Jump to content

Upcoming NFL Pants and 3rd Jerseys


St Louis Cardinals

Recommended Posts

While I was looking at the NFL Uniforms on Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph on the NFL Uniform Makers info page.

"Please be patient as I transition the 2012 Nike uniforms into our NFL templates. This should only take a few days. Thank you. Additional pant options for the Browns, Bears, 49ers, and Broncos as well as the 3rd uniforms for the Rams, Steelers, Jaguars, and Redskins will not uploaded until the team makes an official statement."

For the Browns I'm expecting a return of the Brown Pants. The Bears pants will be orange (as already leaked on Madden), while the 49ers might have white or even red pants. Broncos will probably have orange pants. for the jerseys, i think that the rams will bring back their throwback while steelers while have a throwback and jaguars black jerseys. for the redskins i think the jersey will be yellow.

here is the link to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnnySeoul#SPOILER_FREE.21.21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not believe anything on Wikipedia and for the love of all things holy, never use Wikipedia as a reference if you are in college!

agreed. on both fronts.

here's the thing: new media has made it very conducive for people to create a hybrid of conjecture, speculation and pieces of fact and sell them off as having "an inside track." and i don't say this and someone who hates blogs or twitter or any avenue of new or social media. i'm a blogger for a team-centric page. i'm just saying, some people try to pass off inferences they've made from stuff they've collected from the internet as fact. so to the OP, don't put too much weight into the wiki list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not believe anything on Wikipedia and for the love of all things holy, never use Wikipedia as a reference if you are in college!

Off topic, that's total bull :censored: now. You can still edit information but moderators quickly correct it if there is no reference source.

Besides, are people really gonna waste some time to change information on :censored: I need to look up for a research paper?

/rant off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not believe anything on Wikipedia and for the love of all things holy, never use Wikipedia as a reference if you are in college!

Well you shouldn't cite Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is often useful for providing links to great resources.

Anyway, I'm worried about these Redskins third jerseys. There have been rumors about them using black for some time now. Though I thought that settled down when they got rid of Jim Zorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not believe anything on Wikipedia and for the love of all things holy, never use Wikipedia as a reference if you are in college!

Well you shouldn't cite Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is often useful for providing links to great resources.

Anyway, I'm worried about these Redskins third jerseys. There have been rumors about them using black for some time now. Though I thought that settled down when they got rid of Jim Zorn.

Worry not....the third jersey will be a throwback to mark the team's 80th anniversary. It will be unveiled on May 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While I was looking at the NFL Uniforms on Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph on the NFL Uniform Makers info page.

"Please be patient as I transition the 2012 Nike uniforms into our NFL templates. This should only take a few days. Thank you. Additional pant options for the Browns, Bears, 49ers, and Broncos as well as the 3rd uniforms for the Rams, Steelers, Jaguars, and Redskins will not uploaded until the team makes an official statement."

For the Browns I'm expecting a return of the Brown Pants. The Bears pants will be orange (as already leaked on Madden), while the 49ers might have white or even red pants. Broncos will probably have orange pants. for the jerseys, i think that the rams will bring back their throwback while steelers while have a throwback and jaguars black jerseys. for the redskins i think the jersey will be yellow.

here is the link to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnnySeoul#SPOILER_FREE.21.21

Actually, the Bears did wear orange pants in 1948-49:

6946363340_decc4ca83a.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was looking at the NFL Uniforms on Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph on the NFL Uniform Makers info page.

"Please be patient as I transition the 2012 Nike uniforms into our NFL templates. This should only take a few days. Thank you. Additional pant options for the Browns, Bears, 49ers, and Broncos as well as the 3rd uniforms for the Rams, Steelers, Jaguars, and Redskins will not uploaded until the team makes an official statement."

For the Browns I'm expecting a return of the Brown Pants. The Bears pants will be orange (as already leaked on Madden), while the 49ers might have white or even red pants. Broncos will probably have orange pants. for the jerseys, i think that the rams will bring back their throwback while steelers while have a throwback and jaguars black jerseys. for the redskins i think the jersey will be yellow.

here is the link to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnnySeoul#SPOILER_FREE.21.21

Actually, the Bears did wear orange pants in 1948-49:

6946363340_decc4ca83a.jpg

Is that photoshopped??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can not believe anything on Wikipedia and for the love of all things holy, never use Wikipedia as a reference if you are in college!

Off topic, that's total bull :censored: now. You can still edit information but moderators quickly correct it if there is no reference source.

Besides, are people really gonna waste some time to change information on :censored: I need to look up for a research paper?

/rant off

Exactly...while ridiculous edits can be sneaked in they are caught almost immediately, furthermore all submissions are reviewed by an editorial board requiring citations to actual sources, which is standard procedure for any reference document virtual or hard copy.

This whole "wikipedia can't be trusted" that's parroted is utter nonsense. Did people believe Britannica or World Book was the absolute truth? After all those traditional encyclopedias used a small editorial board before publishing approval which would lend itself much more exposure to bias. Wikipedia is under much more scrutiny than those publications and actually has the ability to be corrected which is an actual benefit over the traditional references.

The degree of ignorance and the willingness to accept half truths as facts without actual critical thought by such a large populous is absolutely shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...while ridiculous edits can be sneaked in they are caught almost immediately, furthermore all submissions are reviewed by an editorial board requiring citations to actual sources, which is standard procedure for any reference document virtual or hard copy.

This whole "wikipedia can't be trusted" that's parroted is utter nonsense. Did people believe Britannica or World Book was the absolute truth? After all those traditional encyclopedias used a small editorial board before publishing approval which would lend itself much more exposure to bias. Wikipedia is under much more scrutiny than those publications and actually has the ability to be corrected which is an actual benefit over the traditional references.

The degree of ignorance and the willingness to accept half truths as facts without actual critical thought by such a large populous is absolutely shocking.

No. I don't care that Wikipedia has a good editorial board. The fact that incorrect info is published for even a few minutes is enough to remove credibility. If a kid used wikipedia as a reference for a term paper and happens to go on during a five minute period where it shows World War II was started after beloved funnywoman Lucille Ball was put to death in the electric chair by Cap'n Crunch, that kid is :censored:ed. I use Wikipedia all the time in search of random uselss info. As others have said, it can be used for academic purposes if one follows the links and cites those sources, not Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia itself is not a legit source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was looking at the NFL Uniforms on Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph on the NFL Uniform Makers info page.

"Please be patient as I transition the 2012 Nike uniforms into our NFL templates. This should only take a few days. Thank you. Additional pant options for the Browns, Bears, 49ers, and Broncos as well as the 3rd uniforms for the Rams, Steelers, Jaguars, and Redskins will not uploaded until the team makes an official statement."

For the Browns I'm expecting a return of the Brown Pants. The Bears pants will be orange (as already leaked on Madden), while the 49ers might have white or even red pants. Broncos will probably have orange pants. for the jerseys, i think that the rams will bring back their throwback while steelers while have a throwback and jaguars black jerseys. for the redskins i think the jersey will be yellow.

here is the link to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnnySeoul#SPOILER_FREE.21.21

Actually, the Bears did wear orange pants in 1948-49:

6946363340_decc4ca83a.jpg

Is that photoshopped??

It's not photoshopped. Before color photograph was available it was common for them to add color to black and white photos. I'm not sure what process was used to do this though. I'm sure the uniforms colors are accurate.

On second thought, I'm not sure if that's a B&W photo that was colored or if it was originally a color photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...while ridiculous edits can be sneaked in they are caught almost immediately, furthermore all submissions are reviewed by an editorial board requiring citations to actual sources, which is standard procedure for any reference document virtual or hard copy.

This whole "wikipedia can't be trusted" that's parroted is utter nonsense. Did people believe Britannica or World Book was the absolute truth? After all those traditional encyclopedias used a small editorial board before publishing approval which would lend itself much more exposure to bias. Wikipedia is under much more scrutiny than those publications and actually has the ability to be corrected which is an actual benefit over the traditional references.

The degree of ignorance and the willingness to accept half truths as facts without actual critical thought by such a large populous is absolutely shocking.

No. I don't care that Wikipedia has a good editorial board. The fact that incorrect info is published for even a few minutes is enough to remove credibility. If a kid used wikipedia as a reference for a term paper and happens to go on during a five minute period where it shows World War II was started after beloved funnywoman Lucille Ball was put to death in the electric chair by Cap'n Crunch, that kid is :censored:ed. I use Wikipedia all the time in search of random uselss info. As others have said, it can be used for academic purposes if one follows the links and cites those sources, not Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia itself is not a legit source.

Where did I say wikipedia should be used for the purpose of citation? I learned to not cite reference texts in 5th grade. Additionally your supports my claim, which means we agree that wikipedia is a valuable reference source or a starting off point for further research. It serves the same purpose that traditional encyclopedias served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.