NFL Changes for 2009 season

[Michigan Dave]

Team USA is un-American!! OMFG!!!REDJERSEYS!!!

The flag is un-American, too. WHYISTHERERED???THEREDCOATSWERERED!!!

[IceCap]

You're completely missing the point about the Patriots being named after the American Revolutionaries who fought the red coats, but hey, whatever.

For an anniversary the Pats' red jerseys are fine.

If you think they should go back to them full time though, here's an argument that has nothing to do with the red coat thing;

when they wore red they were a laughing stock, going to only one Super Bowl and getting their collective asses kicked in it.

With navy they've won three Super Bowls and established a mini-dynasty with perhaps one of the best QBs the league has ever seen.

I'd say the navy will be around for a while.

As for my Toronto Red Coats comment, I just think that such a scenario where you have a team named the Patriots based in the heart of the American Revolution playing a team based out of a country that still has ties to the British crown named the Red Coats would be awesome to see. But whatever.

[Michigan Dave]

You're completely missing the point about the Patriots being named after the American Revolutionaries who fought the red coats, but hey, whatever.

For an anniversary the Pats' red jerseys are fine.

If you think they should go back to them full time though, here's an argument that has nothing to do with the red coat thing;

when they wore red they were a laughing stock, going to only one Super Bowl and getting their collective asses kicked in it.

With navy they've won three Super Bowls and established a mini-dynasty with perhaps one of the best QBs the league has ever seen.

I'd say the navy will be around for a while.

As for my Toronto Red Coats comment, I just think that such a scenario where you have a team named the Patriots based in the heart of the American Revolution playing a team based out of a country that still has ties to the British crown named the Red Coats would be awesome to see. But whatever.

No, I'm not missing the point. The point is, the Patriots are named after the Revolutionaries who fought for the United States. Last I checked, the United States was represented by red, white and blue. The Patriots are a football team, not a group of 53 historical event re-enactors. The Florida Gators are named after alligators, which are green. They wear blue.

I do agree with you about the navy/dynasty thing, though. The new identity has created one of the most successful brands the NFL has seen. The Krafts have done a great job making the Elvis/current unis a successful brand, and the Patriot Place marketing reinforces that. I love the current look and don't want to see it changed. I do like the idea of a red alt/special throwback being worn, though.

[patsox]

You're completely missing the point about the Patriots being named after the American Revolutionaries who fought the red coats, but hey, whatever.

For an anniversary the Pats' red jerseys are fine.

If you think they should go back to them full time though, here's an argument that has nothing to do with the red coat thing;

when they wore red they were a laughing stock, going to only one Super Bowl and getting their collective asses kicked in it.

With navy they've won three Super Bowls and established a mini-dynasty with perhaps one of the best QBs the league has ever seen.

I'd say the navy will be around for a while.

As for my Toronto Red Coats comment, I just think that such a scenario where you have a team named the Patriots based in the heart of the American Revolution playing a team based out of a country that still has ties to the British crown named the Red Coats would be awesome to see. But whatever.

No, I'm not missing the point. The point is, the Patriots are named after the Revolutionaries who fought for the United States. Last I checked, the United States was represented by red, white and blue. The Patriots are a football team, not a group of 53 historical event re-enactors. The Florida Gators are named after alligators, which are green. They wear blue.

I do agree with you about the navy/dynasty thing, though. The new identity has created one of the most successful brands the NFL has seen. The Krafts have done a great job making the Elvis/current unis a successful brand, and the Patriot Place marketing reinforces that. I love the current look and don't want to see it changed. I do like the idea of a red alt/special throwback being worn, though.

The thing is that the Patriots logo is supposed to be a Revolutionary soldier and the old one was a Revolutionary soldier. Those guys did wear blue and if that's who they were named after it makes sense that they wear the color they wore rather than the color their enemies wore.

[The_Admiral]

The fact that the Patriots were a truckload of crap in the red jerseys is a more salient argument for never wearing them again than any Patriot/Redcoat stuff.

[patsox]

The fact that the Patriots were a truckload of crap in the red jerseys is a more salient argument for never wearing them again than any Patriot/Redcoat stuff.

I think truckload of crap is a little strong. They certainly were not good and they did get absolutely annihilated in the Super Bowl wearing those, but whether they sucked or not those uniforms are a part of their history and they had a number of great players during that era. Pat Patriot is also beloved in New England by many. That's why I have no problem with them wearing them for anniversaries and what not.

[darkhaha]

RAIDERS THROWBACKS!!!

As much as I really like that Raiders jersey, I can tell you, as a sportswriter, that those numbers are gonna be a b*tch to read from the pressbox. Light numbers on white jerseys are one of my biggest pet peeves. Same goes for dark numbers on dark jerseys.

If they actually make the black outline the correct thickness, which is way thicker than this picture, they would be easier to read.

"Way thicker"? Not so much. Can't post the pic here for whatever reason but check out the silver number jerseys in this pic. Note a big piece of #23's helmet decal is missing.

Lamonica pic

Love those jerseys and wish they'd go back to them but they'd need REALLY thick outlines.

Well, it all depends on what year they are trying to "throwback" to. The picture of Lamonica et al. you linked to is from 1970, when the outline was significantly thinner than it was in their mid-60s set. Here's a pic from 1963, which shows the Raiders in a little-known jersey with silver sleeve numbers and black front and back numbers (and stripes on the socks!):

Here's a photo from 1964 in which the outline on the number was indeed much thicker:

[Jezus_Ghoti]

The Patriots red vs. blue argument is the worst thing about the CCSLC.

Both sides - just let it go. Please.

[Gothamite]

Well McCall brought up a good point. History is tricky. In only a few cases are the sides of "good" and "evil" easily recognizable. The Civil War simply isn't one of those.

IMO it's closer to the "good"/"evil" divide then some other historical conflicts, but it's not as clear cut as most people think it is.

Oh, I don't know. I think slavery vs. no slavery is pretty darn clear-cut.

The Confederate states left the union because they were afraid the evil federal government would take away their right to keep slaves. They loudly proclaimed this at the time. It's only in recent years that the "states' rights" canard has been floated. But consider this - the CSA, which was apparently all concerned with the right of the states to run their own business without looming federal control, made it illegal for its member states to abolish slavery. Try to wrap your brain around that.

I know it's all postmodern to say that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. But that's revisionist history, and demonstrably wrong on the facts. Yes, there were additional factors which fanned the flames, but none so important to the Southern states as slavery.

You're right that "good v. evil" doesn't often apply to the real world. In this case, though, the shoe fits.

[Perfect Zero]

What is funny is Texas was almost denied admission because we would not allow the slave trade. That has never been in our Constitution, and we stood our ground on it. I still wish we would have stood our ground when it came to staying in the Union though. With Texas in the Union, the Civil War would have been over in two years.

[Gothamite]

It's true that Texas didn't much care for the African slave trade. And she ought to be commended for that. But once the slaves were actually in the United States, Texas had no objection to their bondage, and even if freed, blacks were not to be allowed to live in the new Republic. Rather less commendable, that.

From the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, 1836 (General Provisions):

SEC. 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy.

(emphasis mine, natch)

And then in the very next section, in case anybody didn't get the message:

SEC. 10. All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

It wasn't just that Texas merely tolerated the slavery holdings of her fellow Southern states as a charming regional quirk that they themselves eschewed. Slavery was essential to Texas' self-image. Here's what the Texas government said when they left the United States:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.

(once again, emphasis mine)

Let's not pretend that her skirts are clean, from an historical standpoint. While the trade itself might not have been in the Texas Constitution, slavery held a distinguished place of honor therein. That the nutty Southern states took umbrage to this parsing notwithstanding.

[Gothamite]

Here's a photo from 1964 in which the outline on the number was indeed much thicker:

Those numbers are pretty clear. Wouldn't mind seeing the Raiders go back to that, and I would love to see the Saints return to their gold numbers/black outline version.

[yoo]

didn't see this in the thread,so here it is

The Chargers announced yesterday that they will wear a commemorative patch during the 2009 season marking the 50th anniversary of the AFL. The Chargers, one of eight original AFL teams, also will wear a uniform modeled after their 1963 uniform for two games. The Chargers won the AFL championship in '63, the franchise's only title. The uniforms will be worn in games (one home, one away) against Denver, Kansas City, Oakland or Tennessee (formerly the Houston Oilers). Those are the only four original AFL teams on the Chargers' schedule in 2009. Both teams will wear uniforms from their AFL days. -- San Diego Union-Tribune

[IceCap]

The fact that the Patriots were a truckload of crap in the red jerseys is a more salient argument for never wearing them again than any Patriot/Redcoat stuff.

I think truckload of crap is a little strong. They certainly were not good and they did get absolutely annihilated in the Super Bowl wearing those, but whether they sucked or not those uniforms are a part of their history and they had a number of great players during that era. Pat Patriot is also beloved in New England by many. That's why I have no problem with them wearing them for anniversaries and what not.

It's all subjective. Compared to their track record in navy, yeah, they were a truckload of crap in red.

Well McCall brought up a good point. History is tricky. In only a few cases are the sides of "good" and "evil" easily recognizable. The Civil War simply isn't one of those.

IMO it's closer to the "good"/"evil" divide then some other historical conflicts, but it's not as clear cut as most people think it is.

Oh, I don't know. I think slavery vs. no slavery is pretty darn clear-cut.

The Confederate states left the union because they were afraid the evil federal government would take away their right to keep slaves. They loudly proclaimed this at the time. It's only in recent years that the "states' rights" canard has been floated. But consider this - the CSA, which was apparently all concerned with the right of the states to run their own business without looming federal control, made it illegal for its member states to abolish slavery. Try to wrap your brain around that.

I know it's all postmodern to say that the Civil War wasn't really about slavery. But that's revisionist history, and demonstrably wrong on the facts. Yes, there were additional factors which fanned the flames, but none so important to the Southern states as slavery.

You're right that "good v. evil" doesn't often apply to the real world. In this case, though, the shoe fits.

Try to wrap my brain around it? I've been wrapping my head around it since September at the earliest. I'm in the midst of writing a term paper concerning the CSA and their debates regarding secession following Lincoln's election in 1860.

And I can tell you that the CSA, while closer then most historical entities to being definably "bad," doesn't hold a candle to Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or even Kim Jong-il's North Korea.

At the end of the day though, the CSA was about more then slavery. The first incident of southern states planing to secede didn't even involve the issue of slavery. It involved protective tariffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

That and the whole "slavery" thing was more of a catalyst then a direct cause. The issue was states' rights, slavery happened to be the hot-button topic that triggered discussion (and eventually shooting) over that broader issue. Again, I point to the above example. In 1832 the topic that triggered the states rights discussion was the tariff. In fact in 1798 two southern states, Virginia and Kentucky, held similar "nullification" conventions regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts. The conflict between north and south prior to 1860 had always revolved around states' rights. This delicate issue was aggravated by many smaller catalyst issues through the years leading up to 1860, slavery being just one of them.

As for the Confederate Constitution, well in and of itself it's a pretty mundane document. Can we really hold the provisions protecting slavery against it though, when the US Constitution did nothing to abolish the institution in the first place and bared women from voting?

With the US Constitution future generations rectified these wrongs with amendments. Given that the CSA's only real chance at achieving independence came from the anti-slave powers France and the British Empire, I'm inclined to believe that an amendment abolishing slavery would have been added to the Confederate Constitution sooner rather then later had it achieved nationhood.

Further mucking up the moral waters of the Civil War was the fact that Lincoln made it clear the war to bring the south back into the Union, not about abolishing slavery. We're all familiar with his "if I could restore the Union by freeing every slave I would, and if I could restore the Union by not freeing a single slave I would do that also" speech. Lincoln ran not on an abolitionist ticket in 1860, but simply on a "keep slavery out of the territories" ticket.

You also had General U.S. Grant expelling Jews from military districts under his command and General W.T. Sherman waging a campaign that would be denounced as a war crime by contemporary standards.

So all of that said, I'm not convinced the CSA fits the "clearly evil" bill for a historical entity, nor can I call the Civil War a true struggle between "good" and "evil."

To paraphrase Dr. Evil, the CSA is the Diet Coke of Evil.

[chestnutz]

Oh my God. Please, please stop talking about this red/blue argument. It pops up every month in some thread that seriously doesn't need it. I open this thread to see if there are any rumors about NFL changes, not to read 3 pages on what color the Patriots SHOULD wear, not what they WILL wear. So Gothamite, Michigan Dave, I mean this with all the respect in the world, please SHUT UP.

If you want to talk about it, make a new topic please.

[Gothamite]

I'm not talking about the Patriots. I agree - it's a stupid argument.

I'm talking about Texas' checkered history with regard to slavery. Big difference.

[The_Admiral]

Pat Patriot is also beloved in New England by many.

By how many, though? By all accounts, the Patriots were the distant fourth on the Boston sports scene until Kraft bought the team. I suppose it could've been beloved independent of the historically crappy team, maybe, but it's not a very good logo, and it was worn by a lot of not-so-good teams, some of which were bad enough to threaten Boston's spot on the NFL map for a while there.

I still think they should've stuck with the tricorner hat.

[IceCap]

Pat Patriot is also beloved in New England by many.

By how many, though? By all accounts, the Patriots were the distant fourth on the Boston sports scene until Kraft bought the team. I suppose it could've been beloved independent of the historically crappy team, maybe, but it's not a very good logo, and it was worn by a lot of not-so-good teams, some of which were bad enough to threaten Boston's spot on the NFL map for a while there.

I still think they should've stuck with the tricorner hat.

I really don't get the love for Pat. It's terribly drawn. If the Pats had kept him, he would have received a Miami/Arizona-like update a few years ago.

That logo is the embodiment of the "old not traditional" argument.

[Legend]

I was thinkin the other day about teams that haven't done anything to their uni's in a while and the Bucs came to mind. They haven't done anything since they introduced these that I can recall.

I know they aren't the only team, but they came to mind for some reason.

[IceCap]

I was thinkin the other day about teams that haven't done anything to their uni's in a while and the Bucs came to mind. They haven't done anything since they introduced these that I can recall.

I know they aren't the only team, but they came to mind for some reason.

In TB's case I wouldn't try to fix something that's not broken.