VikWings Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 The black looked awful on the whites. But didn't mind it on the road or the black alt. But the Royals should've never been wearing black to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 20 hours ago, daveindc said: They look plain and incomplete. Like the letters are just blank. The letters should have been teal, not just because the jersey needed more teal, but because it would just look better. Plain and incomplete? I don't agree with that. That's almost subjective. One could argue the Dodgers, Cardinals, and A's have plain and incomplete home jerseys as well. Simplicity isn't always a fault and I think it worked for that Marlins jersey. They made a simple black jersey without piping and just topped it with a nice wordmark. The letters could have been teal, yes, but the silver looked sharp and was still a Marlins color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTknight Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 6 hours ago, VikWings said: The black looked awful on the whites. But didn't mind it on the road or the black alt. But the Royals should've never been wearing black to begin with. I will agree that they never should have worn it in the first place but that doesnt mean that it is bad by default. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 40-59 are the best number choices for linebackers. Especially 40-49. 90-99 not so much. Leave that to the defensive line. One good example is Vic Beasley Jr. NFL rules state linebackers can choose numbers 40-59 & 90-99, but teams and players can get around this rule and go even lower with number choice. Recently, there have been a few "hybrid" defensive players. Typically Safeties switching to Linebackers. Examples of these are: Deone Bucannon (Cardinals LB/S #20 (he has also previously worn #36)) Su'a Cravens (Redskins S #36 but has been playing LB a lot in preseason) Personally, I really hope extends the number choice for LBs to 30-59 & 90-99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben in LA Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 I didn't even KNOW they added numbers 40-49 for linebackers. That's what retired numbers will do: have linebackers with number 41 and wideouts with number 18. Ha! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 On 8/22/2016 at 4:12 PM, ICTknight said: This is the worst non one day uniform in the Royals history. Now that is a bad ass uni! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, DNAsports said: 40-59 are the best number choices for linebackers. Especially 40-49. 90-99 not so much. Leave that to the defensive line. One good example is Vic Beasley Jr. NFL rules state linebackers can choose numbers 40-59 & 90-99, but teams and players can get around this rule and go even lower with number choice. Recently, there have been a few "hybrid" defensive players. Typically Safeties switching to Linebackers. Examples of these are: Deone Bucannon (Cardinals LB/S #20 (he has also previously worn #36)) Su'a Cravens (Redskins S #36 but has been playing LB a lot in preseason) Personally, I really hope extends the number choice for LBs to 30-59 & 90-99 I agree for expanding usable numbers, though I like 90-99 for linebacker use. In fact, I'd expand the use of 90-99 to tight ends and 80-89 to linebackers. Maybe it's just from watching college football or older NFL/AFL videos where numbering rules are/were less strict and those number sets seem to be used fairly often, but those numbers always seemed to fit just as well as what we're familiar with today. While I'm at it, why not let players use 0 (QBs/Ks/Ps) and 00 (treating it as an abridged, 2-digit version of 100; LBs/TEs/D Line)? I've never understood the rationale in keeping 0 and 00 off-limits to players except for the grandfathered Jim Otto and Ken Burrough (OK, Burrough was a WR, but still). It'll never happen, but I can always dream, can't I? (Side note: Apparently 90-99 were off-limits in the NFL until 1987. Maybe numbering rules weren't as loose as I had previously thought.) Edited August 26, 2016 by DustDevil61 Fixing random phone erasing error Quote http://i.imgur.com/Pyc5qRH.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/RDXvxFE.gif LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Diego Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 I like the gold pants and maybe a matte gold facemask would really improve them all around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WavePunter Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 1 hour ago, San Diego said: I like the gold pants and maybe a matte gold facemask would really improve them all around. I like them as is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 0:08 AM, DustDevil61 said: I agree for expanding usable numbers, though I like 90-99 for linebacker use. In fact, I'd expand the use of 90-99 to tight ends and 80-89 to linebackers. Maybe it's just from watching college football or older NFL/AFL videos where numbering rules are/were less strict and those number sets seem to be used fairly often, but those numbers always seemed to fit just as well as what we're familiar with today. While I'm at it, why not let players use 0 (QBs/Ks/Ps) and 00 (treating it as an abridged, 2-digit version of 100; LBs/TEs/D Line)? I've never understood the rationale in keeping 0 and 00 off-limits to players except for the grandfathered Jim Otto and Ken Burrough (OK, Burrough was a WR, but still). It'll never happen, but I can always dream, can't I? (Side note: Apparently 90-99 were off-limits in the NFL until 1987. Maybe numbering rules weren't as loose as I had previously thought.) I actually wouldn't mind WRs number range be expanded to 10-29,80-89. That or just do 20-29,80-89. Leave 10-19 to QBs and K/P. Something about a WR jersey number in the 20s just looks awesome. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben in LA Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On August 27, 2016 at 7:34 PM, DNAsports said: I actually wouldn't mind WRs number range be expanded to 10-29,80-89. That or just do 20-29,80-89. Leave 10-19 to QBs and K/P. Something about a WR jersey number in the 20s just looks awesome. Fred and Cliff would agree. Charley and Paul would disagree since they both wore the same number (as did Ronnie on defense). ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 On 8/29/2016 at 0:22 PM, Ben in LA said: Fred and Cliff would agree. Charley and Paul would disagree since they both wore the same number (as did Ronnie on defense). ? Also in agreement would be return ace Eric Metcalf and 1985 Bear Dennis Gentry, both of whom switched to WR and were allowed to keep their old numbers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh.0 Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 On 8/27/2016 at 8:34 PM, DNAsports said: I actually wouldn't mind WRs number range be expanded to 10-29,80-89. That or just do 20-29,80-89. Leave 10-19 to QBs and K/P. Something about a WR jersey number in the 20s just looks awesome. Agreed. But, I love single digit numbers on WRs and RBs as in college. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 59 minutes ago, Josh.0 said: Agreed. But, I love single digit numbers on WRs and RBs as in college. Watch some CFL games and you'll see it regularly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrodsep Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On August 24, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Lights Out said: Was he a switch pitcher of some sort or a sort of Jim Abbott situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 He was a Jim Abbott situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Bentz Quote POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidellias Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 IMO one of the worst football uniforms ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Davidellias said: IMO one of the worst football uniforms ever. I've seen worse, but yeah... it's not a great uniform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Very unpopular opinion: I'm actually starting to like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniforms 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel75 Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 1 hour ago, DNAsports said: Very unpopular opinion: I'm actually starting to like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniforms I like em. Quote 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.