ManillaToad Posted December 24, 2023 Share Posted December 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Ark said: The early 2000s Rams uniforms were great. They eventually ruined that design though. Not with the side panels. After they dropped those it was fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted December 27, 2023 Share Posted December 27, 2023 On 12/24/2023 at 1:51 PM, ManillaToad said: Not with the side panels. After they dropped those it was fine They were the one team for whom side panels worked, since the pants didn't have stripes that needed to line up. The blue ones were better without them, but weren't bad either way. The white jerseys may have looked better with them, but again, fine either way. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 27, 2023 Share Posted December 27, 2023 "Athens of the South" is such a funny little insistence when there's a college town actually named Athens that is also in the South. Factories for bad music and girls from St. Louis County throwing up on themselves, yeah, real center of erudition, guys! Anyway their uniforms suck ass and I miss the Oilers. Never was a huge fan of the Expos' road jerseys. Too red-heavy for a Quebec team, and the fleur-de-lis didn't read as an accent aigu because there's nothing slanted or line-like about it, so it just felt like a little floating thing. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Baltimore's mustard pants were noice 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruttep Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 minutes ago, Cujo said: Baltimore's mustard pants were noice (A) I completely forgot that Kyle Juszczyk was a Raven (B) The problem with those is just that gold isn't prominently featured anywhere else on the uniform. The gold is used primarily in the logo, and is barely a tertiary accent color elsewhere. The pants ended up sticking out like a sore thumb. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 On 12/10/2023 at 11:21 AM, CaliforniaGlowin said: Anaheim is good enough for the Ducks, it's good enough for the Angels. Whoever decided they are part of the LA metro area is probably the only one who thinks of Anaheim as part of LA. The problem with the Angels exist with the Chargers in their debut in 1960 that only stayed one year in Los Angeles before moving to San Diego in 1961. Now with the Angels, Los Angeles Angels (2016–present) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2005–2015) Anaheim Angels (1997–2004) California Angels (1965–1996) Los Angeles Angels (1961–1965) I got that from Wiki. But this here is the main problem here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On 1/6/2024 at 3:13 PM, Cujo said: Baltimore's mustard pants were noice Yeah but if you're a Raven fan would you really want your team looking too closely like your AFC North rival over in Pennsylvania? Quote The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 On 12/10/2023 at 9:21 AM, CaliforniaGlowin said: Anaheim is good enough for the Ducks, it's good enough for the Angels. Whoever decided they are part of the LA metro area is probably the only one who thinks of Anaheim as part of LA. I honestly wish Disney had based the Mighty Ducks in San Diego instead of Anaheim. That way, the expansion fee would've been cheaper without having to compensate the Kings. Quote The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridleylash Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 28 minutes ago, neo_prankster said: I honestly wish Disney had based the Mighty Ducks in San Diego instead of Anaheim. That way, the expansion fee would've been cheaper without having to compensate the Kings. Why would Disney have put the Ducks a whole 95 miles from their California park, especially considering they were literally branding the team after one of their movies in the first place? It makes more sense to put them close to Disneyland so that you can easily cross-promote the team and the park. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 20 hours ago, Silver_Star said: The problem with the Angels exist with the Chargers in their debut in 1960 that only stayed one year in Los Angeles before moving to San Diego in 1961. Now with the Angels, Los Angeles Angels (2016–present) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2005–2015) Anaheim Angels (1997–2004) California Angels (1965–1996) Los Angeles Angels (1961–1965) I got that from Wiki. But this here is the main problem here! What is the problem? They play in Anaheim not LA. I do not follow what you are trying to say here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 2 hours ago, dont care said: What is the problem? They play in Anaheim not LA. I do not follow what you are trying to say here. Here is what I am going to say. They started out in Los Angeles, right? So why call them Anaheim when they were not there that long. They were only there because they had a new stadium out there. I do not care what you say to me, but in my eyes, they are STILL the Los Angeles Angels in the American League int he MLB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 9 minutes ago, Silver_Star said: Here is what I am going to say. They started out in Los Angeles, right? So why call them Anaheim when they were not there that long. They were only there because they had a new stadium out there. I do not care what you say to me, but in my eyes, they are STILL the Los Angeles Angels in the American League int he MLB. Ok? They then moved away, changed their name to California angels because they were no longer playing in LA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky1324 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 21 minutes ago, Silver_Star said: Here is what I am going to say. They started out in Los Angeles, right? So why call them Anaheim when they were not there that long. They were only there because they had a new stadium out there. I do not care what you say to me, but in my eyes, they are STILL the Los Angeles Angels in the American League int he MLB. They've played in Anaheim since Angel Stadium opened in 1966. By the end of the decade they had been in Anaheim for just as long as LA proper and by now they've played in Orange County for ten times longer than they ever did in Los Angeles. 6 Quote the user formerly known as cdclt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 13 hours ago, CDCLT said: They've played in Anaheim since Angel Stadium opened in 1966. By the end of the decade they had been in Anaheim for just as long as LA proper and by now they've played in Orange County for ten times longer than they ever did in Los Angeles. Sure, yes. But remember, they did start out in Los Angeles for that 5-year stint. So, I am going to go by that. It's different with the NFL Chargers because they only stayed a year there and no one in L.A. wanted them (reasons why they moved to San Diego which was fitting for them big time). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridleylash Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 5 hours ago, Silver_Star said: Sure, yes. But remember, they did start out in Los Angeles for that 5-year stint. So, I am going to go by that. It's different with the NFL Chargers because they only stayed a year there and no one in L.A. wanted them (reasons why they moved to San Diego which was fitting for them big time). 5 years in LA compared to 58 in Anaheim is a pretty vast difference, though? Not to mention their height of success came from winning the World Series...as the Anaheim Angels; from 1961 to 1997, they had a grand total of 3 playoff appearances, all of which were under the name California Angels. They never even won a round until the 2002 playoffs, 42 whole years into their existence as a franchise and long after dumping the name "Los Angeles Angels". They've not gotten to the ALCS since 2009, haven't made the playoffs since 2014, when they got swept by the Royals, and haven't even had an above .500 win percentage since 2015, their last season with "of Anaheim" in their name. Frankly, it seems the name "Los Angeles Angels" is cursed when it comes to this franchise, considering they've never made the playoffs using that name unless they've tacked "of Anaheim" on at the end of it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 13 hours ago, Silver_Star said: Sure, yes. But remember, they did start out in Los Angeles for that 5-year stint. So, I am going to go by that. It's different with the NFL Chargers because they only stayed a year there and no one in L.A. wanted them (reasons why they moved to San Diego which was fitting for them big time). And? They moved to a different city and took that name. You know what happened when they moved back to LA? They became the LA Chargers again. Your argument make absolutely 0 sense. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 On 1/10/2024 at 8:09 PM, Ridleylash said: Why would Disney have put the Ducks a whole 95 miles from their California park, especially considering they were literally branding the team after one of their movies in the first place? It makes more sense to put them close to Disneyland so that you can easily cross-promote the team and the park. 1) The Ducks could've had San Diego all to themselves instead of sharing the greater LA market with the Kings. 2) If Disney chose San Diego instead of Anaheim, they wouldn't have had to give a penny to that con man Bruce McNall. 3) Here in San Diego, we could've had a newer arena to replace the old SD Sports Arena by '95 or so on the same parking lot. I mean, a new arena built by Disney...privately financed...that would've made us San Diegans happy. 4) I feel like San Diego, even back in the early 90's, would be a big enough city to support an NHL team. And given our history of supporting minor league teams at every opportunity, I really wished our elected officials at the time could've convinced Eisner to bring the Ducks here. Even if that meant playing temporarily at the old Sports Arena while the Pond was being built. Quote The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 hours ago, dont care said: And? They moved to a different city and took that name. You know what happened when they moved back to LA? They became the LA Chargers again. Your argument make absolutely 0 sense. So that means the Angels went back to their roots, the Los Angeles Angels, it goes full circle! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridleylash Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Silver_Star said: So that means the Angels went back to their roots, the Los Angeles Angels, it goes full circle! Is going back to a rotted root really a good idea, though? Again, they've literally never won anything in the postseason as the Los Angeles Angels without "of Anaheim" stapled to the end, the name without that addendum has no historical significance for the franchise beyond losing years without a playoff berth. Especially since they've spent the majority of their existence as the California Angels, and won a World Series under the Anaheim Angels name, which is infinitely more success than they've had as the LA Angels; so if anything, that's the name that should stick with them, not a name associated with failure. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Silver_Star said: So that means the Angels went back to their roots, the Los Angeles Angels, it goes full circle! The angels never moved back to LA… 2 1 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.