Jump to content

NFL Changes 2021


simtek34

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, O.C.D said:

It's the exact same picture

 

 

On a side note, the pants on the bottom picture are straight up see through. It really irks me that Nike and other companies make their fabric as thin as possible (to the point of being see through) and charge the same amount of money to produce them on field and commercially. I know they have their word salad explanations about space age polymers and moister wicking technology, but the end product feels insubstantial in your hands compared to the uniforms of 10 years ago

 

I've always thought the Saints were the worst offender of this.

 

1659-6566-original.jpeg

 

22 and 67 there have especially see-through pants, and in different lighting (and heaven forbid wet weather), they look like they're barely there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I'm sure I'll be shown some example that shows me wrong, but there's no way any women's team would wear those pants.

They'd be smart enough to wear white sliding shorts instead of black or orange. 

WFA All-America Game provides Sami Grisafe with final curtain call – Fourth  and Feminine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

They'd be smart enough to wear white sliding shorts instead of black or orange. 

 

 

That's one thing I don't get about the modern push to have this ultra thin ultra light uniforms. The players end up wearing two layers anyway. Doesn't that just negate the ".4564 percent lighter" effect?

 

Why not just build in the compression sleeves, tights and what have you, into the material, and not market uniforms so thin you tell the player's religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's one thing I don't get about the modern push to have this ultra thin ultra light uniforms. The players end up wearing two layers anyway. Doesn't that just negate the ".4564 percent lighter" effect?

 

Yeah, but at least the players have the choice as to what kind of base layer they wear, as opposed to either thick-ass old-school pants or something that's built-in but not necessarily what they want.  They've basically took the old-school football pant and made it a series of customizable parts underneath a top shell.  Too bad it looks like crap.

 

I remember back in my day when I got my first "girdle" with the oversized hip pads and butt pad, and the super thick pants with the slots for the thigh and knee pad.  I hated those so much, and would really have preferred if they had the biker-shorts with the pads in them like they do now.  So I can appreciate the ability to tailor to your preferences... but it still looks like crap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2021 at 4:10 PM, WSU151 said:

WR/KR Clarence Verdin wore #2 for the Falcons in 1994...all of the 80s were taken up, but strangely no one on the team wore a number in the teens.

 

WRs weren't allowed to wear 10-19 until 2004. It's possible Verdin got a waiver because all of the 80s were in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's one thing I don't get about the modern push to have this ultra thin ultra light uniforms. The players end up wearing two layers anyway. Doesn't that just negate the ".4564 percent lighter" effect?

 

Why not just build in the compression sleeves, tights and what have you, into the material, and not market uniforms so thin you tell the player's religion?

Players were wearing sliders way before pants got thinner. It’s necessary or you get so much bunching and chaffing that it would be uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 2:40 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Why not just build in the compression sleeves, tights and what have you, into the material, and not market uniforms so thin you tell the player's religion?


Because then you can’t sell compression sleeves, tights, and what have you. Duh. 🙂
 

In all seriousness, there’s too much personal preference at play to build baselayers into a uniform piece. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if there was something in the CBA protecting players’ baselayer choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure rumors like that are even worth thinking about as long as the 1-helmet rule is in effect, and given that they've already voted on this year's changes (including one to the uniform code), there's no reason to think it's going away in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 1:56 PM, gothedistance said:

 

Two A. Rodgers. Now that caught me off guard.

 

Too bad FNOB isn't a thing anymore. I was too young to remember when the Rams did it with Jack and Jim Youngblood. But I always looked forward to seeing the Broncos when they had Doug and Dave Widell.

 

I also used to wonder what the Bears would have done if they ever got Mark Carrier the WR when they had Mark Carrier the DB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

Too bad FNOB isn't a thing anymore. I was too young to remember when the Rams did it with Jack and Jim Youngblood. But I always looked forward to seeing the Broncos when they had Doug and Dave Widell.

 

I also used to wonder what the Bears would have done if they ever got Mark Carrier the WR when they had Mark Carrier the DB.

The Jets drafted two “Michael Carter”s this year.

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.