NFL 2010-2011

[hawk36]

Well, from 1977-1998 (20 + years) they had 164 wins and 192 losses for a winning percentage of .460. They won 3 playoff games in those 20+ years and went to zero Super Bowls.

From 1999-present (10 years ) they have 91 wins and 85 losses for a winning percentage of .517. They won 4 playoff games in 10 years and went to a Super Bowl.

Its tough to argue that the new millenium Seahawks have a better track record then the old time hawks. But of course we all know wins and losses have nothing to do with uniforms, but I digress

I'm actually talking about a smaller sub set of the Seahawk history. Basically the two heydays of the franchise:

1983-1988 (Knox Era)

57 regular season wins (3 playoff wins)

2003-2008 (Holmgren Era)

55 regular season wins (4 playoff wins)

Given this I'd say both unis/brands had equally successful runs

[DustDevil61]

Now, if Ralph Wilson will do one last good thing for the Bills before he passes on and do something a little more classic for the Bills. It's hard to argue that the Bills' current look is associated with the playoff drought as opposed to the Kelley/Thomas/Smith era uniforms.

[drj983]

Now, if Ralph Wilson will do one last good thing for the Bills before he passes on and do something a little more classic for the Bills. It's hard to argue that the Bills' current look is associated with the playoff drought as opposed to the Kelley/Thomas/Smith era uniforms.

I think the Chan Gailey hiring is proof enough that Mr. Wilson doesn't plan on doing anything good for the team before he passes on . . .

[hawk36]

Now, if Ralph Wilson will do one last good thing for the Bills before he passes on and do something a little more classic for the Bills. It's hard to argue that the Bills' current look is associated with the playoff drought as opposed to the Kelley/Thomas/Smith era uniforms.

Agreed. Whereas I think the throwbacks are better than the current, or Kelly era set, I think cleaning up the multi-stripes a bit could make for a nice look.

[cheo25]

Well, from 1977-1998 (20 + years) they had 164 wins and 192 losses for a winning percentage of .460. They won 3 playoff games in those 20+ years and went to zero Super Bowls.

From 1999-present (10 years ) they have 91 wins and 85 losses for a winning percentage of .517. They won 4 playoff games in 10 years and went to a Super Bowl.

Its tough to argue that the new millenium Seahawks have a better track record then the old time hawks. But of course we all know wins and losses have nothing to do with uniforms, but I digress

I'm actually talking about a smaller sub set of the Seahawk history. Basically the two heydays of the franchise:

1983-1988 (Knox Era)

57 regular season wins (3 playoff wins)

2003-2008 (Holmgren Era)

55 regular season wins (4 playoff wins)

Given this I'd say both unis/brands had equally successful runs

Edge to the Holmgrem era with regard to success. The Seahawks reached the Super Bowl under Holmgren, but not under Knox.

[hawk36]

Well, from 1977-1998 (20 + years) they had 164 wins and 192 losses for a winning percentage of .460. They won 3 playoff games in those 20+ years and went to zero Super Bowls.

From 1999-present (10 years ) they have 91 wins and 85 losses for a winning percentage of .517. They won 4 playoff games in 10 years and went to a Super Bowl.

Its tough to argue that the new millenium Seahawks have a better track record then the old time hawks. But of course we all know wins and losses have nothing to do with uniforms, but I digress

I'm actually talking about a smaller sub set of the Seahawk history. Basically the two heydays of the franchise:

1983-1988 (Knox Era)

57 regular season wins (3 playoff wins)

2003-2008 (Holmgren Era)

55 regular season wins (4 playoff wins)

Given this I'd say both unis/brands had equally successful runs

Edge to the Holmgrem era with regard to success. The Seahawks reached the Super Bowl under Holmgren, but not under Knox.

I'd call it a draw. Holmgren did take them to the SB but Knox had one more overall win and his success was in a much more difficult division that included the Air Coryell Chargers, Championship Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs. Much more difficult than one with the Rams, 49ers, and Cardinals.

[powersurge]

Well, from 1977-1998 (20 + years) they had 164 wins and 192 losses for a winning percentage of .460. They won 3 playoff games in those 20+ years and went to zero Super Bowls.

From 1999-present (10 years ) they have 91 wins and 85 losses for a winning percentage of .517. They won 4 playoff games in 10 years and went to a Super Bowl.

Its tough to argue that the new millenium Seahawks have a better track record then the old time hawks. But of course we all know wins and losses have nothing to do with uniforms, but I digress

I'm actually talking about a smaller sub set of the Seahawk history. Basically the two heydays of the franchise:

1983-1988 (Knox Era)

57 regular season wins (3 playoff wins)

2003-2008 (Holmgren Era)

55 regular season wins (4 playoff wins)

Given this I'd say both unis/brands had equally successful runs

Edge to the Holmgrem era with regard to success. The Seahawks reached the Super Bowl under Holmgren, but not under Knox.

I'd call it a draw. Holmgren did take them to the SB but Knox had one more overall win and his success was in a much more difficult division that included the Air Coryell Chargers, Championship Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs. Much more difficult than one with the Rams, 49ers, and Cardinals.

I think this is definitely a case of 'agree to disagree'.

Not really worth arguing about it too much further IMO.

[DustDevil61]

Well, there's one thing I can be pretty sure of: with Mangini returning next year, the Browns will trot out on the road in their Tootsie-Roll leotards (unless Holmgren has anything to do with it).

[dennisbergan]

Well, there's one thing I can be pretty sure of: with Mangini returning next year, the Browns will trot out on the road in their Tootsie-Roll leotards (unless Holmgren has anything to do with it).

Good. Many of us here, like their look.

Wouldn't mind them wearing all brown for a game either..

[jimbojohnny56]

NOT!

[Brave-Bird 08]

I think we all get fooled by the Browns "tootsie roll" uniforms because the socks they wear look AMAZING with the jersey stripes.

However, the pants are so bad. I think if the pants had the same stripe pattern as the white pants then it would make for a great set. But, personally, I prefer the all white look for Cleveland.

Wouldnt mind the brown pants as an alternate, but I got sick of those things fast.

[BBTV]

Stripes on the pants would certainly be better, but as long as they wear the white socks, the pants are OK. Preferable to the white IMO... though Orange > Brown > White.

[Brian in Boston]

Holmgren did take them to the SB but Knox had one more overall win and his success was in a much more difficult division that included the Air Coryell Chargers, Championship Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs. Much more difficult than one with the Rams, 49ers, and Cardinals.

Bingo!

As a Seattle Seahawks fan since the day the franchise entered the NFL, I can honestly say that I consider Chuck Knox to have been a superior coach to Holmgren. In fact, I've long felt that Holmgren is one of the most overrated coaches in the history of the National Football League.

I'm of a mind that Holmgren benefitted enormously from having Ron Wolf - an outstanding personnel man - around to acquire talent for him in Green Bay. Further, I feel Holmgren under-achieved while coaching that talent. While he managed to coach the Packers to a victory over the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXI, said New England team overachieved to get to the game and was certainly negatively impacted by the controversy swirling around Bill Parcells and Bob Kraft leading-up to the contest. Holmgren then gift-wrapped a victory to the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII with questionable coaching decisions.

As for his time in Seattle, Holmgren had a miserable run as the man with the final say on personnel decisions. As a coach, his record with the Seahawks was padded with victories - and division titles - won against teams in the weakest division in the NFL, the NFC West. Consistency was a problem for Holmgren's Seahawk teams, as they rarely turned in a consistent effort from quarter to quarter, let alone game to game. Niggling mental mistakes on the part of players were a hallmark of Holmgren's time in Seattle, with very little - if any - consequences coming from said players' inability to correct the problems. As for the team's trip to the Super Bowl, I've rarely seen a team seem less prepared for the NFL's ultimate game than Holmgren's Seahawks. Further, his coaching effort in that game was miserable.

Bottom line? As a Seahawks fan, I found the Holmgren Era to be much ado about nothing. Throw out his best and worst seasons in the Pacific Northwest - the extremes - and Holmgren's tenure with the Seahawks hovered around the mediocrity that the franchise has long been known for. Nothing more, nothing less.

[illwauk]

Holmgren did take them to the SB but Knox had one more overall win and his success was in a much more difficult division that included the Air Coryell Chargers, Championship Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs. Much more difficult than one with the Rams, 49ers, and Cardinals.

I'm of a mind that Holmgren benefitted enormously from having Ron Wolf - an outstanding personnel man - around to acquire talent for him in Green Bay. Further, I feel Holmgren under-achieved while coaching that talent. While he managed to coach the Packers to a victory over the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXI, said New England team overachieved to get to the game and was certainly negatively impacted by the controversy swirling around Bill Parcells and Bob Kraft leading-up to the contest. Holmgren then gift-wrapped a victory to the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII with questionable coaching decisions.

Pretty much any Packers fan would agree with you. The best thing I can say about Holmgren is that between the NFC Championship loss to Dallas in '95 (well, January of '96) and the Super Bowl loss to Denver, he didn't find a way to :censored: up the team that was assembled for him (of course, there was that loss to 0-11 Indy in '97 that ultimately cost them home-field advantage in the playoffs that year). Not to mention that a big reason for the Packers loss to Denver was his being in contact with Paul Allen during Super Bowl week... NOT cool.

[The_Admiral]

Is Holmgren even the best walrus-looking coach in league history, or would you put Andy Reid ahead of him there?

[cheo25]

Holmgren did take them to the SB but Knox had one more overall win and his success was in a much more difficult division that included the Air Coryell Chargers, Championship Raiders, Broncos and Chiefs. Much more difficult than one with the Rams, 49ers, and Cardinals.

Bingo!

As a Seattle Seahawks fan since the day the franchise entered the NFL, I can honestly say that I consider Chuck Knox to have been a superior coach to Holmgren. In fact, I've long felt that Holmgren is one of the most overrated coaches in the history of the National Football League.

I'm of a mind that Holmgren benefitted enormously from having Ron Wolf - an outstanding personnel man - around to acquire talent for him in Green Bay. Further, I feel Holmgren under-achieved while coaching that talent. While he managed to coach the Packers to a victory over the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXI, said New England team overachieved to get to the game and was certainly negatively impacted by the controversy swirling around Bill Parcells and Bob Kraft leading-up to the contest. Holmgren then gift-wrapped a victory to the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII with questionable coaching decisions.

As for his time in Seattle, Holmgren had a miserable run as the man with the final say on personnel decisions. As a coach, his record with the Seahawks was padded with victories - and division titles - won against teams in the weakest division in the NFL, the NFC West. Consistency was a problem for Holmgren's Seahawk teams, as they rarely turned in a consistent effort from quarter to quarter, let alone game to game. Niggling mental mistakes on the part of players were a hallmark of Holmgren's time in Seattle, with very little - if any - consequences coming from said players' inability to correct the problems. As for the team's trip to the Super Bowl, I've rarely seen a team seem less prepared for the NFL's ultimate game than Holmgren's Seahawks. Further, his coaching effort in that game was miserable.

Bottom line? As a Seahawks fan, I found the Holmgren Era to be much ado about nothing. Throw out his best and worst seasons in the Pacific Northwest - the extremes - and Holmgren's tenure with the Seahawks hovered around the mediocrity that the franchise has long been known for. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd say Holmgren was better than mediocre. The AFC West in Knox's day wasn't that loaded. The Broncos were solid for the most part (losing seasons in '88 and '90). The Chargers actually were on the downslide of the Air Coryell era and had one winning season from 1983-91 (1987, and they lost six in a row to finish 8-7). The Raiders were in the tank from 1986-88. The Chiefs had one good year from 1983-88 ('86). The Seahawks won the AFC West in 1988 with a 9-7 record. And the Seahawks started their decline as the Chiefs started to emerge in the back half of 1989 and into the early 1990s.

The NFC was weak during Holmgren's era, but regardless, he got the Seahawks where they'd never been. Knox had three playoff victories in two seasons very early in his tenure (1983, '84) to show for nine years at the helm. Knox was better in L.A. in the 1970s.

[PurpleRush]

My dream NFL uniform wise:

No team ever wear monochrome again.

Especially the Redskins.

Pats - Red as primary jersey color

Dolphins - Bring back the 1980-96 wordmark. Current very plain.

Jets - Lose the green pants permanently.

Bills - Complete overhaul.

Colts - Blue pants w/ white jerseys.

Jags - get a classic look

Titans - Pick a set, or move to Oregon and call team Ducks.

Texans - Fine.

Chargers - Powder blue primary w/ bolts over shoulders, not sideways.

Broncos - Make orange primary

Chiefs - Always red pants with white shirts

Raiders - Fine

Steelers - Fine

Bengals - No side panels, all jerseys solid.

Ravens - Lose black pants forever

Browns - Orange pants or add striping to brown pants

Redskins - ALWAYS white/burgandy pants at home burgundy/white pants @Dallas and select cities.

Cowboys - Fine.

Eagles - Fine.

Giants - Go back to Parcells era white shirts.

49ers - Go back to classic word mark.

Cardinals - Fine

Rams - Back to original yellow/gold color.

Seahawks - Do something. White pants perhaps?

Falcons - Red shirts primary.

Saints - Match the gold colors.

Buccaneers - Stick with all white on road.

Panthers - Blue shirts primary.

Bears - Stick with all white on road

Lions - Remove the unnecessary black stripe on sleeves/eliminate black jerseys

Vikings - Fine.

Packers - Fine.

[TruColor]

Lions - Remove the unnecessary black stripe on sleeves/eliminate black jerseys

I'm just curious - because I've seen others say this as well - what unnecessary Black stripe are you referring to?

And, the Black jerseys were discontinued after the 2008 season.

[Cujo]

Steelers - Fine

Not fine.

As classic as they are to many, if you take a step back, those uniforms are total disaster.

- Sleeve stripes match no other stripes in the set and hardly fit on present-day jerseys.

- A logo only on appears on one side of their helmet.

- Round, modern digits which look extremely of place.

- The unnecessary logo patch on their left shoulder.

I wish the Steelers would tweak their uniforms just a little, sort of like how the 49ers updated their look from their glory days.

[elliott]

Steelers - Fine

Not fine.

As classic as they are to many, if you take a step back, those uniforms are total disaster.

- Sleeve stripes match no other stripes in the set and hardly fit on present-day jerseys.

- A logo only on appears on one side of their helmet.

- Round, modern digits which look extremely of place.

- The unnecessary logo patch on their left shoulder.

I wish the Steelers would tweak their uniforms just a little, sort of like how the 49ers updated their look from their glory days.

LOL @ the sig, love it.

Purplerush, I actually agree with most of your thoughts, except, the Cowboys are in desperate need of some color matching, the Vikings are not fine, and I'd prefer to see the Panthers just get a complete overhaul.