Jump to content

2013 NFL Season week by week uniform match-up combos


canzman

Recommended Posts

The all purple looked ridiculous.

and Unprofessional. Ridiculous and unprofessional.

Unprofessional???

What world do you some of people live in?

What is a "professional" team supposed to look like? Like they did 40 years ago? 20 years ago? Last year? Should all coaches wear suits and ties? Should all the games be on grass fields and outdoors?

The Vikings play in a freakin' dome stadium with a mascot who rides around on a motorcycle and whose owner is named "Zigi". Are any of those things the proper ideals of a "professional" football squad?

Counting all the white/white teams (and that is as much "monochrome" as anything else is) and the teams with dark pants options, there are a grand total of 4 teams (Buffalo, Washington, New England and Chicago) who haven't gone "monochrome" yet through the first 12 games of 2013 that could conceivably do it. A few teams (like San Fran, Dallas and Pittsburgh) don't have the option to do it, so they don't count.

So for about 80% of the elgible teams, they have decided to look "unprofessional" (according to you) for at least one game this year. I guess they didn't get the memo how unprofessional that look is now. Either that or folks like you need to get into the 21st century and quit labeling a team that dares to wear all purple or all black or all red as "unprofessional".

You know what made the Vikes look "unprofessional"? Their dogcrap QB play and their unwillingness to stop anybody on defense. Not what pants they wore with their purple jersey. It was a solid look. Which is what makes it even better for those of us who like to watch the "traditionalists" squirm anytime one of their beloved teams dares to look a little different once or twice a year.

All of this, right here! Preach it, dennis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Bills are not wearing white at home vs. the Chiefs.

Fans are encouraged to wear white to the November 3 game to match the players’ road white uniforms

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Bills-Chiefs-game-sold-out/fda250a1-38b1-49c7-963c-ff35531b6bd0

Yes they are. We knew this a long time ago and the quote and link you provided proves this, not what you're saying.

Oops. I guess I read that as the road players white uniforms instead.

spacer.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all purple looked ridiculous.

and Unprofessional. Ridiculous and unprofessional.

Unprofessional???

What world do you some of people live in?

What is a "professional" team supposed to look like? Like they did 40 years ago? 20 years ago? Last year? Should all coaches wear suits and ties? Should all the games be on grass fields and outdoors?

The Vikings play in a freakin' dome stadium with a mascot who rides around on a motorcycle and whose owner is named "Zigi". Are any of those things the proper ideals of a "professional" football squad?

Counting all the white/white teams (and that is as much "monochrome" as anything else is) and the teams with dark pants options, there are a grand total of 4 teams (Buffalo, Washington, New England and Chicago) who haven't gone "monochrome" yet through the first 12 games of 2013 that could conceivably do it. A few teams (like San Fran, Dallas and Pittsburgh) don't have the option to do it, so they don't count.

So for about 80% of the elgible teams, they have decided to look "unprofessional" (according to you) for at least one game this year. I guess they didn't get the memo how unprofessional that look is now. Either that or folks like you need to get into the 21st century and quit labeling a team that dares to wear all purple or all black or all red as "unprofessional".

You know what made the Vikes look "unprofessional"? Their dogcrap QB play and their unwillingness to stop anybody on defense. Not what pants they wore with their purple jersey. It was a solid look. Which is what makes it even better for those of us who like to watch the "traditionalists" squirm anytime one of their beloved teams dares to look a little different once or twice a year.

Lions have never been monochrome (and cant be) either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all purple looked ridiculous.

and Unprofessional. Ridiculous and unprofessional.

Unprofessional???

What world do you some of people live in?

What is a "professional" team supposed to look like? Like they did 40 years ago? 20 years ago? Last year? Should all coaches wear suits and ties? Should all the games be on grass fields and outdoors?

The Vikings play in a freakin' dome stadium with a mascot who rides around on a motorcycle and whose owner is named "Zigi". Are any of those things the proper ideals of a "professional" football squad?

Counting all the white/white teams (and that is as much "monochrome" as anything else is) and the teams with dark pants options, there are a grand total of 4 teams (Buffalo, Washington, New England and Chicago) who haven't gone "monochrome" yet through the first 12 games of 2013 that could conceivably do it. A few teams (like San Fran, Dallas and Pittsburgh) don't have the option to do it, so they don't count.

So for about 80% of the elgible teams, they have decided to look "unprofessional" (according to you) for at least one game this year. I guess they didn't get the memo how unprofessional that look is now. Either that or folks like you need to get into the 21st century and quit labeling a team that dares to wear all purple or all black or all red as "unprofessional".

You know what made the Vikes look "unprofessional"? Their dogcrap QB play and their unwillingness to stop anybody on defense. Not what pants they wore with their purple jersey. It was a solid look. Which is what makes it even better for those of us who like to watch the "traditionalists" squirm anytime one of their beloved teams dares to look a little different once or twice a year.

Well, we are all, of course, untitled to our opinion, and I do appreciate you getting through your post without referring to anyone who disagrees with you as a dork, for once :D . But feel like I need to challenge at least a couple of your points.

For one thing, you know as well as I do that when a "squirming traditionalist" complains about a monochrome uniform, they are not talking about all-white. Technically, yes, matching white jerseys and pants is just as much a "monochrome" look as black on black, but since the all-white has been a part of the traditional NFL aesthetic for half a century, it doesn't have that same buck-the-convention effect. Tell you what... I'll consider the white on white uniform to be in the same league with a color monochrome the next time we see a post on here from a modern uniform lover saying "Awesome!! The Colts are going monochrome on the road this week! Gonna be sick!!"

And secondly, its pretty disingenuous to claim that teams who don't have a monochrome option "don't count" because they can't go monochrome. It seems obvious the San Fran, Oakland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc., could just as easily order up a second pair of pants as any other team. The simple truth is, those teams don't do a monochrome look because they choose not to. So, they DO count, in my book.

As for the whole "unprofessional" thing... I don't think, personally, that's the term I'd use. I just think monochrome football uniforms don't fit the NFL's established aesthetic. What I've said before is that I see it like the cartoon mascots that show up on minor league baseball and hockey uniforms. It's fine for that level, but I don't want to see the Seattle Mariners wear a grinning cartoon ship's captain on their jerseys. Different leagues have different visual standards, and I'm aware those standards can change... its just that some changes don't appeal to me. I like unconventional color choices, for instance. (In fact, I feel like every sport could use more imagination in color schemes.) I like some of the boundaries being pushed in terms of graphics... the Seahawks' chest/shoulder applications are unique and interesting. But my personal preference will always be for a contrast of colors between the jersey and pants, with the socks matching the jersey. That still says "NFL" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams definitely need to go back to Royal and Gold (1999 look) and go back to astroturf.

Also, I hate the new end zone designs for this season that most teams have as much as those toilet bowl seat covers on the uniforms last season.

Tampa Bay needs go back to the creamsicles and wear white at home for all games (except night games/occasional day games) pre 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

It also depends on helmets and the socks. I really don't like looks where the socks are the same color, and if the helmet is too, well just forget about it.

That's the issue I personally have with the Vikings in all purple, it's literally ALL purple. Also, yes, this means I don't like the Broncos all blue look, then again, I haven't for a long time. I only liked it the first time they brought it out for a regular season game on Monday night against the Raiders back in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

It also depends on helmets and the socks. I really don't like looks where the socks are the same color, and if the helmet is too, well just forget about it.

That's the issue I personally have with the Vikings in all purple, it's literally ALL purple. Also, yes, this means I don't like the Broncos all blue look, then again, I haven't for a long time. I only liked it the first time they brought it out for a regular season game on Monday night against the Raiders back in 2003.

Funny you mention the Broncos. If we ever talk about teams all white look (minus helmet) I think the Broncos have the worst white on white look in the NFL. That uniform design just looks horrible in all white, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams definitely need to go back to Royal and Gold (1999 look) and go back to astroturf.

Also, I hate the new end zone designs for this season that most teams have as much as those toilet bowl seat covers on the uniforms last season.

Tampa Bay needs go back to the creamsicles and wear white at home for all games (except night games/occasional day games) pre 1997.

Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams definitely need to go back to Royal and Gold (1999 look) and go back to astroturf.

Also, I hate the new end zone designs for this season that most teams have as much as those toilet bowl seat covers on the uniforms last season.

Tampa Bay needs go back to the creamsicles and wear white at home for all games (except night games/occasional day games) pre 1997.

Why would you want to change the best looking uniform in the NFL?

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

It also depends on helmets and the socks. I really don't like looks where the socks are the same color, and if the helmet is too, well just forget about it.

That's the issue I personally have with the Vikings in all purple, it's literally ALL purple. Also, yes, this means I don't like the Broncos all blue look, then again, I haven't for a long time. I only liked it the first time they brought it out for a regular season game on Monday night against the Raiders back in 2003.

Funny you mention the Broncos. If we ever talk about teams all white look (minus helmet) I think the Broncos have the worst white on white look in the NFL. That uniform design just looks horrible in all white, IMO.

While I've never taken the time to compare it to all the rest, I do agree it's not good. Especially now that the primary is orange and there's not much of it on that uniform at all. Navy helmet & socks, white jersey & pants, the numbers and striping are all navy and the orange is relegated to just trim.

That's one of the reasons I'm all for a pair of orange pants to go with it, however, my main concern if that ever comes about is someone thinking that the carrot look would be something to try out, and I never, EVER want to see the Broncos in all orange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

It also depends on helmets and the socks. I really don't like looks where the socks are the same color, and if the helmet is too, well just forget about it.

That's the issue I personally have with the Vikings in all purple, it's literally ALL purple. Also, yes, this means I don't like the Broncos all blue look, then again, I haven't for a long time. I only liked it the first time they brought it out for a regular season game on Monday night against the Raiders back in 2003.

Funny you mention the Broncos. If we ever talk about teams all white look (minus helmet) I think the Broncos have the worst white on white look in the NFL. That uniform design just looks horrible in all white, IMO.

While I've never taken the time to compare it to all the rest, I do agree it's not good. Especially now that the primary is orange and there's not much of it on that uniform at all. Navy helmet & socks, white jersey & pants, the numbers and striping are all navy and the orange is relegated to just trim.

That's one of the reasons I'm all for a pair of orange pants to go with it, however, my main concern if that ever comes about is someone thinking that the carrot look would be something to try out, and I never, EVER want to see the Broncos in all orange.

Not that I'd necessarily want to defend the Bronco road uniform (or the current home, for that matter), but the "lots of orange at home, very little on the road" thing has always been true.

John_elway.jpg

AAHI169.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but when teams go solid color monochrome (at least in the NFL), I think the pants striping (or lack thereof) makes it or breaks it. Given the pants striping on the Vikes pants, I think the look is fine (although the use of yellow socks would have even made it look better). When Baltimore goes all black with their solid black pants, I think it looks horrible. I even thought the Chiefs all red was ok. Browns...not ok.

It also depends on helmets and the socks. I really don't like looks where the socks are the same color, and if the helmet is too, well just forget about it.

That's the issue I personally have with the Vikings in all purple, it's literally ALL purple. Also, yes, this means I don't like the Broncos all blue look, then again, I haven't for a long time. I only liked it the first time they brought it out for a regular season game on Monday night against the Raiders back in 2003.

Funny you mention the Broncos. If we ever talk about teams all white look (minus helmet) I think the Broncos have the worst white on white look in the NFL. That uniform design just looks horrible in all white, IMO.

While I've never taken the time to compare it to all the rest, I do agree it's not good. Especially now that the primary is orange and there's not much of it on that uniform at all. Navy helmet & socks, white jersey & pants, the numbers and striping are all navy and the orange is relegated to just trim.

That's one of the reasons I'm all for a pair of orange pants to go with it, however, my main concern if that ever comes about is someone thinking that the carrot look would be something to try out, and I never, EVER want to see the Broncos in all orange.

Not that I'd necessarily want to defend the Bronco road uniform (or the current home, for that matter), but the "lots of orange at home, very little on the road" thing has always been true.

John_elway.jpg

AAHI169.jpg

I'm aware that the orange wasn't emphasized on the previous road uniforms either. However if you compare it to the current iteration, there's a lot more orange incorporated. The stripes (pants & sleeves) and socks have a noticeable amount of orange, while their current one has very, very small amounts.

They also wore orange pants on two separate occasions with the old white jerseys.

EDIT: Also, the NOB was outlined in orange, and now it's just solid navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Titans are gonna wear a patch to commemorate Bud Adams for the remainder of the season

bud1.jpg?w=211

So there's this patch on the right side, the 15th anniversary patch on the left side... where will the captaincy patch go?

why do i have the feeling that this is going to be a gigantic fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Titans are gonna wear a patch to commemorate Bud Adams for the remainder of the season

bud1.jpg?w=211

So there's this patch on the right side, the 15th anniversary patch on the left side... where will the captaincy patch go?

why do i have the feeling that this is going to be a gigantic fail?

Captaincy patches are optional, so they might just not wear them going forward

Go A's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Titans are gonna wear a patch to commemorate Bud Adams for the remainder of the season

bud1.jpg?w=211

So there's this patch on the right side, the 15th anniversary patch on the left side... where will the captaincy patch go?

why do i have the feeling that this is going to be a gigantic fail?

Captaincy patches are optional, so they might just not wear them going forward

Hopefully it won't end up looking like this

yahoo_andrejohnsonp5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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