NOLAPelicans23 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said: Getting back on track, all new Texans combinations, via GUD If they match the socks to the thickest part of the pants stripe (unlikely to happen every time), they've got some really good looks going here 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 hour ago, rfraser85 said: I haven't seen these on GUD. Is that because they're not GUD? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VDizzle12 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 On 4/29/2024 at 11:35 AM, DCarp1231 said: It’s gonna be brown, isn’t it? The only way I'd be okay with a brown helmet is if they introduce an orange alt. Because all-orange from head-to-toe would be way too much. As would all-brown. Brown/orange/orange and brown/orange/white would definitely soften the blow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBeltz Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Essentially do an inverse of those "poop" alts where its orange with white #'s outlined in brown with orange pants to pair it with the Brown helmet if you wanna do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 28 minutes ago, WBeltz said: Essentially do an inverse of those "poop" alts where its orange with white #'s outlined in brown with orange pants to pair it with the Brown helmet if you wanna do that. And then brown socks. Bookend look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfraser85 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 3 hours ago, MJWalker45 said: Yes, this and the Broncos combos have been posted to Twitter. Thanks. I just paid attention to the template and I don't have a Twitter account. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatic Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 On 4/27/2024 at 7:47 AM, Echo said: Yeah, but the front has the 5280 on it, so they get ya coming and going. Why does it have 5280? Does that number have any significance to the city of Denver? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know Denver's official altitude? I know its probably never been discussed before, but I sure wish cities would spam their official distance from sea level at every possible opportunity so we never forget how thin the air is there. 2 4 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 6 minutes ago, Chromatic said: Why does it have 5280? Does that number have any significance to the city of Denver? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know Denver's official altitude? I know its probably never been discussed before, but I sure wish cities would spam their official distance from sea level at every possible opportunity so we never forget how thin the air is there. Well Denver better hope that neither Albuquerque nor especially Santa Fe ever get a top-pro basketball or football team then, because both of them have Denver beat in the altitude game... Spoiler Albuquerque: 5,312 ft. Santa Fe: 6,998 ft. Quote *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 9 minutes ago, Chromatic said: Why does it have 5280? Does that number have any significance to the city of Denver? On a completely unrelated note, does anyone know Denver's official altitude? I know its probably never been discussed before, but I sure wish cities would spam their official distance from sea level at every possible opportunity so we never forget how thin the air is there. 1 1 Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatic Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 3 minutes ago, McCall said: Glad you agree 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 56 minutes ago, tBBP said: Well Denver better hope that neither Albuquerque nor especially Santa Fe ever get a top-pro basketball or football team then, because both of them have Denver beat in the altitude game... Hide contents Albuquerque: 5,312 ft. Santa Fe: 6,998 ft. Mexico City is 7,350 ft above sea level, and they've actually hosted NFL games! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfraser85 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 25 minutes ago, burgundy said: Mexico City is 7,350 ft above sea level, and they've actually hosted NFL games! I wonder if the Broncos have an advantage or disadvantage if they play in the Mexico City game. They already play at altitude, but they've never had to adapt to playing higher above sea level. Altitude masks can only simulate so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logo-maker Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 23 minutes ago, rfraser85 said: I wonder if the Broncos have an advantage or disadvantage if they play in the Mexico City game. They already play at altitude, but they've never had to adapt to playing higher above sea level. Altitude masks can only simulate so much. As a Denver native, I can tell you that I have gotten altitude sickness going a few thousand feet up into the mountains on hikes and camping trips. For me, it acclimation to the thinner air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 I read @Chromatic's post as a tongue-in-cheek sarcastic response regarding Denver's (or pehaps Nike's) need to continuously push this 5280 thing as a sub-brand or something, as if its like this big huge deal. The City of Denver doesn't even do that! My point in responding is that at least one other semi-large US city has a higher altitude--but it doesn't brand itself by it! (At least not yet; we'll see what the Lobos do in the coming years.) @Chromatic if I read your post wrong, feel free to correct my interpretation. 1 Quote *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 I guess 5280 feet is better than 1609.3 meters (Santa Fe being 2133 meters above sea level). Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky1324 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 I feel like the whole reason 5280 is such a big deal because it's exactly one mile above sea level. Sure, some cities are higher, but none are perfect like Denver. 5 Quote the user formerly known as cdclt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGP Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 3 hours ago, sky1324 said: I feel like the whole reason 5280 is such a big deal because it's exactly one mile above sea level. Sure, some cities are higher, but none are perfect like Denver. Except that almost nowhere in Denver is actually 5280 feet. But I guess "5280 feet at the 13th step of city hall and maybe the 4th highest row at Coors Field, they won't actually let us survey it" doesn't have the same ring to it. 7 Quote I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 More football in the regular season? Yes please. Fewer pre-season games? Yes please. More byes? No thanks. I seriously doubt I'm the only one who thinks this. 3 Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 54 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said: More football in the regular season? Yes please. Fewer pre-season games? Yes please. More byes? No thanks. I seriously doubt I'm the only one who thinks this. You had me, then you lost me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 51 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said: More football in the regular season? I think this is an unpopular opinion, but I could be mistaken.. I'm sure people complained when it went from 14 to 16, just like some (including me) pushed back on 16 to 17 and 17 to 18. Going from 16 to 18 is the same as MLB going from 162 to 182, or NBA going from 84 to 95. That's not insignificant. I want every game to be relatively critical (which the extra playoff team has also affected) and for players to have a chance to be not be broken down by the grind. If you're a WC team, then you're potentially playing 22 games in 24 weeks. That's a lot of football. Too much, in my humble opinion. 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.