The Green Meanie 0 Posted January 16, 2008 That's cold blooded, man. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powersurge 65 Posted January 16, 2008 HA! I watched that game on ESPN classic recently.What most people forget is that the Bills scored almost ALL of their second half points in a matter of 10 minutes in the third quarter. The Oilers just completely colapsed. I remember watching the fourth quarter and thinking that the Oilers had plenty of time to turn it around, and they didn't. They deserved to lose that game. I'm shocked that the Bills had to go to overtime to win it. They kind of sputtered in the fourth quarter too. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmejia 204 Posted January 16, 2008 HA! I watched that game on ESPN classic recently.What most people forget is that the Bills scored almost ALL of their second half points in a matter of 10 minutes in the third quarter. The Oilers just completely colapsed. I remember watching the fourth quarter and thinking that the Oilers had plenty of time to turn it around, and they didn't. They deserved to lose that game. I'm shocked that the Bills had to go to overtime to win it. They kind of sputtered in the fourth quarter too.I remember watching that game thinking, "all we need is a first down on offense and that will slow down the comeback". It never happened!! It was: 3 and out on offense --> punt --> give up big play on defense --> REPEAT! I felt that the Bills might make a run at halftime, but when the Oilers opened the 3rd quarter with an INT return for TD to extedn the lead to 35-3, I felt that had to be the final nail in the coffin. NOPE! The sickest I've ever felt as a sports fan. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacker12 0 Posted January 16, 2008 the demise of the exploding scoreboard of the Astros (dated now, but it was a cool novelty at the time it was built).do you have any pictures? i've always heard about it but always see pictures of the one that bud put in.This is the first time that I remember ever seeing a photo of the Astrodome when it had grass. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Korkie 49 Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry to put this here, but I did not want to start a new thread and this one was the most relevant I could find. Anyway, as an aside check out this pic of the Bills during the Frank Reich game. Check out #59's pants. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powersurge 65 Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry to put this here, but I did not want to start a new thread and this one was the most relevant I could find. Anyway, as an aside check out this pic of the Bills during the Frank Reich game. Check out #59's pants. HEY! Great spot!Wonder what the hell happened there?Thats not nearly as bad as some of the misspelled uniform blunders in MLB. The best one had to be the time the 'Cincinnati' was misspelled on a pitcher's road jersey.http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/sl...FILE/photo6.jpgThats just embarassing. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tBBP 2,578 Posted January 18, 2008 That one was funny, fo' sho. I mean...how you forget the "I"???The one that did it for me, however, was the "ANGEES" blunder. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joshawaggie 142 Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry to put this here, but I did not want to start a new thread and this one was the most relevant I could find. Anyway, as an aside check out this pic of the Bills during the Frank Reich game. Check out #59's pants. HEY! Great spot!Wonder what the hell happened there?Thats not nearly as bad as some of the misspelled uniform blunders in MLB. The best one had to be the time the 'Cincinnati' was misspelled on a pitcher's road jersey.http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/sl...FILE/photo6.jpgThats just embarassing.Did the Bills switch pants striping at one time, or did this guy just get a bad pair? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
leedsunited 0 Posted January 18, 2008 HA! I watched that game on ESPN classic recently.What most people forget is that the Bills scored almost ALL of their second half points in a matter of 10 minutes in the third quarter. The Oilers just completely colapsed. I remember watching the fourth quarter and thinking that the Oilers had plenty of time to turn it around, and they didn't. They deserved to lose that game. I'm shocked that the Bills had to go to overtime to win it. They kind of sputtered in the fourth quarter too.I remember watching that game thinking, "all we need is a first down on offense and that will slow down the comeback". It never happened!! It was: 3 and out on offense --> punt --> give up big play on defense --> REPEAT! I felt that the Bills might make a run at halftime, but when the Oilers opened the 3rd quarter with an INT return for TD to extedn the lead to 35-3, I felt that had to be the final nail in the coffin. NOPE! The sickest I've ever felt as a sports fan.And this is what was wrong with the Run-and-Shoot (or whatever bastardized version the Oilers under Pardee were running) - there was no effective way to slow it down and grind it out. 3 and out, unless you hit it big with a huge gain, was the norm. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John in KY 9 Posted January 18, 2008 Sorry to put this here, but I did not want to start a new thread and this one was the most relevant I could find. Anyway, as an aside check out this pic of the Bills during the Frank Reich game. Check out #59's pants. HEY! Great spot!Wonder what the hell happened there?Thats not nearly as bad as some of the misspelled uniform blunders in MLB. The best one had to be the time the 'Cincinnati' was misspelled on a pitcher's road jersey.http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/sl...FILE/photo6.jpgThats just embarassing.Did the Bills switch pants striping at one time, or did this guy just get a bad pair?Yes, the Bills switched pants striping in 1990. From 1975-1989 they had the wider blue/red/blue stripes worn by #59. In 1990 they switched to the pants worn by all the other players with the thin red/blue/thin red stripes. Technically the 1990 change was a change back to the stripes they had worn from sometime in the mid-1960s through 1974. 1974 was the last year of the "multiple stripe" jerseys like their current throwbacks.Edited to add: By the way, Football Uniforms Past & Present is wrong on the Bills pant stripes, they changed to the blue/red/blue (all wider stripe) pattern when they redesigned their uniforms in 1975. The site doesn't catch up and get it right until 1982. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
powersurge 65 Posted January 18, 2008 That one was funny, fo' sho. I mean...how you forget the "I"???The one that did it for me, however, was the "ANGEES" blunder. hahahaha!The ANGEES!I almost forgot about that one.... ...just plain lazy I guess. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrBear 0 Posted January 19, 2008 Green Bay does okay.Birmingham has supported all the pro football teams that have been there.I can't say that LA would support a team but in their halcyon days, the Rams had great support there.I can't see why Vegas wouldn't support a team,the tourists alone might want to take in a game and the area is growing. Would Portland, San Antonio and Hartford support teams....who knows?Green Bay - a really unique case. I don't think you could start a Green Bay from scratch today. And the Packers weren't always successful - the team nearly went bankrupt in the late 40s when competing against the AAFC. It was only after TV and Lambeau Field came in that the team became solid under today's standards.Birmingham probably has TV market issues.LA - they only support winners and they can't find a municipality that will build a stadium. Vegas - if a team goes in there, good-bye betting on games. Portland and SA - again, TV markets. Hartford is part of the Pats/Giants territory. Moving the Pats there might have worked, but no more. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njmeadowlanders 162 Posted January 19, 2008 I believe this photo (as a wallpaper from the Jets site) is from a Jets 52-13 win over Houston at "Old" Shea Stadium on September 18, 1966:But the Oilers that I grew up with (Warren Moon and my boy Haywood Jeffries) had the best uniforms of all time in my book... 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
illwauk 423 Posted January 19, 2008 I believe this photo (as a wallpaper from the Jets site) is from a Jets 52-13 win over Houston at "Old" Shea Stadium on September 18, 1966:But the Oilers that I grew up with (Warren Moon and my boy Haywood Jeffries) had the best uniforms of all time in my book...Did the silver they used ALWAYS have that blue tint to it? Because up until now I never understood why everyone thought their silver shells looked so good. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gothamite 24,114 Posted January 20, 2008 Green Bay does okay.Birmingham has supported all the pro football teams that have been there.I can't say that LA would support a team but in their halcyon days, the Rams had great support there.I can't see why Vegas wouldn't support a team,the tourists alone might want to take in a game and the area is growing. Would Portland, San Antonio and Hartford support teams....who knows?Green Bay - a really unique case. I don't think you could start a Green Bay from scratch today. And the Packers weren't always successful - the team nearly went bankrupt in the late 40s when competing against the AAFC. It was only after TV and Lambeau Field came in that the team became solid under today's standards.Birmingham probably has TV market issues.LA - they only support winners and they can't find a municipality that will build a stadium. Vegas - if a team goes in there, good-bye betting on games. Portland and SA - again, TV markets. Hartford is part of the Pats/Giants territory. Moving the Pats there might have worked, but no more.I do think that the NFL should have kept LA as a one-team town rather than let both move out. Not exactly the best test of a market. But you're right - nobody there is willing to pony up for a stadium.Birmingham probably you better frickin' believe has TV market issues. And FWIW, Green Bay almost lost its team at least twice - the other owners tried to force a move to Milwaukee in the 1930s and San Francisco in the 1940s. And those're just the ones we've heard discussed publicly. If somebody hadn't come up with the brilliant idea to sell public stock, the Packers would be a mere entry on the "History" page of another team's website, like the Portsmouth Spartans, Decatur Staleys and Frankford Yellow Jackets. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timparry 0 Posted January 20, 2008 Green Bay does okay.Birmingham has supported all the pro football teams that have been there.I can't say that LA would support a team but in their halcyon days, the Rams had great support there.I can't see why Vegas wouldn't support a team,the tourists alone might want to take in a game and the area is growing. Would Portland, San Antonio and Hartford support teams....who knows?Green Bay - a really unique case. I don't think you could start a Green Bay from scratch today. And the Packers weren't always successful - the team nearly went bankrupt in the late 40s when competing against the AAFC. It was only after TV and Lambeau Field came in that the team became solid under today's standards.Birmingham probably has TV market issues.LA - they only support winners and they can't find a municipality that will build a stadium. Vegas - if a team goes in there, good-bye betting on games. Portland and SA - again, TV markets. Hartford is part of the Pats/Giants territory. Moving the Pats there might have worked, but no more.I do think that the NFL should have kept LA as a one-team town rather than let both move out. Not exactly the best test of a market. But you're right - nobody there is willing to pony up for a stadium.Birmingham probably you better frickin' believe has TV market issues. And FWIW, Green Bay almost lost its team at least twice - the other owners tried to force a move to Milwaukee in the 1930s and San Francisco in the 1940s. And those're just the ones we've heard discussed publicly. If somebody hadn't come up with the brilliant idea to sell public stock, the Packers would be a mere entry on the "History" page of another team's website, like the Portsmouth Spartans, Decatur Staleys and Frankford Yellow Jackets.Although Hartford was a Top 10 TV market for the NHL outdoor classic... but it doesn't mean it could even support an NHL team again, IMO. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swisherHOU 27 Posted January 21, 2008 I thought this was a nice photo of the silver helmet. The logo was obviously alot bigger which I guess I had never noticed. I knew the placement was lower than what you see on "throwbacks" out there. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swisherHOU 27 Posted January 21, 2008 Here's a good example of how wrong the throwback helmets are. Although the real helmet is from a few years later, that's how low and how large the logo was placed on the helmets in the 60's. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Discrim 1,276 Posted January 22, 2008 Did the silver they used ALWAYS have that blue tint to it? Because up until now I never understood why everyone thought their silver shells looked so good.I've long thought that was the case, that they used metallic silver blue like the Cowboys rather than a true silver. I got a bunch of old gumball helmets, and among em are some old Oilers that used the same silvery blue shells as were used for the Cowboys...though then again Pantone has spoken, and other pics look like regular silver. I'll post a pic of the gumball a little later for the hell of it 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
