pheer Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 You know we're a bunch of nerds when there's 3 pages of debate on the color of an NFL team's pants. :-pThat being said, I'm watching the pre-season replay... Did the Browns change the color of their shells again? They look more yellow-ish orange than reddish orange. I could be my TV, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 If done right the brown pants could really be a thing of beauty.The stripes on the pants look great here, but I definitely don't think those stripes would look good paired with the white jersey and socks. I think the plain brown pants were the correct decision for the white uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 If done right the brown pants could really be a thing of beauty.The stripes on the pants look great here, but I definitely don't think those stripes would look good paired with the white jersey and socks. I think the plain brown pants were the correct decision for the white uniform.Plain stripeless football pants are NEVER the correct decision.Unless your a high school team with budget concerns. And, maybe not even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 If done right the brown pants could really be a thing of beauty.The stripes on the pants look great here, but I definitely don't think those stripes would look good paired with the white jersey and socks. I think the plain brown pants were the correct decision for the white uniform.Plain stripeless football pants are NEVER the correct decision.Unless your a high school team with budget concerns. And, maybe not even then.Fine. Maybe they they weren't the correct decision; just the better-looking decision. Remember at one point all football pants were stripeless. And brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisbergan Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Plain stripeless football pants are NEVER the correct decision.Notre Dame, Penn State, UCLA, Florida State, Michigan and Texas disagree with you.So, do the gorgeous gold pants of the Rams and perfect black pants of the Ravens.Stripes, for stripes sake, don't make sense. The Browns could wear brown pants with stripes, because their uniform is littered with striping. And white pants, usually look better with some kind of striping. But some teams look ridiculous with pant stripes. The Chargers navy pants are RUINED, by that wide-ass white stripe. Should have just kept the lightening bolt. That was COOL and didn't look stupid.It really depends on the uniform and style that a team uses. The Rams blue pants, for example, look stupid with the striping they use. The Rams uniforms are absent of striping. So is their helmet. So they look out-of-place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESTONES6 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 See... I think the Brown pants looked good with the white shirt. But it just seemed too, not-Browns. That make sense? Part of the reason is because of how good the orange pants look.I think if they wanted to do the brown pants, the stripes would have to be added. Not just stripes for the sake of stripes, but it goes along with the style and tradition of the uniform. However, I am part of the group that likes to see consistency between the helmet, pants, and sleeve/side stripes. I think it just looks cleaner. It looks like someone designed the uniform with a bit of care, rather than someone design this, the other person this, then he did this, and you did that.Someone did mention the Helmet/Pants, sleeve/sock idea. And I think that DOES work. If the helmet striping matches the pants striping then the sleeve stripe is matched to the socks. It has some variation, but still has some continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbojohnny56 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 The Bergan Stripe Police are here.This guy would probably take them off the flag if he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canzman Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Here is a link to the official word that the brown pants will not be used in the 2010 season.Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Stripes, for stripes sake, don't make sense. The Browns could wear brown pants with stripes, because their uniform is littered with striping. And white pants, usually look better with some kind of striping. But some teams look ridiculous with pant stripes. The Chargers navy pants are RUINED, by that wide-ass white stripe. Should have just kept the lightening bolt. That was COOL and didn't look stupid.It really depends on the uniform and style that a team uses. The Rams blue pants, for example, look stupid with the striping they use. The Rams uniforms are absent of striping. So is their helmet. So they look out-of-place.I really can't believe I'm typing this...but on this quote here, this quote right here...I actually agree with Mr. Throwemback.It can be debated from here til the fall of western civilization whether or not stripes should have been added to the Browns' brown pants...having said that, when worn with the white top and matching white socks, it provided an interesting visual dynamic for them--a disctinctive change of pace. Should they have had stripes? Again, can be debated forever...either way, the white/brown/white thing, even with the orange domes, were a good look in my book.And as I've wasted no opportunity to slam on the Chargers' power ranger-esque uniform look in the past, I'll say that Mr. Throwemback is also right about that white stripe completely ruining the navy pants, but I'll take it further: so does the white shoulder stripe on their jerseys. It creates the appearance of too much clutter.And, of course, I think we're all in agreement with the Rams' blue pants. They don't need them. Nor do they need the white ones. Just stick with the gold ones they had--and possibly a pair of stripeless navy pants to go with their road jerseys, so long as they pair them with white socks--and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Here is a link to the official word that the brown pants will not be used in the 2010 season.Link Now let's see them bring back the orange pants for 2011. Orange should be the only non-white pants color the Browns should wear on a consistent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Plain stripeless football pants are NEVER the correct decision.Notre Dame, Penn State, UCLA, Florida State, Michigan and Texas disagree with you.So, do the gorgeous gold pants of the Rams and perfect black pants of the Ravens.Stripes, for stripes sake, don't make sense. The Browns could wear brown pants with stripes, because their uniform is littered with striping. And white pants, usually look better with some kind of striping. But some teams look ridiculous with pant stripes. The Chargers navy pants are RUINED, by that wide-ass white stripe. Should have just kept the lightening bolt. That was COOL and didn't look stupid.It really depends on the uniform and style that a team uses. The Rams blue pants, for example, look stupid with the striping they use. The Rams uniforms are absent of striping. So is their helmet. So they look out-of-place.I'll give you Notre Dame, UCLA, and the Rams. Shiney old gold pants look nice without stripes. But the rest? Every one of those teams would look MUCH better with some well thought out stripes.And the Ravens? Seriously? Those horrific black leotards are the worst offender. Every time I see those visual farts (and the Saints' black pants too) paired with the black sox I throw up in my mouth a little.And you've mentioned the Rams lack of stripeing before... um, so, what exactly do you call those things on their shoulders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 See... I think the Brown pants looked good with the white shirt. But it just seemed too, not-Browns. That make sense? Part of the reason is because of how good the orange pants look.I think if they wanted to do the brown pants, the stripes would have to be added. Not just stripes for the sake of stripes, but it goes along with the style and tradition of the uniform. However, I am part of the group that likes to see consistency between the helmet, pants, and sleeve/side stripes. I think it just looks cleaner. It looks like someone designed the uniform with a bit of care, rather than someone design this, the other person this, then he did this, and you did that.Someone did mention the Helmet/Pants, sleeve/sock idea. And I think that DOES work. If the helmet striping matches the pants striping then the sleeve stripe is matched to the socks. It has some variation, but still has some continuity.Or like someone couldn't think of a better way to coordinate the different parts of the uniform, so they took the easiest way out and made all the stripes the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted August 18, 2010 Share Posted August 18, 2010 I really can't believe I'm typing this...but on this quote here, this quote right here...I actually agree with Mr. Throwemback.I'll say that Mr. Throwemback Are we talking about the same DennisBergan I've seen around here? If memory serves, the one I'm aware of hates any and all things "throwback." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PittsburghSucks Posted August 19, 2010 Author Share Posted August 19, 2010 I loved the brown pants. Now we'll never see a monochrome brown out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 I really can't believe I'm typing this...but on this quote here, this quote right here...I actually agree with Mr. Throwemback.I'll say that Mr. Throwemback Are we talking about the same DennisBergan I've seen around here? If memory serves, the one I'm aware of hates any and all things "throwback."I believe that Buc was referring to the fact that Bergan insists on calling all throwbacks, "throwembacks". It's weird, and annoying, but he does say that a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESTONES6 Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 See... I think the Brown pants looked good with the white shirt. But it just seemed too, not-Browns. That make sense? Part of the reason is because of how good the orange pants look.I think if they wanted to do the brown pants, the stripes would have to be added. Not just stripes for the sake of stripes, but it goes along with the style and tradition of the uniform. However, I am part of the group that likes to see consistency between the helmet, pants, and sleeve/side stripes. I think it just looks cleaner. It looks like someone designed the uniform with a bit of care, rather than someone design this, the other person this, then he did this, and you did that.Someone did mention the Helmet/Pants, sleeve/sock idea. And I think that DOES work. If the helmet striping matches the pants striping then the sleeve stripe is matched to the socks. It has some variation, but still has some continuity.Or like someone couldn't think of a better way to coordinate the different parts of the uniform, so they took the easiest way out and made all the stripes the same. I dunno. I don't see much coordination what the helmet has 1 set of stripe, sleeves another set, pants another, and socks a different set. Like I said, a helmet/pants set with sleeves/socks set would work, because there is some sort of consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 I really can't believe I'm typing this...but on this quote here, this quote right here...I actually agree with Mr. Throwemback.I'll say that Mr. Throwemback Are we talking about the same DennisBergan I've seen around here? If memory serves, the one I'm aware of hates any and all things "throwback."I believe that Buc was referring to the fact that Bergan insists on calling all throwbacks, "throwembacks". It's weird, and annoying, but he does say that a lot.Understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.