually moved to the new stadium and went to the Super Bowl.  The Cardinals got more fans during that 2008 season than in anytime in their tenure here in the desert.  More than likely a fan would compare Wisenhunt or Denny Green to things that the current coach does or doesn't do in certain situations.  For me this is more reason to embrace a new Arizona image for their new uniforms.  There is still time to go a little radical. 

[DCarp1231]

Tua keeps getting posted in mock ups wearing #1. Could be just a case of the NFL not knowing what number he’ll wear, but Tua was quoted as saying he doesn’t care what number the Dolphins give him “whether it’s 78 or 99”.

 

[MCM0313]

4 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Tua keeps getting posted in mock ups wearing #1. Could be just a case of the NFL not knowing what number he’ll wear, but Tua was quoted as saying he doesn’t care what number the Dolphins give him “whether it’s 78 or 99”.

 

Ooh, sounds like their new franchise QB is unaware of jersey-numbering rules in the NFL! Quick, somebody take him up on that offer and give him an o-lineman’s number!

[Dynasty]

Missed opportunity for all four to wear #10.

[Claystation360]

 

 

[DCarp1231]

3 minutes ago, Claystation360 said:

 

 

Real shame Quarterman couldn’t wear 25

[Echo]

Speaking of numbering rules, did the rules change to allow WRs to wear single digits in the NFL?  The Bills released number for their new draftees, and they have Gabriel Davis, a WR, listed as #3.

 

 

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, Dynasty said:

Missed opportunity for all four to wear #10.

If you add Tuas and Burrows numbers together then you get 3 tens

[monkeypower]

34 minutes ago, Echo said:

Speaking of numbering rules, did the rules change to allow WRs to wear single digits in the NFL?  The Bills released number for their new draftees, and they have Gabriel Davis, a WR, listed as #3.

 

 

I don’t know if I’ve seen any changes announced, but I like it. I think the NFL is way too strict with who can wear what numbers. Obviously there needs to be numbers specifically for the ineligible receivers, but other than that, let the players wear whatever, especially on defence.

 

The CFL and the NCAA don’t have as strict numbering guidelines and I think it’s kind of neat. There was a period of time where the Stampeders had a #7 and a #39 on the defensive line. Two of their most prominent linebackers of the past decade or so have been #2 and #12.

 

In saying that for all you traditionalists, most players in the CFL, especially on offence, usually end up picking/getting numbers that “fit” the position anyways (i.e. no QB’s #34 or RB’s #82), but it’s something I think the NFL should adopt or at least relax the rules.

[PaleVermilion81]

47 minutes ago, Echo said:

Speaking of numbering rules, did the rules change to allow WRs to wear single digits in the NFL?  The Bills released number for their new draftees, and they have Gabriel Davis, a WR, listed as #3.

 

 

 

When the regular season starts he'll change I bet. Seems like they allow it in the preseason.

[sisdog]

6 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Tua keeps getting posted in mock ups wearing #1. Could be just a case of the NFL not knowing what number he’ll wear, but Tua was quoted as saying he doesn’t care what number the Dolphins give him “whether it’s 78 or 99”.

 

 

That is one of the worst representations of hats I have ever seen.

[SoxSteeler]

Chase Claypool chose 11. For a big guy wish he would have kept 83. Other, lesser receivers have had it since Heath Miller. The top 6 WRs for the steelers have teen numbers. 

 

 

[El Scorcho]

I really dislike WRs having numbers in the teens. I think it should only be a spill over if the 80s are full. No other circumstances. 

 

I personally like the NFL numbering rules. It ensures a wide range of numbers get used. 

[DCarp1231]

58 minutes ago, El Scorcho said:

I really dislike WRs having numbers in the teens. I think it should only be a spill over if the 80s are full. No other circumstances. 

 

I personally like the NFL numbering rules. It ensures a wide range of numbers get used. 

I like when receivers wear numbers 10-19. Personally, I’d rather a WR wear 10-29 and 80-89 be reserved for TEs.