In 5..4..3..2..1

49ers are officially changing unis next season

Recommended Posts

You think most of the players today couldn't cut it in the NFL in 80's 70s or 60s? That's insane. I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone but watch a game from 1986 and then watch a game from 2008 and tell me the football looks the same. The players are faster, stronger, and there is more talent than there ever was. Marginal starters today would be superstars back then. I can buy the argument that the superstars of today and the superstars of yesterday are comparable (I don't feel that way but I can understand the argument) but the other 50 players on each NFL roster today would own the non-superstars of yesteryear.

quoted for truth.

Quoted for disagreement.

I'm actually shocked that anyone would disagree with this. Really?

I've been watching sports since the late '60s myself, and I can't imagine how badly teams from today would destroy past teams. It's just the natural evolution (I hate that word but for a different reason) of athletics. Players today ARE bigger, stronger, and faster and a lot of it has to do with diet and training techniques. I'll buy into the argument that if you took a superstar from the past and brought them up in our culture today, that they would probably excel and potentially dominate has they had in the past, but certainly not if you dropped them into today's world. What was the average weight of an offensive lineman in the '70s? 260, 270 pounds? My goodness gracious - an average D-lineman or LB for that matter today would just obliterate them.

Players twenty or so years from now will probably kill today's players too.

Well, yeah, that is pretty much what I was thinking. If yesterdays players had todays weight training and illegle performance inhansing drugs, they would actually be better than a lot of the spoiled players today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also raise a good point - from training techniques to nutrition to salaries that release players from the burden of off-season employment, athletes today are groomed from childhood, able to hone their instrument in a way that players from a previous generation could not.

But the notion that players today have more talent? That's unproven, and probably unprovable. I also think it's flat-out false. Had the greats of old been able to take advantage of all the options that today's players have, I supect many of them would be among the greats today.

I agree that individual players are better today because of the advancements in training, nutrition, and steroids, but I also think you could make the argument that on average, NFL players are more talented than ever because the depth of talent is much greater than it was in decades past. Football's popularity has grown tremendously, as has the number of kids who want to play in the NFL, which gives them a much bigger talent pool to choose from. Which is why the NFL hasn't had any problems with the talent being stretched too thin between teams (except maybe at quarterback) despite having more teams and bigger rosters than any other league in the US. Can you imagine Mark Wahlberg walking on to the Philadelphia Eagles in today's NFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...I certainly ain't intend to start all this. :D

I should clarify my original mini-rant was meant to be tongue-in-cheek about the players' comment/complaints about the jerseys they wear, not about the quality/abilities of today's generation of players as compared to players of days/years past or the quality of the game itself.

BUT...it's a bit late for that now, ain't it??? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't believe people would actually suggest that having no sleeves isn't an advantage over having sleeves.

Sure Deacon Jones wore sleeves and dominated. He'd have been even better without the sleeves.

The game evolves and players constantly try to do more and more to be better and have advantages. I don't know why we should be upset or surprised that shorter sleeves have happened. And it's really just ignorant to suggest the effect is nothing more than mental.

Now, from a design stand point, does it suck? Yes. But function is the most important aspect of the uniforms, and the design needs to allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also raise a good point - from training techniques to nutrition to salaries that release players from the burden of off-season employment, athletes today are groomed from childhood, able to hone their instrument in a way that players from a previous generation could not.

But the notion that players today have more talent? That's unproven, and probably unprovable. I also think it's flat-out false. Had the greats of old been able to take advantage of all the options that today's players have, I supect many of them would be among the greats today.

I agree that individual players are better today because of the advancements in training, nutrition, and steroids, but I also think you could make the argument that on average, NFL players are more talented than ever because the depth of talent is much greater than it was in decades past. Football's popularity has grown tremendously, as has the number of kids who want to play in the NFL, which gives them a much bigger talent pool to choose from. Which is why the NFL hasn't had any problems with the talent being stretched too thin between teams (except maybe at quarterback) despite having more teams and bigger rosters than any other league in the US. Can you imagine Mark Wahlberg walking on to the Philadelphia Eagles in today's NFL?

Not the Eagles, but maybe the Lions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just can't believe people would actually suggest that having no sleeves isn't an advantage over having sleeves.

I think the advantage is right along the lines of the "6% less drag!" of the RBK EDGE sweaters. Entirely psychological.

The anti-holding arguments seem pretty silly when you're giving opposing linemen unfettered access to your pads directly. Sure, they can't grab hold of your sleeves. But they can hook their fingers under your pads, which is ever so much preferable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think most of the players today couldn't cut it in the NFL in 80's 70s or 60s? That's insane. I appreciate the old timers as much as anyone but watch a game from 1986 and then watch a game from 2008 and tell me the football looks the same. The players are faster, stronger, and there is more talent than there ever was. Marginal starters today would be superstars back then. I can buy the argument that the superstars of today and the superstars of yesterday are comparable (I don't feel that way but I can understand the argument) but the other 50 players on each NFL roster today would own the non-superstars of yesteryear.

quoted for truth.

Quoted for disagreement.

I'm actually shocked that anyone would disagree with this. Really?

I've been watching sports since the late '60s myself, and I can't imagine how badly teams from today would destroy past teams. It's just the natural evolution (I hate that word but for a different reason) of athletics. Players today ARE bigger, stronger, and faster and a lot of it has to do with diet and training techniques. I'll buy into the argument that if you took a superstar from the past and brought them up in our culture today, that they would probably excel and potentially dominate has they had in the past, but certainly not if you dropped them into today's world. What was the average weight of an offensive lineman in the '70s? 260, 270 pounds? My goodness gracious - an average D-lineman or LB for that matter today would just obliterate them.

Players twenty or so years from now will probably kill today's players too.

Well, yeah, that is pretty much what I was thinking. If yesterdays players had todays weight training and illegle performance inhansing drugs, they would actually be better than a lot of the spoiled players today.

How do we know they wouldn't just end up as spoiled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure Deacon Jones wore sleeves and dominated. He'd have been even better without the sleeves.

For some reason that just reads as a really really funny pair of sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just can't believe people would actually suggest that having no sleeves isn't an advantage over having sleeves.

I think the advantage is right along the lines of the "6% less drag!" of the RBK EDGE sweaters. Entirely psychological.

The anti-holding arguments seem pretty silly when you're giving opposing linemen unfettered access to your pads directly. Sure, they can't grab hold of your sleeves. But they can hook their fingers under your pads, which is ever so much preferable.

Very true Gothy. So very true. Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you think it's an advantage doesn't necessarily make it one.

But, if you think it's a disadvantage, then it absolutely is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like I said - it's all in their heads.

I personally think that no sleeves does allow for better performance, but that's not the point.

The point is that whether it's all in their heads or not, if it is in their heads, it will manifest itself in their play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no. Actually, psychological factors do not necessarily translate into actual performance.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BBTV makes a very good point about the way psycholgical factors work in sport. If you think you are going to win, you don't necesarily win, but if you start off thinking you will lose you certainly will do.

That being said I think some of these seemingly minor shirt alterations are important. It might seem a small point, but tighter shirts do stop shirt holding and pulling. If you can't get a handfull of shirt, then its much harder to hold onto. You can try that out with your own clothes.

Prior to the 2005 Rugby World Cup adopted a new tighter shirt, in part to stop shirt holding. They won the cup. Of course noone can say whether or not they would have won in more traditionally cut rugby shirts, and France didn't win in a similar cut of shirt, but it wasn't just a psychological ploy. It was a serious attempt to gain a teeny tiny advantage. I thgink that at the top levels of sport, the differences in quality between top players is relatively small, so you give your players any advantage you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the 2005 Rugby World Cup adopted a new tighter shirt, in part to stop shirt holding. They won the cup. Of course noone can say whether or not they would have won in more traditionally cut rugby shirts, and France didn't win in a similar cut of shirt, but it wasn't just a psychological ploy. It was a serious attempt to gain a teeny tiny advantage. I think that at the top levels of sport, the differences in quality between top players is relatively small, so you give your players any advantage you can.

That's about the same 'advantage' of a team changing their uniforms and going to the playoffs or winning the super bowl soon after? Would the Cardnials have gotten to the super bowl if they hadn't changed their uni's and KW was still their QB? I'd say yes! It's how you play not how you look!! Too many of today's players harbor their fashion 'sense' too close to the sense of playing their sport. Who cares if you wear a $30k pair of diamond earrings while playing??? You do! Tha'ts why you wore them in the first place! I'd love to be a grounds keeper and find them sets if you lost them and you'd be mad but so what cause' your ballin' enough to get a new pair! That mind frame puts many players at a disadvantage to worry about looking good for cameras and trying to make somebody's highlight reel instead of playing ball and making somebodys super bowl roster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweden won the 2006 Olympic ice hockey gold medal despite being one of only two countries in the tournament to wear traditional sweaters instead of Nike's new Swift sweaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the 2005 Rugby World Cup adopted a new tighter shirt, in part to stop shirt holding. They won the cup. Of course noone can say whether or not they would have won in more traditionally cut rugby shirts, and France didn't win in a similar cut of shirt, but it wasn't just a psychological ploy. It was a serious attempt to gain a teeny tiny advantage. I think that at the top levels of sport, the differences in quality between top players is relatively small, so you give your players any advantage you can.

That's about the same 'advantage' of a team changing their uniforms and going to the playoffs or winning the super bowl soon after? Would the Cardnials have gotten to the super bowl if they hadn't changed their uni's and KW was still their QB? I'd say yes! It's how you play not how you look!! Too many of today's players harbor their fashion 'sense' too close to the sense of playing their sport. Who cares if you wear a $30k pair of diamond earrings while playing??? You do! Tha'ts why you wore them in the first place! I'd love to be a grounds keeper and find them sets if you lost them and you'd be mad but so what cause' your ballin' enough to get a new pair! That mind frame puts many players at a disadvantage to worry about looking good for cameras and trying to make somebody's highlight reel instead of playing ball and making somebodys super bowl roster!

My point was that the new kits were being worn because of performance benefits, not just a redesign. Some of it might be psycholigical, but it is interesting that in the last 6 years (it was actually 2003 now I think about it!) at the top level of the game, the traditional heavy cotton, button downed collar jerseys have all but disappeared. Most teams now wear something much more akin to the 2003 England jersey than anything teams wore previously. Now thats not to say its all down to kit changes, obviously putting a weak team in a fancy new uniform is not going to beat a fantastic team. But performance benefits in a uniform do exist, its not all psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But you're talking about a quantum change in equipment, equivalent to the switch between leather and plastic helmets. Those things happen very, very rarely.

I don't see sleeve length being in that category - I see it as more like the difference between an early 2000s hockey sweater and RBK's "6% less friction!" EDGE. It's a matter of degree.

Which means that the real difference is all in their heads, which doesn't mean that it can't make a difference - after all, wearing the same unwashed pair of lucky socks can make a difference to some players as well - it just means that the difference is unquantifiable, unattributable and ultimately unreliable. Just like lucky socks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps. But you're talking about a quantum change in equipment, equivalent to the switch between leather and plastic helmets. Those things happen very, very rarely.

I don't see sleeve length being in that category - I see it as more like the difference between an early 2000s hockey sweater and RBK's "6% less friction!" EDGE. It's a matter of degree.

Which means that the real difference is all in their heads, which doesn't mean that it can't make a difference - after all, wearing the same unwashed pair of lucky socks can make a difference to some players as well - it just means that the difference is unquantifiable, unattributable and ultimately unreliable. Just like lucky socks.

And as we all know, REAL lucky socks have stripes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.