Unpopular Opinions

[AnPheitseog]

5 hours ago, TerrorDog13 said:

We can all agree the new designs that Reebok came up with was different with an different end result expected(tucked jerseys). If side panels work in some cases in other sports i.e. Denver Broncos, why can't it work in another sport if done right.?

 

 

See, that would require agreeing with your premise that side panels work in football. They dont. Broncos look horrible with them. The only way they look even remotely good is when they line up with the pants, which almost never happens.

[NoE38_Concepts]

I believe side panels can look good in hockey, They just have to be done right, which no NHL team has done yet imo.

 

For the Avs Reebok jerseys, if you cut the striping where the side panel stops, thicken the outline stripes a little, and add those same outline stripes to the arms, I'd be perfectly fine with them.

[chcarlson23]

The only team that I can think of where the side panels have looked good, is the Milwaukee Admiral’s current jerseys. Because they’re more integrated into the design, and with striping on the front and back. 
 

But it would look way better and be more traditional, if they had proper hem stripes, rather than the side panels. I don’t mind the ones on the Broncos, but the biggest problem with side panels, is that the arms tend to cover that area, making it particularly pointless...

[Davidellias]

On 9/8/2020 at 7:42 PM, the admiral said:

 

That set was bland, but think of how dreadful the two before it were. It must have been a breath of fresh air at the time. Pullovers with belly stripes and white front panels, untucked contrasting-collared shirts that crossed Eurostile with Tuscan lettering? That's truly awful stuff compared to the current package, a modern classic. It drives me nuts to see any vestiges of the Winning Ugly set popping up on merchandise today. It should be as dead and buried as the Mariners stuff that just said "M's."

lol, don't watch any HS or College baseball then, there's a high chance you'll end up watching game with either the "Winning Ugly" or the "Tequila Sunrise" uniforms.

[nash61]

On 9/12/2020 at 12:36 AM, chcarlson23 said:

The only team that I can think of where the side panels have looked good, is the Milwaukee Admiral’s current jerseys. Because they’re more integrated into the design, and with striping on the front and back. 
 

But it would look way better and be more traditional, if they had proper hem stripes, rather than the side panels. I don’t mind the ones on the Broncos, but the biggest problem with side panels, is that the arms tend to cover that area, making it particularly pointless...

I don't hate these, either, aside from the fact that they don't work for a traditional team like the Islanders and that shade of orange is hideous.

 

 

They looked much better in Bridgeport

 

 

[DCarp1231]

The Bills should absolutely be the team to go red-heavy

 

[PERRIN]

Not a fan. If any team blue and red team could pull off a red home jersey, it's the Texans. They're red jersey with the red socks is already a great look. While I'd be open to the Bills' red helmet making a return, the red jersey is a massive downgrade from the blue.

[Ridleylash]

I think it could work as an alternate, but not as a primary look; the Bills have a pretty damn good set as is. I'd be down with a red helmet, but there's not much I think needs changing about them nowadays.

[DCarp1231]

47 minutes ago, PERRIN said:

Not a fan. If any team blue and red team could pull off a red home jersey, it's the Texans. They're red jersey with the red socks is already a great look. While I'd be open to the Bills' red helmet making a return, the red jersey is a massive downgrade from the blue.

I’ve always thought Houston was a good red team, but if the Texans won’t budge on emphasizing red, then the Bills are the team.

[Chromatic]

On 9/17/2020 at 12:52 PM, nash61 said:

I don't hate these, either, aside from the fact that they don't work for a traditional team like the Islanders and that shade of orange is hideous.

 

 

The worst part about this is that they're wearing the same socks as their home jersey. It looks like that minor hockey organization that couldn't afford to issue its players more than one pair, so their clash jersey stuck out. Not a good look for a pro team at the highest level.

[-Akronite-]

Red/Blue NFL Teams

 

Pats: red looks great but traditionally a blue team and the whole "Redcoats" thing

Bills: traditionally blue and look better in blue

Giants: differing home/road color emphasis, works well enough for them

Titans: favors navy, fans beg for Columbia, red has small role in ID

Texans: red alt looks good, but team has been blue first so far

 

Not sure any of these teams NEEDS to emphasize red, but I guess I'd pick Houston, as they look good in red and have less history to buck.

[dmmdoublem]

I've got a couple of more:

 

• The pinstripes on the Padres' new uniforms are really unnecessary (especially on the road grays).
• The Falcons' new uniforms have looked better than I thought they would so far. I'm hoping they break out the black jersey/white pants combo soon.

[ManillaToad]

'Houston Texans' is a fantastic name for a football team

[ScubaSteve]

20 hours ago, dmmdoublem said:

The Falcons' new uniforms have looked better than I thought they would so far. I'm hoping they break out the black jersey/white pants combo soon.

 

Honestly if they would do white pants instead of monochrome its overall really not a bad look. My only other gripe is ATL when you can easily fit ATLANTA and have it look more balanced

[dmmdoublem]

58 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

Honestly if they would do white pants instead of monochrome its overall really not a bad look. My only other gripe is ATL when you can easily fit ATLANTA and have it look more balanced

 

In general, I don't hate monochrome NFL uniforms the way some folks on here do, but in the case of Atlanta, white pants are the best choice at home.

[Walk-Off]

I have never understood why Presidents has never seemed to be a popular choice for a nickname for any sports team based in Washington, D.C., let alone the frontrunner in the debate over what should be the new nickname for Washington's NFL team.  A Washington Presidents identity would be an excellent way to convey leadership without having to resort to a monarchic (e.g. Kings, Monarchs, Royals), feudal (e.g. Barons, Dukes), or military (e.g. Admirals, Colonels, Generals) theme.  Also, with particular regard to the apparently most likely new nicknames for the Washington Football Team, Presidents would be less generic than (Red) Wolves, be more relevant to D.C. than Red Tails, avoid the awkwardness that a singular noun like Alliance would have, and be free of the Brandiose-style gimmickry of a Seals brand with a Navy SEALs theme.

[AnPheitseog]

3 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

I have never understood why Presidents has never seemed to be a popular choice for a nickname for any sports team based in Washington, D.C., let alone the frontrunner in the debate over what should be the new nickname for Washington's NFL team.  A Washington Presidents identity would be an excellent way to convey leadership without having to resort to a monarchic (e.g. Kings, Monarchs, Royals), feudal (e.g. Barons, Dukes), or military (e.g. Admirals, Colonels, Generals) theme.  Also, with particular regard to the apparently most likely new nicknames for the Washington Football Team, Presidents would be less generic than (Red) Wolves, be more relevant to D.C. than Red Tails, avoid the awkwardness that a singular noun like Alliance would have, and be free of the Brandiose-style gimmickry of a Seals brand with a Navy SEALs theme.

Honestly? A team named the presidents would be tied to whoever is in the office. Is it unfair? Possibly, but the first thing that would come to mind is whoever is in office at the time. All of the other ones manage to be abstract concepts.

[OnWis97]

37 minutes ago, _J_ said:

Honestly? A team named the presidents would be tied to whoever is in the office. Is it unfair? Possibly, but the first thing that would come to mind is whoever is in office at the time. All of the other ones manage to be abstract concepts.

I'd even suspect that takes Senators off the table.  Even in 2004 or whenever the Expos moved, government is too polarizing at this point.  In 1901 or whenever the original Senators were named, it was probably received better than it would be today.

[AnPheitseog]

Just now, OnWis97 said:

I'd even suspect that takes Senators off the table.  Even in 2004 or whenever the Expos moved, government is too polarizing at this point.  In 1901 or whenever the original Senators were named, it was probably received better than it would be today.

I think the Senators get a pass, at least the hockey team, because they link themselves so closely with the 1901 team.

 

But yeah, would be off the table now. Especially in the US, where senators are much more powerful than they are in Canada.

 

Name for the nation is good, name for the govt would be not so good.

[OnWis97]

8 minutes ago, _J_ said:

I think the Senators get a pass, at least the hockey team, because they link themselves so closely with the 1901 team.

 

But yeah, would be off the table now. Especially in the US, where senators are much more powerful than they are in Canada.

 

Name for the nation is good, name for the govt would be not so good.

LOL...I totally blanked on the NHL team when I was talking about the MLB team...but I also think it might be different than the US.

 

(also, as you said there was an old team in hockey-crazed Canada. There was also an old team in the US (two in fact) and maybe it would have been considered more if they'd have had more success.  I don't think people in DC had much connection to either edition of the Senators.)