raysox

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tigers6884 said:

Richard%20and%20Ryan_Getty%20Rich%20Pilling.jpg

Not to mention a ripoff of these

 

They're certainly very similar but I wouldn't call them a ripoff. Its pretty obviously a tribute to the Utah geography, I highly doubt they said "lets take those infamous Houston baseball jerseys but basketball them up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

 

It's really nice but you gotta especially respect it because it prevents the slippery slope of over-wearing the alt as many teams do.

They already over-wear the road alt (I prefer the Los Angeles script). They could wear the blue jerseys during Think Blue Week...like they did back in 1998 or 99.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the Bucs uniforms. The numbers are stupid but that's the NFL in the 10s for you and I like the way the yoke provides consistency across the set. Also, while I'm not crazy about it, pewter is a unique color in all of sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Hey! There was some good fashion that decade. Flannel's comeback was nice, and some of the bagginess was OK (just as a reaction to 1980s tightness - all fashion trends are reactions to the ones that preceded them). However, the bad trends of the decade just wound up looking exceptionally garish in the modern period:.

 

Honestly, the bagginess is one of the reasons I hate 90s fashion. The 80s took things a little too far in the other direction, but I thought that extreme tightness of clothing looked better than the bagginess of the 90s. It looked terribly sloppy, IMO.

 

The Sharks do have one of my favorite (early) 90s uniforms, though. Everything they've worn since has been chipping away at what was a great look - and I say that as someone who generally dislikes teal.

 

(Of course, my favorite 90s trend in sports? Retro uniforms in baseball and the return of traditional baseball aesthetics. MLB has been consistently the best looking league of the big 4 since the 90s thanks to that trend.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems like it was a comment about general fashion but baggy shorts do have an advantage in basketball, as they make it tougher to nutmeg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

That seems like it was a comment about general fashion but baggy shorts do have an advantage in basketball, as they make it tougher to nutmeg. 

 

Yes, was a general comment (for instance, I always cringe if I come across a Friends re-run and see Chandler Bing wearing clothes that were 20 sizes too big), but also applicable to sports, at least aesthetically.

 

Basketball was the one sport where the bagginess didn't look absolutely terrible, in my book, though I prefer basketball uniforms a bit more form fitting than what was standard in the 90s. Perhaps part of it was that traditional basketball shorts were a bit too tight and too short, and an overcorrection didn't look as bad in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

Honestly, the bagginess is one of the reasons I hate 90s fashion. The 80s took things a little too far in the other direction, but I thought that extreme tightness of clothing looked better than the bagginess of the 90s. It looked terribly sloppy, IMO.

 

(Of course, my favorite 90s trend in sports? Retro uniforms in baseball and the return of traditional baseball aesthetics. MLB has been consistently the best looking league of the big 4 since the 90s thanks to that trend.)

 

Yeah, the bagginess was pretty bad a lot of the time. Almost nobody could pull off the whole “wearing clothing several sizes too large” schtick. I’d argue that hockey had it the worst (using the Islanders and their classic template as an example):

 

New-York-Islanders-White-Jersey-1998-200

 

Baggy messed with traditional designs, leaving teams with disproportionally-sized crests and too much jersey material. It’s like the sports equivalent of this outfit:

 

chris-webber-baggy-clothes-cologne.png

 

It’s got simple parts, but with overly-loose tailoring and sizing. Also, Bank Gothic was surprisingly popular at the time. I like Bank Gothic as an all-uppercase font.

 

As for baseball’s retro push, I like that the 1990s set up a bunch of classic designs to return, be it wholesale or with modernizations. My only regret is that this period featured too many teams wearing pinstripes. If it were up to me, the Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Cubs, White Sox, and Twins would be the only teams wearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.greengridiron.com/products/miami-dolphins-blaze-alternate-speed-helmet-free-shoc-visor-2-0/?variant=1201483710477

 

I'd like to see my favorite NFL team, the Miami Dolphins, adopt the blaze alternate helmet.  It would give me something to look forward to on Autumn Sundays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Baltimore's ornithologically correct logo. I think the main reason why it gets so much hate is because the team was terrible during that era. The logo itself is fine.

 

 

ruu6f96ggd1xtgd8rpksqflok.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it needs some green in there, the orca is the best logo the Canucks have ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tigers6884 said:

I like Baltimore's ornithologically correct logo. I think the main reason why it gets so much hate is because the team was terrible during that era. The logo itself is fine.

 

 

ruu6f96ggd1xtgd8rpksqflok.gif

I like it too, but I think the current balance is good. Smiling bird for the caps and most everything, but the ornithologically correct bird for the primary logo. 

Wish they'd sell more merchandise with it though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Edmonton Oilers' current navy-and-orange color scheme looks absolutely beautiful. If only they could fix their home uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DiePerske said:

I like it too, but I think the current balance is good. Smiling bird for the caps and most everything, but the ornithologically correct bird for the primary logo. 

Wish they'd sell more merchandise with it though. 

While it would be a bit mis-matched, I wouldn't remind seeing the realistic bird return as a sleeve logo with the smiling bird as the cap logo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a “garbage” post that’ll get me a lot of flak:

 

I’d love it if the Browns changed their name to something like “Bulldogs.” They aren’t the same team as the old Browns (no matter how much the NFL tries to pretend otherwise), and they’ve sullied the legacy of their namesake team by being mediocre to horrendous for their entire existence (e.g., only one playoff appearance in their history). It’s time to acknowledge the truth about the team, give the records back to the Ravens, and build a new team identity (albeit one with the old Browns’ colors, can’t go too far).

 

Also, the Brown family founded the Bengals and play at Paul Brown Stadium. I don’t like that they’re named after a guy who wound up founding a division rival. 

 

I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity.

 

Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I’d love it if the Browns changed their name to something like “Bulldogs.” They aren’t the same team as the old Browns (no matter how much the NFL tries to pretend otherwise), and they’ve sullied the legacy of their namesake team by being mediocre to horrendous for their entire existence (e.g., only one playoff appearance in their history). It’s time to acknowledge the truth about the team, give the records back to the Ravens, and build a new team identity (albeit one with the old Browns’ colors, can’t go too far).

 

I am with you on some of your stance so piece by piece...

I'm with you on the monkeying with history, but we don't want to bring that argument up yet again.  That said, I do feel it should be the Baltimore Browns (more on that below) and, therefore, the current Cleveland franchise should be called something else (though the old edition was pretty bad for the whole Super Bowl era, so I am not that concerned with any sullying).   

 

I'm not sure about "Bulldogs."  I don't love the idea of naming teams after fanbases, but then again, it's a reasonable name and would have happened fairly organicaly.

 

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

Also, the Brown family founded the Bengals and play at Paul Brown Stadium. I don’t like that they’re named after a guy who wound up founding a division rival. 

 

That's an interesting point.  It doesn't really both me; in fact, it's probably the kind of thing that can generate parent/child NFL history lessons.

 

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity.

 

Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.

Like you, I am a fan of keeping franchise movement historically intact.  However, I am also a fan of keeping names to make that lineage even that much more obvious.  I prefer Colts treatment to Oilers treatment.  The Colts are a long-running franchise with championships and I think it's better-remembered than it would be had they changed their name.  The original Browns, while pretty far removed from their success, were an important franchise, historically.  I'd like to have seen that continue on in Baltimore.  

 

There's no doubt that Ravens was a home run name.  But with all the franchise movement in the NFL in my memory (Cardinals, Colts, Rams/Rams, Raiders/Raiders/Raiders, Oilers, Chargers) I am glad that most kept their names on the move; otherwise, tracing it all would be more of a chore.  

 

I do think a Winnipeg Jets scenario (i.e., Ravens are recognized as holding their long history and Browns recognized as being a second-edition, 1999 expansion team) is reasonable but not optimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

That's an interesting point.  It doesn't really both me; in fact, it's probably the kind of thing that can generate parent/child NFL history lessons.

 

I get where you’re coming from on that, but it’s just weird to me. Had the team changed their naming from Paul Brown to Jim Brown (inarguably the best player in team history), that might have resolved the issue. Of course, Jim Brown has had some hefty legal accusations thrown his way over the years, so I doubt that’d fly.

 

To me, that’s like having the Washington Landrys or the Green Bay Hallases. 

 

Naming a team after their founder/long-time leader just comes off poorly as time goes on. The key example of this would be the Charlotte Bobcats.

 

Quote

Like you, I am a fan of keeping franchise movement historically intact.  However, I am also a fan of keeping names to make that lineage even that much more obvious.  I prefer Colts treatment to Oilers treatment.  The Colts are a long-running franchise with championships and I think it's better-remembered than it would be had they changed their name.  The original Browns, while pretty far removed from their success, were an important franchise, historically.  I'd like to have seen that continue on in Baltimore.  

 

While I’m a fan of several teams that did just that and generally support that idea, I still think the Browns should have left their old identity behind when moving. The relocation process was so wrought with pain and was such a PR disaster that the name should have changed. While the Giants/Dodgers relocations may have been just as painful, this was before a modern focus on branding. My best guess is that it took the Colts and North Stars moving for the “change the name” approach to really take off in Big Four sports.

 

Quote

There's no doubt that Ravens was a home run name.  But with all the franchise movement in the NFL in my memory (Cardinals, Colts, Rams/Rams, Raiders/Raiders/Raiders, Oilers, Chargers) I am glad that most kept their names on the move; otherwise, tracing it all would be more of a chore.  

 

It’s not that much more of a chore. All it’d take in today’s world is a quick google search or a glance in a records book. It’s no different from Sen(ational)ors to Twins or Expos to Nationals.

 

Quote

I do think a Winnipeg Jets scenario (i.e., Ravens are recognized as holding their long history and Browns recognized as being a second-edition, 1999 expansion team) is reasonable but not optimal.

 

That’s the ideal course for any “pained” relocation of a historically-significant team. I’m pretty sure no hockey fans in Atlanta want the Trashers’ franchise history, and I believe I speak for many Sharks fan when I say that we don’t want the Seals’ crummy records/history (“unmerger” notwithstanding). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Padres' uniforms have grown on me. My first reaction to them was "boring blue and white", but they're actually pretty clean and distinct. Pinstripes might have been nice, but I like the way the white pops on these too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Here’s a “garbage” post that’ll get me a lot of flak:

 

I’d love it if the Browns changed their name to something like “Bulldogs.” They aren’t the same team as the old Browns (no matter how much the NFL tries to pretend otherwise), and they’ve sullied the legacy of their namesake team by being mediocre to horrendous for their entire existence (e.g., only one playoff appearance in their history). It’s time to acknowledge the truth about the team, give the records back to the Ravens, and build a new team identity (albeit one with the old Browns’ colors, can’t go too far).

 

Also, the Brown family founded the Bengals and play at Paul Brown Stadium. I don’t like that they’re named after a guy who wound up founding a division rival. 

 

I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity.

 

Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.

 

If they did decide to rebrand like that, I'd want to see them tweak the color scheme a bit. Keeping the brown/orange look would make them the same old Browns to me. Going with a simple brown/white uniform would give them a clean look, and would also help differentiate themselves from their in-state orange rival.

 

dgavnUA.png

 

Either way, I'd like to see them at least de-emphasize the orange to fully embrace brown. White lids wouldn't be unprecedented -- 

 

1947_Cleveland.png?6181

 

11444902-large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a historical curiosity, I would like to see the Browns change their name and maybe colors. It would be really interesting to see an identity that was fought for so damn hard, and then what had to happen in between that made said identity "worthless" in only about 20 years.

 

Not that I want it to happen; I just think it would be funny.

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.