Discrim Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Is something wrong with me if I can't notice any changes? no, you're fine. only things i notice are teh facemask and socks...i don't own a Colts jersey, and i guess you'd have to to notice. A strong mind gets high off success, a weak mind gets high off bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I can't really tell the difference either. Except for the shoes, socks, pants, and facemask, everything looks the same. You won't know it's a slightly darker blue unless you see it next to the older jerseys. If theyre just going to tweak the design, they don't need a giant fashion show to announce new pants striping. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesCraven Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 "LOL - Who is that dude in the Manning jersey?" That's Tie-Dye Rupert from "Survivor" fame. He won the poll after the All-Star version and the million dollars that went with it. "I better go take a long walk off a short pier or something."Some people on this bolard have told me to do just that.My "Ron Mexico" alias is "Jon Tobago". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan1 Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 For those who don't see a change in the jersey color, go to nflshop.com, in the colts jersey section and you will notice the difference between the 2 blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Falcon Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Funny, now they look like the BALTIMORE Colts. I'd be pissed if I was from B-more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 2004:2003: The biggest difference I note is that the pants on the new uniforms don't have a Denver Bronco hanging out of the crotch area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Is something wrong with me if I can't notice any changes? Same here, besides the tiny changes, they changed NOTHING Â Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacker12 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 It would have been much better of they wore the style of numbers they wore during the 1960's, complete with serifs at the ends of the 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. I agree. The Packers wear that style numbering now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityOfWalrus Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 the sock pattern is different, the 2004 has differant socks than the 2003 picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilTownMVP Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 It would have been much better of they wore the style of numbers they wore during the 1960's, complete with serifs at the ends of the 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. I agree. The Packers wear that style numbering now. I think he's referring to the even older-style that the Packers, Colts and Cowboys all wore in the early 60's.http://www.athlegraphic.com/FFP/1960s/1965.htm Dubya's thoughts on "terrorist" nations: "They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Yeah, it was even more ornate than the one they wear now. Myself, I think it's too busy, but it would be nice to see one team wear it. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.