raysox

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

falcons-jaguars-footbal2beasley-1.jpg

 

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))

BucNotesMAIN.jpg

 

Su'a Cravens (Redskins S #36 but has been playing LB a lot in preseason)

081216_falcons_CC15.JPG

 

Personally, I really hope extends the number choice for LBs to 30-59 & 90-99

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

falcons-jaguars-footbal2beasley-1.jpg

 

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))

BucNotesMAIN.jpg

 

Su'a Cravens (Redskins S #36 but has been playing LB a lot in preseason)

081216_falcons_CC15.JPG

 

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 by DustDevil61
Fixing random phone erasing error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, San Diego said:

I like the gold pants and maybe a matte gold facemask would really improve them all around. 

 

GettyImages-502113138_1450827905771_2881

I like them as is.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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). ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 24, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Lights Out said:

 

 

HGs0YsH.jpg

 

 

 

Was he a switch pitcher of some sort or a sort of Jim Abbott situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DNAsports said:

Very unpopular opinion:

 

 

I'm actually starting to like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniforms

I like em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.