Jump to content

NFL Changes 2021


simtek34

Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2021 at 12:41 PM, auguststaley said:

I like Paul Lukas' site and his work but how does he think this unveiling confirms last week's leak? 

 

 

 

These immediately become the best jersey in the set (not that that's saying much) and should be elevated to primary away immediately with the bone ones thrown into a bottomless pit. If they would have done this from the get go and also never touched the helmet horn or used gradients, I don't think there would have been many complaints.

 

I do lol at them comparing it to the original trying to get some goodwill back. No, no the original is still a 1000x better and that side by side photo they posted only accentuates that.

 

Let's hope the uniform they unveil next year is yellow (hopefully not mono) and not black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Pretending?  Like Golden State does?     They were able to rebrand the name, but that point keeps getting ignored because of Washington's long history with the word that shall not be named.  Saying it would be different for Washington if it were done years earlier makes no sense.


Why on earth should we think context does not matter?

 

Teams that get ahead of a problematic identity, willingly changing it before they are forced to, they can sometimes salvage a name by rebranding and redefining it.  But Washington, who have spent the last half-century doubling down, tripling down, litigating, and then only changing when forced to and under extreme duress, they’ve lost any benefit of the doubt.

 

Plus there is a marked difference between a team taking its existing name and redefining it to remove the racist context and a team adopting a name new to them that has also historically carried that content.

 

For those two reasons, ”Washington Warriors” would be seen for precisely what it would be, a wink-and-nod to Native identity by a team that didn’t really want to give up theirs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gothamite said:


Why on earth should we think context does not matter?

 

Teams that get ahead of a problematic identity, willingly changing it before they are forced to, they can sometimes salvage a name by rebranding and redefining it.  But Washington, who have spent the last half-century doubling down, tripling down, litigating, and then only changing when forced to and under extreme duress, they’ve lost any benefit of the doubt.

 

Plus there is a marked difference between a team taking its existing name and redefining it to remove the racist context and a team adopting a name new to them that has also historically carried that content.

 

For those two reasons, ”Washington Warriors” would be seen for precisely what it would be, a wink-and-nod to Native identity by a team that didn’t really want to give up theirs. 

They were pushed into doing it, but the fact remains they did it (while the KC Chiefs lay low without any outcry).    Again, it goes back to how they rebrand it.   They could use a different symbol altogether.     The Pentagon is full of warriors, it's not unique to Natives.   Dozens of examples here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior

 

If Warrior has the historical context you claim, then GS should not be allowed to use it, voluntary rebranding or not.

 

Whatever.   Don't give me Red Wolves which no one associates with DC.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LMU said:

Much better guys. Now throw everything bone in a pit and never speak of it again.

 

 

 

Pretty amazing this didn't leak. Must've been shot months ago. Cam Akers is still 23 in the video and he changed to it 3 just after the rule change.  Also funny that he's in the drop video but his jersey isn't on the team shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

They were pushed into doing it, but the fact remains they did it (while the KC Chiefs lay low without any outcry).    Again, it goes back to how they rebrand it.   They could use a different symbol altogether.     The Pentagon is full of warriors, it's not unique to Natives.   Dozens of examples here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior

 

If Warrior has the historical context you claim, then GS should not be allowed to use it, voluntary rebranding or not.

 

Whatever.   Don't give me Red Wolves which no one associates with DC.   

 

 

They need to stay away from Native American imagery as much as “America! F Yeah!” imagery.

 

The team could utilize “Warriors” with whatever connotation they want, but everyone would know it’s just “old name+”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one issue with the WFT and the "Warriors" is that, frankly, there are better options that don't take the team out of the Lightning Sand and into the teeth of the ROUS's.

To keep using Marquette as @SFGiants58 has done, when the name Golden Eagles was chosen in the 90's, one problem was that it felt a little generic because there happens to be another D1 Jesuit University called the Golden Eagles: BOSTON COLLEGE. So the school wasn't just dropping their own nickname but seemingly picking up someone else's.

 

I think one thing that happened in 2005 was that the school then went from fine but maybe not unique to awful. Especially since it looked like they were copying other schools again with the Syracuse Orange and the Stanford Cardinal having so recently changed their names. 

I wonder if any of the controversy would have happened if the school had selected Hilltoppers (or Golden Avalanche) in the 90's which were both unique names with connections to the school.

Right now the WFT has a bunch of unique interesting options like Red Tails and Hogs (even Red Wolves is nice) that are better. They have plenty of good choices on the table so there's no reason to risk turning the nickname into an ongoing problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


Indeed. 😁
 

I’m an alumnus of the grad school (graduated 2018), so I have a bit of familiarity with the controversy. Hilltoppers was and is the best name.

 

Yes.  Even though Golden Eagles isn't really horrible, I believe there is still a decent sized contingent that absolutely hates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

Yes.  Even though Golden Eagles isn't really horrible, I believe there is still a decent sized contingent that absolutely hates it.

It's not horrible, but it comes off as incredibly generic. Color plus random animal not from the area. Could have been Blue Hens. Yeah, I know 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Bill0813 said:

If Warrior has the historical context you claim, then GS should not be allowed to use it, voluntary rebranding or not.

 

Again, there’s a world of difference between  a team that already uses “Warriors” trying to rebrand it to a different meaning, and a new team adopting it now as an explicitly non-Native name.

 

One is possible.  The other laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

Yes.  Even though Golden Eagles isn't really horrible, I believe there is still a decent sized contingent that absolutely hates it.

 

19 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

It's not horrible, but it comes off as incredibly generic. Color plus random animal not from the area. Could have been Blue Hens. Yeah, I know 😉


Blue Hens would at least be charming. “Golden Eagles” came off at the time as though they were deliberately trying to be as generic and innocuous as possible. 
 

I mean, fair play to Marquette for realizing that the iconography was problematic. But while the motivation was sound, the execution left a lot to be desired. 
 

I always presumed that “Hilltoppers” was unavailable because it had been adopted by (the long-since unrelated)  Marquette University High School. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rams new white jersey is exactly what it should have been from the start.

 

It seems obvious to me that somewhere in the creative process, the Rams decided to switch the bone uniform to being the away uniform. The uniform alignment is totally backwards. It looks like an alternate jersey while the new white jersey looks alot like the home jersey and evokes alot of what the Rams fans wanted in the first place. Someone in the organization must have made the call to switch them.

 

This whole thing is very boneheaded. I'm sorry, I can't resist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 


Blue Hens would at least be charming. “Golden Eagles” came off at the time as though they were deliberately trying to be as generic and innocuous as possible. 
 

I mean, fair play to Marquette for realizing that the iconography was problematic. But while the motivation was sound, the execution left a lot to be desired. 
 

I always presumed that “Hilltoppers” was unavailable because it had been adopted by (the long-since unrelated)  Marquette University High School. 

 

I felt the same way when North Dakota announced its rebrand from Fighting Sioux. The other options, which included Roughriders, Sundogs and (my preference) Nodaks, were all more unique than the eventual choice, Fighting Hawks.  Much like with Marquette, its as if in making their choice they favored the least controversial over the most interesting. 

 

It's easy to understand why they did, especially for campuses in which the nickname topic had come to define entire eras. It's just unfortunate they couldn't add a little risk into the equation. We'd have had some better outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the Rams’ new uniform, they did it absolutely right this time. It baffles me still that the bone uniform was ever favored over something like this, but now that this white uniform is a real thing, I’m hopeful it will push the bone uniform out of the rotation completely and quickly. At this point, I think the Rams would be making a huge mistake by not doing so.

 

I’m also still baffled that, of the two LA teams, the Chargers were the ones who got a rebrand right from the start and the Rams were the ones who stumbled out of the gate. I had always expected it to be the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

To keep using Marquette as @SFGiants58 has done, when the name Golden Eagles was chosen in the 90's, one problem was that it felt a little generic because there happens to be another D1 Jesuit University called the Golden Eagles: BOSTON COLLEGE.

 

Boston College aren't the Golden Eagles. Only the marching band's dance team and sports media outlets with bad editors use that moniker for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

In the last photo here (of Eagles Miles Sanders) even the TV announcers commented that he wouldn't have stumbled up if not for the undershirt.  I think these photos are indisputable evidence that there's some hinderance.  Maybe not for an offensive lineman, but for these guys.  As for why the coaches don't say anything?  I don't know - maybe football coaches aren't as smart as people make them out to be.  They spend too much time trying to draw up plays to exploit mismatches when all they have to do is tell their players to dress like professionals.

 

EDIT: that's actually not the photo of Miles Sanders getting tackled by his shirt, but same point.

 

przu6qgjkuqchobbowyy.jpg

QBJBMYZP6VBWDD7UYNA4MAHJTU.JPG

 

1272510688.jpg.jpg

 

EpNdXoaXcAA072V?format=jpg&name=medium

 

 

 

Do you have some kind of alert set up where you get notified every time I post so that you can follow it up with some dumb meme or some other thing?  Seriously - you don't need to react to every post I make - especially those that don't concern you.

Agree to disagree my friend, I guess football coaches just don’t know much about football 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MDGP said:

 

Boston College aren't the Golden Eagles. Only the marching band's dance team and sports media outlets with bad editors use that moniker for them.

 

Huh, I never knew that.

 

I know that was a misconception common among Marquette students and alums at the time.

 

That really adds another wrinkle. 

 

Thank you for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, VikWings said:

 

These immediately become the best jersey in the set (not that that's saying much) and should be elevated to primary away immediately with the bone ones thrown into a bottomless pit. If they would have done this from the get go and also never touched the helmet horn or used gradients, I don't think their would have been many complaints.

 

I do lol at them comparing into to the original trying to get some goodwill back. No, no the original is still a 1000x better and that side by side photo they posted only accentuates that.

 

Let's hope the uniform they unveil next year is yellow (hopefully not mono) and not black.

 

Honestly I expect the Rams to quietly walk back their whole set to something closer to their classic LA look. Different enough that they can still keep selling the classics as throwbacks but close enough to the superior older look that they'll tacitly acknowledge this soft rebranding was a mistake. This is the first step in correcting the mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Regarding the Rams’ new uniform, they did it absolutely right this time. It baffles me still that the bone uniform was ever favored over something like this, but now that this white uniform is a real thing, I’m hopeful it will push the bone uniform out of the rotation completely and quickly. At this point, I think the Rams would be making a huge mistake by not doing so.

 

I’m also still baffled that, of the two LA teams, the Chargers were the ones who got a rebrand right from the start and the Rams were the ones who stumbled out of the gate. I had always expected it to be the other way around.

 

I mean the San Diego Chargers uniforms were close to perfect once they started favoring the powder blues over the Navy. The LA Chargers rebrand was actually a downgrade, but since they didn't change a ton, it was hard to :censored: it up. The Rams took what should have been an easy decision to make the old pre-St. Louis move unis or something close to it their full time uni and didn't do that. So anything they put out was going to be a WTF moment. They just chose to REALLY miss that easy mark and are now inching back toward it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.