Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

it hangs lower and farther out than the jersey though. it's giving defenders more to grab onto that wouldn't be there otherwise

 

Correct. Wouldn't giving them nothing be better than giving them something, even if it tears?

 

There's no function with those - at least none that I've heard yet.  

 

As an Eagles fan, it pissed me off that Miles Sanders was slowed up by the grab of his undershirt - and it should piss off a fan of any team that's players do that to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phutmasterflex said:

It actually serves as a function. These shirts tear away so easily so they can still evade the tackler. With the tackler grabbing the shirt instead of the jersey, it actually performs a great function. I don't like the look either but I am not going to question people's mental capacity like you do on it. 

 

Actually, you can find plenty of video evidence of players being slowed down or even pulled down by these undershirts. The idea that it's some kind of strategic bait is pretty laughable. It's just another dopey fashion choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2020 at 3:51 PM, _RH_ said:

I'm no fan of the Chiefs in mono-red, but also have never really liked the red pant stripes for some reason.  What if they matched the home jerseys?

spacer.png

 

Or they could do it the other way around:

 

spacer.png

 

Either way is fine and would make their uniforms more consistent, not less. It's not a pressing issue though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phutmasterflex said:

It actually serves as a function. These shirts tear away so easily so they can still evade the tackler. With the tackler grabbing the shirt instead of the jersey, it actually performs a great function. I don't like the look either but I am not going to question people's mental capacity like you do on it. 

There are videos of players being dragged down by their shirts. Just because it sometimes tears away doesn’t negate the times players are pulled down harder and more awkward than a horse collar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ravens should always wear the purple pants on the road and with the alternate black jersey. Great looking game tonight against the Browns in orange pants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ZapRowsdower8 said:

The Ravens should always wear the purple pants on the road and with the alternate black jersey. Great looking game tonight against the Browns in orange pants. 

 

Maybe it's just the ESPN cameras, but the Browns helmets look straight-up red tonight.  I think that going back to their seal brown from ages ago and the old helmet color (but with the current satin finish) would be a bit of an upgrade for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

So it's more than just a look that I don't like - it's a clear decision that fashion >> function.

 

 

Maybe someone finds it uncomfortable the way the material bunches up under their pants when they tuck it in. Maybe someone else likes to use the bottom of their undershirt to wipe their hands when their skin tight jersey soaks through with sweat. Maybe myriad other reasons. 

 

I'm not suggesting these are the most likely or most common explanations as to why some players leave their undershirts untucked. I am suggesting that probably very few players with untucked undershirts are making a strictly binary declaration between either fashion or function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DPHF said:

 

Maybe someone finds it uncomfortable the way the material bunches up under their pants when they tuck it in. Maybe someone else likes to use the bottom of their undershirt to wipe their hands when their skin tight jersey soaks through with sweat. Maybe myriad other reasons. 

 

I'm not suggesting these are the most likely or most common explanations as to why some players leave their undershirts untucked. I am suggesting that probably very few players with untucked undershirts are making a strictly binary declaration between either fashion or function.

 

It's certainly possible that there's some rationale that I haven't considered, but as you said, it's unlikely.  Players got by for decades without visible undershirts, despite playing with untucked jerseys for at least 17 years (the Eagles were among the first teams to have their jerseys tailored to hit at the waist with elastic to keep them tight and looking 'tucked'.)  

 

Here's one potential explanation:  When I played in HS, in warmer weather, we only wore shirts that covered where our shoulder pads hit on our chests, and then usually had bare bellies underneath our jerseys.  It's possible that maybe back in the pre-Nike days, players did the same, but the fabric wasn't irritating.  Now with the NIke "performance fabrics", maybe it's rougher on bare skin, necessitating a 'liner' and said liner is stretchy and silky and maybe starts out looking OK, but then gets pulled down so much that it ends up as a knee-length dress.

 

I doubt that's the case, but it's at least one explanation.  If it is the case, then it's an indictment on Nike's fabrics, since that extra layer would kinda defeat all the tech that's in them, not to mention the no-hold fit.  

 

As for why some of these dufuses want their 'liner' shirts so long that they look like dresses?  While it's possible that my scneario is true and it's just a result of being tugged and pulled until it's super long, I really think it's just fashion.  It's a "he's doing it, so I better too" type of thing.  Like when long white Ts were a thing (they're not anymore, right?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

It's certainly possible that there's some rationale that I haven't considered, but as you said, it's unlikely.  Players got by for decades without visible undershirts, despite playing with untucked jerseys for at least 17 years (the Eagles were among the first teams to have their jerseys tailored to hit at the waist with elastic to keep them tight and looking 'tucked'.)  

 

Here's one potential explanation:  When I played in HS, in warmer weather, we only wore shirts that covered where our shoulder pads hit on our chests, and then usually had bare bellies underneath our jerseys.  It's possible that maybe back in the pre-Nike days, players did the same, but the fabric wasn't irritating.  Now with the NIke "performance fabrics", maybe it's rougher on bare skin, necessitating a 'liner' and said liner is stretchy and silky and maybe starts out looking OK, but then gets pulled down so much that it ends up as a knee-length dress.

 

I doubt that's the case, but it's at least one explanation.  If it is the case, then it's an indictment on Nike's fabrics, since that extra layer would kinda defeat all the tech that's in them, not to mention the no-hold fit.  

 

As for why some of these dufuses want their 'liner' shirts so long that they look like dresses?  While it's possible that my scneario is true and it's just a result of being tugged and pulled until it's super long, I really think it's just fashion.  It's a "he's doing it, so I better too" type of thing.  Like when long white Ts were a thing (they're not anymore, right?) 

 

Basically it's the practice aesthetic proliferating to game days. cropped jerseys, untucked t shirts, and low socks have been the practice standard for at least 3 decades. We've even seen the hoody worn on game day under the pads which was a late season practice staple for lots of guys. If you think about it, as a society our professional standards for dress in the workplace mirror the decline of decorum that we are seeing on the nfl field. Also for those high and mighty giving players grief, let's not give the coaches a pass that went from business professional, to business casual, to saturday morning dad outfit over the same span of years. Also 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

 Also for those high and mighty giving players grief, let's not give the coaches a pass that went from business professional, to business casual, to saturday morning dad outfit over the same span of years. Also 2020.


There aren't potential plays for loses and or INJURIES because a coach wears a hoodie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, selgy said:


There aren't potential plays for loses and or INJURIES because a coach wears a hoodie. 

 

Yes which is why it's no longer permitted which was a wise decision. The scope of my point pertained to aesthetics. Your point does not excuse coaches for dressing like slobs on the sideline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Coaches are no longer allowed to wear suits because of the apparel contracts, so they basically have to dress like gym coaches now. 
 

2. When you watch a game, you’re not watching the coaches 99% of the time. I expect professionalism from players at the highest level, and at the very least, for them to hinder their performance. 
 

what’s next - wearing ankle weights? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BBTV said:

1. Coaches are no longer allowed to wear suits because of the apparel contracts, so they basically have to dress like gym coaches now. 
 

2. When you watch a game, you’re not watching the coaches 99% of the time. I expect professionalism from players at the highest level, and at the very least, for them to hinder their performance. 
 

what’s next - wearing ankle weights? 

  1. You're exaggerating here. Suppliers work with coaching staffs to provide a broad range of product for them to choose from and there is still enough anecdotal evidence that trousers, collared shirts, and sweaters are available. What's painfully obvious is that coaches are wearing the same cut up hoodies and track pants that they put on at 4am on their way to the practice facility.
  2. I expect professionalism from all parties that are earning a paycheck within the field of play and on the sideline. They are all given free work clothing and the league has let all parties turn the game day aesthetic into a schlub fest infested by ragamuffins. At the end of the day the league is just a reflection of the rest of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BBTV said:

2. When you watch a game, you’re not watching the coaches 99% of the time. I expect professionalism from players at the highest level, and at the very least, for them to hinder their performance. 

 

TV Cameras are on the coaches probably 50-60 times during any given broadcast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

It's certainly possible that there's some rationale that I haven't considered, but as you said, it's unlikely.  Players got by for decades without visible undershirts, despite playing with untucked jerseys for at least 17 years (the Eagles were among the first teams to have their jerseys tailored to hit at the waist with elastic to keep them tight and looking 'tucked'.)  

 

Here's one potential explanation:  When I played in HS, in warmer weather, we only wore shirts that covered where our shoulder pads hit on our chests, and then usually had bare bellies underneath our jerseys.  It's possible that maybe back in the pre-Nike days, players did the same, but the fabric wasn't irritating.  Now with the NIke "performance fabrics", maybe it's rougher on bare skin, necessitating a 'liner' and said liner is stretchy and silky and maybe starts out looking OK, but then gets pulled down so much that it ends up as a knee-length dress.

 

I doubt that's the case, but it's at least one explanation.  If it is the case, then it's an indictment on Nike's fabrics, since that extra layer would kinda defeat all the tech that's in them, not to mention the no-hold fit.  

 

As for why some of these dufuses want their 'liner' shirts so long that they look like dresses?  While it's possible that my scneario is true and it's just a result of being tugged and pulled until it's super long, I really think it's just fashion.  It's a "he's doing it, so I better too" type of thing.  Like when long white Ts were a thing (they're not anymore, right?) 

Then New Jersey materials aren’t tougher on skin, they are much softer, so there goes that arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, guest23 said:
  1. You're exaggerating here. Suppliers work with coaching staffs to provide a broad range of product for them to choose from and there is still enough anecdotal evidence that trousers, collared shirts, and sweaters are available. What's painfully obvious is that coaches are wearing the same cut up hoodies and track pants that they put on at 4am on their way to the practice facility.
  2. I expect professionalism from all parties that are earning a paycheck within the field of play and on the sideline. They are all given free work clothing and the league has let all parties turn the game day aesthetic into a schlub fest infested by ragamuffins. At the end of the day the league is just a reflection of the rest of society.

Well Bill belichick I know would prefer coaches to go to suits and specifically wears the the dingiest stuff he can find as a form of protest against the league contracts disallowing suits for coaches. If the apparel contracts didn’t apply to coaches apparel the standard probably still would be business attire just out of peer pressure to conform to other coaching staffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same energy

 

EpUpN9HUUAAq9tI?format=jpg&name=large

 

Tom Caron on Twitter: "Said "chefs" in the end zone, so I was confused.… "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.