Unpopular Opinions

[jamesizzo]

I liked this look

[spartacat_12]

23 hours ago, DTConcepts said:

The Penguins' often forgotten navy blue era was really sharp. Might even be their best look, tbh.

 

 

I would've preferred if they went with this look for the Winter Classic instead of a Pirates throw/fauxback.

 

Oh well, I'm sure they'll be in at least one more WC in the next 5 years, so maybe we'll see it then.

[MCM0313]

On 5/1/2022 at 5:20 PM, chcarlson23 said:

To follow this, I hate the sanitary sock look. I’d love to see more stripes on socks, but I’d much rather see the full color all the way down to the cleats. I mean the days of practically needing sanitary socks is over. Those dyes in the socks aren’t gonna kill anyone anymore. 
 

The way NFLers should wear socks these days is a full tube sock essentially, with the stripes on it, if the team has it. Baseball should be like this too, but stir-ups are an option I guess. 
 

Socks can add so much if they’re worn right, and I think having half of the socks be white really takes away from what they could be. 

Regarding your last sentence, be careful what you wish for. Seems like half the teams anymore have decided that having the entire part of the sock be white is the bee’s knees. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

On 11/8/2022 at 8:53 PM, Echo said:

 

That they have one of the best uniforms in the league, and they only wear it as an occasional throwback. 

 

 

My unpopular opinions is that this was better:

 

[HopewellJones]

I love when one color is used very minimally, or used on only some of the elements/equipment. I'm trying to think of whatever "rule" I have, because there are times that it doesn't work. 

 

Examples I like:

- Gold outline on throwback Falcon helmet logo

- Tan/gold pants on Harvard's otherwise all crimson and black set

- Titans use of red 

- Steelers logo

- Baltimore Ravens use of gold

- Gray facemasks 

- Phillies' blue 

 

Probably more that I can't think of right now. But an example I hate is the Lions using a white outline on their logo and WCF patch when there's no other white on the home uniform. That doesn't strike me as an intentional quirk, it strikes me as a poor oversight in design. 

 

 

[VikWings]

^ Along those same lines, for some reason I love black and white with just a smidge of a 3rd brighter color. It's why I think the black alternate is the Cardinals best jersey. (among an admittedly bad set)

[chcarlson23]

4 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

Regarding your last sentence, be careful what you wish for. Seems like half the teams anymore have decided that having the entire part of the sock be white is the bee’s knees. 

Yeahhhh… I’d rather see mono colored yoga pants than white yoga pants lol

[HopewellJones]

4 hours ago, VikWings said:

^ Along those same lines, for some reason I love black and white with just a smidge of a 3rd brighter color. It's why I think the black alternate is the Cardinals best jersey. (among an admittedly bad set)

Agreed! Been a while since I've played, but my last Create-A-Team on NHL was all black and white, with gold only used sparingly as an outline color on the logos and numbers. 

[DTConcepts]

20 hours ago, VikWings said:

Along those same lines, for some reason I love black and white with just a smidge of a 3rd brighter color.

 

I agree. Which is why I think these jerseys really weren't all that bad:

 

They weren't great by any means, but they made sense as an alternate and looked pretty clean on the ice.

[MCM0313]

On 11/15/2022 at 6:12 PM, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

My unpopular opinions is that this was better:

 

My unpopular opinion is that the ‘98 “Dirty Birds” set was better than either of those two. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

My unpopular opinion is that the ‘98 “Dirty Birds” set was better than either of those two. 

 

Did you prefer the original striping on the silver pants or the reversed later striping?

[beast3]

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

Did you prefer the original striping on the silver pants or the reversed later striping?

 

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I've always preferred like the Red-Black-Red striping and consider this my favorite set for the Falcons 

 

 

[maz]

The following two things are overrated:

 

 Royal Blue - Any time a team changes to this from a darker shade, everyone loses their minds like it's the best aesthetic decision that team has ever made when it almost always is a lateral move at best, downgrade at worst. I'm not saying there is no place for royal blue, or that it looks bad. Some teams look great in it. But this idea that anytime a team moves to it from dark blue that it is objectively a big brain move, and better color than any darker shade they've used, is a fallacy. I think that, at least in the case of the Sabres, Oilers, and Islanders in the NHL, this is often due to nostalgia.

 

Gray facemasks in football - Unless your team has gray in its color scheme, its only value is, again, in its nostalgia. As far as looks go, it actually is not that amazing. It's a neutral color, so the facemasks themselves don't bother me. But, like with royal blue, the obsession people have for it is silly and is what annoys me the most.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

9 hours ago, beast3 said:

 

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I've always preferred like the Red-Black-Red striping and consider this my favorite set for the Falcons 

 

 

 

This goes hand in hand with the road look.

Arguably the latter road uniform (with red socks and numbers) was more distinctive and more "Falcons" than the earlier black focused version even if maybe it didn't work quite as well with the black home jersey (at least for me).

[MCM0313]

14 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

Did you prefer the original striping on the silver pants or the reversed later striping?

Original with black jersey, revised with white jersey/red numbers/red socks. 

[Bmac]

Whoa, I'd never paid much attention to the Atlanta Falcons pre-1998 visual identity before. For starters I never knew they modified the pants striping to swap the colors. Interesting.

 

I was much more surprised to find out there existed a different white jersey prior to the red-numbered one introduced in 1997. The black numbers and socks probably match the home uniform better, but I prefer the red numbers and socks they switched to just in time for their national attention.

 

But while looking all this up on the Gridiron Uniform Database, I was VERY surprised to learn that the red-numbered version existed first! Apparently it was worn (with black socks, not red) for one preseason game and the first two road games of the 1990 season, and then they switched to the black-numbered version! How odd.

 

 

[spartacat_12]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:07 AM, maz said:

Royal Blue - Any time a team changes to this from a darker shade, everyone loses their minds like it's the best aesthetic decision that team has ever made when it almost always is a lateral move at best, downgrade at worst. I'm not saying there is no place for royal blue, or that it looks bad. Some teams look great in it. But this idea that anytime a team moves to it from dark blue that it is objectively a big brain move, and better color than any darker shade they've used, is a fallacy. I think that, at least in the case of the Sabres, Oilers, and Islanders in the NHL, this is often due to nostalgia.

 

I think the praise you're seeing is more about teams returning to their roots rather than just people loving royal blue in general. Teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Rams, Bills, & Warriors jumped on the navy bandwagon in the late-90's/early '00s because it was trendy, and wisely went back to royal.

 

I don't think you'd see the same reaction if the Yankees, Bears, or Michigan Wolverines decided to switch from navy to royal blue.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

41 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I think the praise you're seeing is more about teams returning to their roots rather than just people loving royal blue in general. Teams like the Sabres, Oilers, Rams, Bills, & Warriors jumped on the navy bandwagon in the late-90's/early '00s because it was trendy, and wisely went back to royal.

 

I don't think you'd see the same reaction if the Yankees, Bears, or Michigan Wolverines decided to switch from navy to royal blue.

 

The Bears have their own shade of navy blue and its demonstrably darker than any other navy used in the league. For most the history of the NFL, they wear the only team to wear it.

 

If they switched to Cubbie blue, they'd storm Halas Hall with pitchforks and torches.

[MCM0313]

5 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

The Bears have their own shade of navy blue and its demonstrably darker than any other navy used in the league. For most the history of the NFL, they wear the only team to wear it.

 

If they switched to Cubbie blue, they'd storm Halas Hall with pitchforks and torches.

Right. Per TruColor, the Bears' shade of navy blue is the same as the Texans'. It is also a very minor trim color for the Bills, and was the primary color of their horrific 2002-10 set. 

 

That said, I see no evidence of it being used in any other Big 4 leagues, or by anybody else in the NFL. 

[IceCap]

On 11/16/2022 at 2:58 PM, DTConcepts said:

They weren't great by any means, but they made sense as an alternate and looked pretty clean on the ice.

The problem was that they were so clearly the team playing second fiddle to the G-ddamn Nets, New York's second fiddle basketball team. They couldn't even move their full collection of banners into Barclay's because it embarrassed the Nets due to their own lack of success.

 

Everything about it seemed really embarrassing to the NHL, to play catch-up to a NBA team like that. Factor in the terrible experience that was the Barclay's era and... yeah. Best to memory hole that whole era of Isles hockey.