This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Rose City Road Trip Report

Picture 1.png

The big surprise about Portland, at least for me, is that it turned out to be the best neon signage town I’ve encountered in years, or maybe ever. Everything was beautifully, magically aglow and awash in deco details — not just the stuff you’d expect, like coffee shops, pizzerias and other eateries (also look here, here, here, here, here, and here), theaters (see also here and here), bars (also here, here, here, and here), arcades, bowling alleys, motels (here’s another, and wait until you see the one I stayed in), and hotels (one more here), but also less obvious candidates like bakeries, florists, pharmacies, vacuum cleaner shops, car services, the Salvation Army, the local homeless shelter, hardware stores, rug stores, paint stores (here’s another), sportswear shops, apartment houses, and dry cleaners. Anchoring all of this is the magnificent “Made in Oregon” sign, which stands sentry over the Burnside Bridge (for further details on this sign, look here; to see literally thousands of additional Portland neon photos, look here).

I don’t mind saying, however, that Collateral Gammage and I chose arguably the best neon sign in town for our motel: Behold the Palms. Is that totally the shit or what? And dig that crazy monkey! Go, monkey, go!

Kay’s is also no slouch in the neon department, and that’s where a contingent of Uni Watch readers gathered two Sundays ago. Here’s a quick recap:

• The suggestion to use Kay’s as our venue came my ESPN.com colleague Rob Neyer, who lives just a few blocks away. He wore a Benny Distefano jersey — supposedly game-used, although Rob said he was somewhat dubious of that, since it fits him so well (he’s a small-ish fella, much like myself). Thanks again for choosing such an ideal venue, Rob — much obliged.

• The man, the myth — ladies and gentlemen, this is Jeremy Brahm, and I can honestly say it was a thrill to meet him. He said he wore the Rangers jersey as a welcoming gesture to his NYC guest (i.e., me) — isn’t that nice? He also brought along a ton of Japanese baseball literature, as well as his college volleyball jersey (rear view here). Thanks for everything you do, Jeremy — you make Uni Watch a better place on a near-daily basis.

Matthew Lindley wore a Spokane Chiefs jersey, flashed his Washington State logo tattoo, and displayed a keen knack for the well-time punchline.

• That wasn’t the only logo tat on display, as Travis Demers lifted up his 1995 Braves jersey (complete with Pedro porthole action!) to reveal a Yankees mark. Travis had interviewed me on his local radio show a few weeks prior to my visit, and it was a treat to meet him in person.

Jeff Anderson and Keith LaFortune both had the guts to show up wearing regular clothes instead of jerseys — good for them.

• Here’s Ryan Wantland, co-principal of the excellent Pennant Race Gear T-shirt operation, one of Uni Watch’s new sponsors. I invited him to bring some tees along to sell if he wanted, but he declined, explaining that he didn’t want to turn the party into a sales pitch. Classy move, Ryan.

Matt Parker wore an Ivory Coast soccer shirt because, as he explained, it’s hard not to root for a country that suspends its own civil war for a soccer match.

• This is Rian Davis, wearing a Seattle Rainiers cap.

• These were all really great people, but the star of the show was unquestionably Scott Little, who drove down from Longview, Washington. He supplemented his pillbox Angels cap and U. of Oregon bowling shirt with a No Mas tee, plus he brought along a big box of show-and-tell goodies (see also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And here’s the kicker: As we all kept asking, “Whoa, where’d you get that?,” his answer was always the same: “Thrift store. Paid about six bucks for it.” I was a little skeptical about this claim, but I had a follow-up rendezvous with Scott a few days later, and now I’m a believer. More details on that in a subsequent blog installment, probably later this week.

As always, it was a kick and a privilege to be able to meet my readers. Big thanks to all who came out, and for all the kind words — much appreciated.

mallard_male_image_11tfk.jpg

Duck Season: Speaking of the Pacific Northwest, yesterday I received this photo from reader Matt Dorsch, who said he found it on a Washington Huskies fan site. “Whoa,” I thought, “the diamondplate is now reflective!” Matt said the NOB lettering was supposedly reflective as well. Intriguing, but I hadn’t heard anything about this, so I called Oregon’s athletic dept., where media relations rep Andy McNamara told me the shoulder trim and NOB lettering on this uni design have always been reflective. “Nothing new about it,” he said. “But it usually doesn’t show up unless the light is hitting it just right.”

Hmmmmm. Everything about this feels fishy. On the one hand, I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about the Oregon uniforms being reflective. Could this be a big surprise they were planning to unveil on Saturday, and now that it’s leaked they’re trying to deny it, just to preserve the surprise? On the other hand, I repeatedly asked Matt to give me the URL of the page where he first saw the photo, and he hasn’t responded, which makes me question the photo’s authenticity. If anyone knows more about any of this, let’s hear it. (Update: Several readers have now confirmed that the jerseys have always been reflective. My bad for not having realized this.)

Uni Watch News Ticker: This has to be filed in the “Rumor” category for now, but Chris Josephson, who’s part of the Rangers’ TV crew in Arlington, checked in last night with the following: “I’ve heard from a few different people in the press box that the Rangers will have a few jersey changes next year. First off, none of the jerseys will say ‘Rangers’ anymore — every jersey will have ‘Texas,’ just like the current road grays and blue alternates. There’s also talk of a red alternate being thrown into the rotation. No word on what it will look like. I personally hate the idea of a red jersey, but fans have been calling for red’s return because the Rangers haven’t made the playoffs since the team got rid of the red about 10 years ago.” … You can see a short video clip of the Twins’ “Minnestoa” typo here. … Odd scene last night in Baltimore: Before the start of the Orioles/Chisox game, the two teams picked up a suspended game from April 28th — except the first 11 innings of that game had been played in Chicago. So the O’s were technically still the road team, but they wore their home uniforms, and the Sox wore their black alts. The two teams wore those same uniforms again for the regularly scheduled game. … This shot shows John McCain and Olympic gold-medalist Misty-May Treanor at Sunday night’s Marlins/Diamondbacks game in Arizona. The weird thing, as Corey Zoldan points out, is that May-Treanor is married to Marlins catcher Matt Treanor, yet she gladly donned the home team’s jersey instead of wearing her hubby’s colors. Pretty weak. … Latest Nike conspiracy theory can be found here (with thanks to Matt Shevin). … Next time you’re pissed off at the postal service, just blame Flying Elvis (great find by Adam Hutchison). … James Blake is a big Mets fan, so he wore this warm-up top while entering the court for his U.S. Open match yesterday and then wore this shirt, complete with a sleeve logo, during the match itself. Very nice, but it’d be even nicer if Blake would ditch the black (big thanks to Brinke Guthrie and Jonee Eisen for the screen shots). … Meanwhile, Blake’s opponent, Donald Young, used a Sharpie to black out a swoosh on his cap (credit L.I. Phil). … Some cheerleading uniforms at an Ohio high school violate the school’s dress code (with thanks once again to Brinke).

 

168 comments to Rose City Road Trip Report

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 8:51 am |

    Montreal Canadiens have a logo for their 100th season.

    http://canadiens.nhl...

    Pretty good as logos go. Simple, that’s good. Also like how they used the font from their away jerseys. It is going to be weird seeing that at center ice for a whole season rather than one of my favorite logos…

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 9:07 am |

    nice photos from the northwest trip…any ladies make the trek?

    and i know it’s a bowling shirt, but the funny fold makes it look like mr. little is a member of another team…heh

  • Kevin M. | August 26, 2008 at 9:07 am |

    Why is he blacking out the swoosh on his hat when you can see the swoosh on his shirt?

    http://farm4.static....

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 9:10 am |

    Regarding the Oregon Ducks and the reflective jersey, I know nothin of that situation specifically but I want to counter with another case of reflective gear.

    The sneakerheads in here may be able to back me up on this but I had this pair of Air Jordan XIII (http://www.deadstock...).

    You can’t tell in that photo but the entire side of that sneaker, save the red suede parts, is reflective. When I had those shoes, there were photos of me and the shoe looked completely different because of it. I’m assuming the reflection came from the way the camera flash hit the shoe and I’m wondering if that’s the case with this Oregon photo (although it looks REALLY bright on that jersey).

    I don’t ever recall any of the lead up to that sneaker release mentioning the reflective nature of the side and at that time, my college years, I was much more of a sneakerhead than I am now and I really kept track of trends, releases, etc. I’m sure I could be forgetting but who knows.

  • Peter Wunsch | August 26, 2008 at 9:12 am |

    Re: O’s-Sox suspended game:

    All of today’s standings show the O’s as a one-game losing streakj (they won the suspended game). Don’t the stats for the suspended game count as 4/28 and therefore the O’s have lost at least the last 4?

  • House | August 26, 2008 at 9:14 am |

    Why would Misty May-Treanor wear the jersey from her husbands team when she was invited to throw out the first pitch by the D-backs. Common sense please.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 9:18 am |

    A few notes about Distefano.

    1. I’m not sure how big Neyer is, but that jersey is obviously from an era when the gear fit a little more snug. That coupled by the case that Distefano was pretty much an average sized guy, I think it is possible but who knows. That whole “game worn” line of business is suspect.

    2. Paul, since you’re a lefty, I’m surprised you didn’t mention something very unique about Distefano’s career.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 9:19 am |

    [quote comment=”286124″]Re: O’s-Sox suspended game:

    All of today’s standings show the O’s as a one-game losing streakj (they won the suspended game). Don’t the stats for the suspended game count as 4/28 and therefore the O’s have lost at least the last 4?[/quote]

    great catch…but it depends on which standings you look at…

    they even said on SC that since the o’s “won” the game on 4/28 (suspended make-up), they were, at that time, .5 games up in the ALeast…so, by that logic, the game should count for 4/28 (and not 8/25), and therefore, as you deduced, should be on a 4 game losing streak attm (as shown in the espn standings linked above)…i guess your local paper (or wherever you saw the 1 game losing streak) isn’t “up” on the scoring of a suspended game

  • Billy | August 26, 2008 at 9:21 am |

    I can’t find a picture, but I can verify that the diamond plating and the NOB on the Oregon uniforms have been reflective for a while now.

  • Chris in Nashville | August 26, 2008 at 9:29 am |

    [quote comment=”286122″]Why is he blacking out the swoosh on his hat when you can see the swoosh on his shirt?

    http://farm4.static....

    I am still trying to figure out Young did that. I watched it live and he was blacking out the Dri-Fit logo on the bill and not the Swoosh on the front. I thought maybe it was because that Dri-Fit logo is reflective and maybe other players complain about the glare.

  • Chris in Nashville | August 26, 2008 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”286125″]Why would Misty May-Treanor wear the jersey from her husbands team when she was invited to throw out the first pitch by the D-backs. Common sense please.[/quote]

    Am I the only one who thinks that Misty May-Treanor would win any bar fight? That chick looks tough.

  • BuckeyeMark | August 26, 2008 at 9:30 am |

    am with Billy. got no picture but the diamondplate has always been that way – the last several years at least. whenever Oregon is on and I’m complaining about those horrible unis and I mention the diamond plate people say “what diamondplate?” and have to watch a couple of plays before a player turns just so and the sunlight hits it and makes it show up.

  • who cares | August 26, 2008 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”286123″]Regarding the Oregon Ducks and the reflective jersey, I know nothin of that situation specifically but I want to counter with another case of reflective gear.

    The sneakerheads in here may be able to back me up on this but I had this pair of Air Jordan XIII (http://www.deadstock...).

    You can’t tell in that photo but the entire side of that sneaker, save the red suede parts, is reflective. When I had those shoes, there were photos of me and the shoe looked completely different because of it. I’m assuming the reflection came from the way the camera flash hit the shoe and I’m wondering if that’s the case with this Oregon photo (although it looks REALLY bright on that jersey).

    I don’t ever recall any of the lead up to that sneaker release mentioning the reflective nature of the side and at that time, my college years, I was much more of a sneakerhead than I am now and I really kept track of trends, releases, etc. I’m sure I could be forgetting but who knows.[/quote]

    This article from August 2006 mentions the reflective diamond-plating in Oregon’s unis.

    http://www.post-gaze...

  • =bg= | August 26, 2008 at 9:33 am |

    Yes, a busy night last nite, but can’t take cred for that Young Sharpie cap.

  • Chris in Nashville | August 26, 2008 at 9:33 am |

    [quote comment=”286123″]Regarding the Oregon Ducks and the reflective jersey, I know nothin of that situation specifically but I want to counter with another case of reflective gear.

    The sneakerheads in here may be able to back me up on this but I had this pair of Air Jordan XIII (http://www.deadstock...).

    You can’t tell in that photo but the entire side of that sneaker, save the red suede parts, is reflective. When I had those shoes, there were photos of me and the shoe looked completely different because of it. I’m assuming the reflection came from the way the camera flash hit the shoe and I’m wondering if that’s the case with this Oregon photo (although it looks REALLY bright on that jersey).

    I don’t ever recall any of the lead up to that sneaker release mentioning the reflective nature of the side and at that time, my college years, I was much more of a sneakerhead than I am now and I really kept track of trends, releases, etc. I’m sure I could be forgetting but who knows.[/quote]

    I’m with Kek on this one. I had the blue version
    http://www.deadstock...
    On Senior Night during high school it looks like my feet are glowing in every picture. It’s crazy looking.

  • Billy | August 26, 2008 at 9:33 am |

    Found two pics that sorta show the reflection:

    http://farm3.static....

    http://farm2.static....

  • Original Jim | August 26, 2008 at 9:35 am |

    The diamond plating on Oregon’s football uniforms is indeed reflective. Again, it’s tough to tell unless you catch the light at the correct angle.

    Another team with reflective decorations is Colorado. I found a number of pictures on Flickr where the numbers and pants striping were ultrabright from the camera flash reflecting off them.

  • Taha | August 26, 2008 at 9:36 am |

    [quote comment=”286121″]
    and i know it’s a bowling shirt, but the funny fold makes it look like mr. little is a member of another team…heh[/quote]

    that would be jersey number 520 in your programs!

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 9:38 am |

    About all the neon signs… you sure there’s not a city or township policy where your store sign HAS TO BE neon? Becuase in a Detroit suburb called Bloomfield Hills, all signage at the road has to be in black and gold.
    http://www.mpadvisin...

    That’s an actual sign off of Woodward Ave in Bloomfield Hills.

  • u2-horn | August 26, 2008 at 9:40 am |

    [quote comment=”286137″]

    that would be jersey number 520 in your programs![/quote]

    420, 520…whatever it takes

  • Taha | August 26, 2008 at 9:42 am |

    Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 9:46 am |

    Thanks for the pics, Paul – I miss Portland.

    Your photo of Kay’s sums up my memories of the city pretty well – pretty girl having a smoke, wet streets reflecting all that neon. Ah, college.

    I’m a little disappointed that it appears nobody showed up in Portland Beavers gear – they have one of the best looks in the minors, and in the dugout could easily pass for a major league team.

  • who cares | August 26, 2008 at 9:51 am |

    [quote comment=”286140″]Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)[/quote]

    Based on this Orlando Sentinel College Football preview I’d say he’s generally pretty perplexed when it comes to sporting events.

    http://deadspin.com/...

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 9:53 am |

    [quote comment=”286141″]Thanks for the pics, Paul – I miss Portland.

    Your photo of Kay’s sums up my memories of the city pretty well – pretty girl having a smoke, wet streets reflecting all that neon. Ah, college.

    I’m a little disappointed that it appears nobody showed up in Portland Beavers gear – they have one of the best looks in the minors, and in the dugout could easily pass for a major league team.[/quote]

    Hell, they look better than half of the MLB…

  • u2-horn | August 26, 2008 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”286140″]Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)[/quote]

    His hand is closer to his heart than the other two.

  • Dan | August 26, 2008 at 10:00 am |

    I did notice the reflective diamond-plating on the Ducks last year. I generally only catch them when they play late, because those games are on FSN here on the East Coast…and it seems the night games, under the lights, are when I noticed it.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 10:17 am |

    [quote comment=”286142″][quote comment=”286140″]Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)[/quote]

    Based on this Orlando Sentinel College Football preview I’d say he’s generally pretty perplexed when it comes to sporting events.

    http://deadspin.com/...

    well…not to turn this into Poli Watch, but im pretty sure the folks who ran those two covers took more than one shot of each candidate, and im also quite certain there were some better pictures of both…

    remember this gem?

    ….

    /k…done w/pw

  • Teebz | August 26, 2008 at 10:20 am |

    That bar you guys were in looks remarkable like the one in Minnesota that we were at.

    Did they have the Polish fare and polka tunes as well? ;o)

    Looked like a great time, and I would have loved to be there!

  • Teebz | August 26, 2008 at 10:21 am |

    [quote comment=”286147″]That bar you guys were in looks remarkably like the one in Minnesota that we were at.

    Did they have the Polish fare and polka tunes as well? ;o)

    Looked like a great time, and I would have loved to be there![/quote]

    I need coffee before reading Uni Watch.

  • Matt B | August 26, 2008 at 10:49 am |

    Holy cats, I’ve stayed at the Palms, and was also mighty impressed by the sign. Too bad the sign is 10x better than the rest of the motel…

  • Kerry P | August 26, 2008 at 10:51 am |

    A friend of mine sent me a write-up someone did entitled “10 Things to Look Forward to for Football Season” and the #2 thing on the list I just have to share: #2 Chastising Wal-Mart Jerseys

    [quote]Much like sixteenth-century Britain, in the world of college football, there are social classes. Hierarchies, if you will. And grown men in Wal-Mart jerseys are the fricking indentured servants of college football fandom. Everyone looks down on them. And for good reason. Because if you could afford season tickets, Miller Lite, a wife, and the gas money to get to your favorite college town, you can afford a real fricking jersey.

    Not a fricking Wal-Mart jersey. We all know Wal-Mart jerseys. Those hideous team-oriented nylon beasts ugly enough to double as a future throwback for the 2046 Cincinnati Bengals. We all know them. And we all hate them. For instance, there is perhaps no jersey in college football as simple and elegant as the white-on-red home uni of the Alabama Crimson Tide. And what better way to show your home-game allegiance to an old-school masterpiece than by trashing it up with white zebra stripes, 3D numbers, grey shoulder squares and D-cup-sized elephant logos? No matter what your education-level, job-status, career, salary, athletic ability, talent, house-size, dick-size, primary-TV-size, or ass-getting ability, you may forever look down on anyone in a jersey purchased from the king of Everyday Low Prices.

    You could be a janitor with a two-inch dick, a GED and a publicly visible STD, and so long as you’re a college football fan, you have total social permission to chastise any man in a Wal-Mart football jersey. It doesn’t matter if he’s the CEO of the fricking Northern Hemisphere. His jersey looks like something a Chinese Rugby team would wear. To practice. You could put the King of England in a Wal-Mart jersey and he’d immediately be labeled a redneck douche of epic proportions. Wal-Mart jerseys. The college football equivalent of a fanny-pack.[/quote]

    Spot on!

  • Justin in AR | August 26, 2008 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment=”286150″]A friend of mine sent me a write-up someone did entitled “10 Things to Look Forward to for Football Season” and the #2 thing on the list I just have to share: #2 Chastising Wal-Mart Jerseys

    [quote]Much like sixteenth-century Britain, in the world of college football, there are social classes. Hierarchies, if you will. And grown men in Wal-Mart jerseys are the fricking indentured servants of college football fandom. Everyone looks down on them. And for good reason. Because if you could afford season tickets, Miller Lite, a wife, and the gas money to get to your favorite college town, you can afford a real fricking jersey.

    Not a fricking Wal-Mart jersey. We all know Wal-Mart jerseys. Those hideous team-oriented nylon beasts ugly enough to double as a future throwback for the 2046 Cincinnati Bengals. We all know them. And we all hate them. For instance, there is perhaps no jersey in college football as simple and elegant as the white-on-red home uni of the Alabama Crimson Tide. And what better way to show your home-game allegiance to an old-school masterpiece than by trashing it up with white zebra stripes, 3D numbers, grey shoulder squares and D-cup-sized elephant logos? No matter what your education-level, job-status, career, salary, athletic ability, talent, house-size, dick-size, primary-TV-size, or ass-getting ability, you may forever look down on anyone in a jersey purchased from the king of Everyday Low Prices.

    You could be a janitor with a two-inch dick, a GED and a publicly visible STD, and so long as you’re a college football fan, you have total social permission to chastise any man in a Wal-Mart football jersey. It doesn’t matter if he’s the CEO of the fricking Northern Hemisphere. His jersey looks like something a Chinese Rugby team would wear. To practice. You could put the King of England in a Wal-Mart jersey and he’d immediately be labeled a redneck douche of epic proportions. Wal-Mart jerseys. The college football equivalent of a fanny-pack.[/quote]

    Spot on![/quote]

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! So awesome and very well said.

  • jh | August 26, 2008 at 11:02 am |

    To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 11:11 am |

    [quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    If he’s still primarily listed as a defensive back (for special teams duties) then he should be able to avoid the receiver number. Since he’s not “first string” then he may be able to get away with it.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]
    In a rare case, this might be the NFL making the right call when it comes to uniform numbers.

    Rememember when the Steelers’ Ryan Clark was denied the right to switch to #21 to honor Sean Taylor because he was hurt during the last year and missed out on the tributes? We might have a similar case here, in that Hester has an established number that he’s worn for a few seasons. Hence, there is merchandise out there. By letting him keep #23, the NFL is avoiding the situation that would happen if, say, he switched to another number in that fans might feel the need to buy the correct jersey and us here in UW would spout our cynical diatribes about the league fleecing the fans.

    To cite Reggie Bush is an apples and oranges comparison IN THIS CASE. Bush was an incoming rookie trying to change the system and the league denied. Sure, he wore #5 at USC and everyone knew that but as a pro, he had no brand equity (not sure that’s the right term but you get my point) in that number as he hadn’t played a game yet.

  • Surly | August 26, 2008 at 11:13 am |

    What I want to know is did Matthew in the Spokane jersey accidentally drop a pitcher of beer or anything, just for nostalgia?

  • Stuby | August 26, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]
    Maybe he got grandfathered in. They probably sell alot of merch. with the #23 on it.

    The Reggie Bush comment got me thinking of all the other #5 RBs in college and how they have had to come up with a different number in the NFL. They all seem to go a different route…

    Reggie Bush #25
    Darren McFadden #20
    Rashard Mendenhall #34
    Edgerrin James #32
    LaDainian Tomlinson #21
    Garrison Hearst #23/#20
    Larry Johnson #27

  • jh | August 26, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”286153″][quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    If he’s still primarily listed as a defensive back (for special teams duties) then he should be able to avoid the receiver number. Since he’s not “first string” then he may be able to get away with it.[/quote]

    There is no suggestion on any information release by the Bears that would include him anywhere on a defensive depth chart. He is officially listed as “co-first string” WR with Rasheed Davis.

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    Turner Classic Movies channel is currectly (11:10 EDT) showing the original “Angels in the Outfield”. Lots of fantastic shots of old Forbes Field and old-school uniforms.

  • Mark N | August 26, 2008 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”286122″]Why is he blacking out the swoosh on his hat when you can see the swoosh on his shirt?

    http://farm4.static....

    For some weird reason, I believe that there is a rule that headwear worn during ATP events is not allowed to have any type of writing on them. Just a company logo that cannot exceed a certain size. Since Dri Fit is a corporate trademark, it must be removed. John Isner does the same black out job on his hats as well. I’ll have to dig to find the exact rule…

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment=”286154″][quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]
    In a rare case, this might be the NFL making the right call when it comes to uniform numbers.

    Rememember when the Steelers’ Ryan Clark was denied the right to switch to #21 to honor Sean Taylor because he was hurt during the last year and missed out on the tributes? We might have a similar case here, in that Hester has an established number that he’s worn for a few seasons. Hence, there is merchandise out there. By letting him keep #23, the NFL is avoiding the situation that would happen if, say, he switched to another number in that fans might feel the need to buy the correct jersey and us here in UW would spout our cynical diatribes about the league fleecing the fans.

    To cite Reggie Bush is an apples and oranges comparison IN THIS CASE. Bush was an incoming rookie trying to change the system and the league denied. Sure, he wore #5 at USC and everyone knew that but as a pro, he had no brand equity (not sure that’s the right term but you get my point) in that number as he hadn’t played a game yet.[/quote]

    Wait, the NFL passing up an oportunity to have fans spend money on getting new jerseys? Doesn’t sound like the NFL I know….

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    Players playing a position eligible to handle the ball aren’t required to change numbers because of position change. If they moved him to offensive tackle, then yeah.

    The rule applies to the number a player is assigned when he first makes the club’s regular season roster. Technically, as a kick returner, Hester could have been assigned virtually any number under 50 his rookie year…and it wouldn’t change even some time later the Bears made him their starting quarterback. Now, if he WANTED to change it, that’s a different story.

    —Ricko

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:25 am |

    Before I made my post on Hester I hadn’t thought of whether or not he was still listed as a DB. Of course they could mess with that and he could keep his number.

    also, jh, you made the original post and you started with “To veer a bit off topic”. I didn’t think there was anything off topic with your question and as you can see it spawned some good responses. I just wanted to put that out there because we’ve been told about off-topic posting in the past few weeks. I would feel talking about uniform numbers is totally ON topic.

  • Banker Bill | August 26, 2008 at 11:25 am |

    [quote comment=”286138″]About all the neon signs… you sure there’s not a city or township policy where your store sign HAS TO BE neon? Becuase in a Detroit suburb called Bloomfield Hills, all signage at the road has to be in black and gold.
    http://www.mpadvisin...

    That’s an actual sign off of Woodward Ave in Bloomfield Hills.[/quote]

    Seeing that sign just gave me flashbacks to watching “8 Mile” – anyone see it and know what I’m talking about?

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 11:27 am |

    [quote comment=”286123″]Regarding the Oregon Ducks and the reflective jersey, I know nothin of that situation specifically but I want to counter with another case of reflective gear.

    The sneakerheads in here may be able to back me up on this but I had this pair of Air Jordan XIII (http://www.deadstock...).

    You can’t tell in that photo but the entire side of that sneaker, save the red suede parts, is reflective. When I had those shoes, there were photos of me and the shoe looked completely different because of it. I’m assuming the reflection came from the way the camera flash hit the shoe and I’m wondering if that’s the case with this Oregon photo (although it looks REALLY bright on that jersey).

    I don’t ever recall any of the lead up to that sneaker release mentioning the reflective nature of the side and at that time, my college years, I was much more of a sneakerhead than I am now and I really kept track of trends, releases, etc. I’m sure I could be forgetting but who knows.[/quote]

    Sneakerhead Rebuttal:

    For years, Nike has been using 3M material, originally with running gear and shoes. Over the years, thay have begun adding it to many different types of products, including Basketball kicks and football jerseys, remember Colorado last year?

  • interlockingtc | August 26, 2008 at 11:28 am |

    Ahh, Portland. I ended up in Seattle, but I remember when I drove up the west coast for the first time and came upon the Rose City, I thought, “I am supposed to live here.” Something about the place…: the way the light plays on the buildings, the pedestrian-friendly downtown, the greenery and, of course, the abundance of neon…Well, I still romanticize the western outpost that is Portland.

    That “Pacific Coast Paints” photo is just loaded with rich imagery.

    Nicely captured.

  • Mark N | August 26, 2008 at 11:28 am |

    [quote comment=”286160″][quote comment=”286122″]Why is he blacking out the swoosh on his hat when you can see the swoosh on his shirt?

    http://farm4.static....

    For some weird reason, I believe that there is a rule that headwear worn during ATP events is not allowed to have any type of writing on them. Just a company logo that cannot exceed a certain size. Since Dri Fit is a corporate trademark, it must be removed. John Isner does the same black out job on his hats as well. I’ll have to dig to find the exact rule…[/quote]

    I found it! http://www.atptennis...
    Page 220

    Allows only *one* corporate logo not exceeding 2 sq. inches on headwear. May Include writing.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:30 am |

    Also, on number changes in the NFL, the only place it might make sense for the league to force the switch could be if a player changed from say a offensive lineman to a fullback or tight end. Sure they could report eligible but having to do that every play would become real tedious. I’m not talking about situations like how Vrabel plays on goal line situations, I’m speaking of the rare occasion when a player might make a permanent position change and normally this doesn’t happen at the NFL level.

    Obviously the switch back to the O-line from a FB or TE position would probably require a switch back. I don’t think the league would want interior linemen wearing numbers in the 20s, 30s or 40s.

    But to let Hester play WR with #23, I see no harm no foul.

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 11:31 am |

    FYI, Watched NHL network last night and saw North Stars vs Blues play. Thing of uni beauty.

    This:
    http://www.hockeyfor...

    Versus This:

    http://nhluniforms.c...

    Made my day…

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”286162″][quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    Players playing a position eligible to handle the ball aren’t required to change numbers because of position change. If they moved him to offensive tackle, then yeah.

    The rule applies to the number a player is assigned when he first makes the club’s regular season roster. Technically, as a kick returner, Hester could have been assigned virtually any number under 50 his rookie year…and it wouldn’t change even some time later the Bears made him their starting quarterback. Now, if he WANTED to change it, that’s a different story.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Another interesting bit about Hester:

    For years, he was a Nike guy…This year, he signed with UA!

    http://www.bizjourna...

  • Eriq Jaffe | August 26, 2008 at 11:33 am |

    [quote comment=\”286152\”]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it\’s numbering policy. It Hester\’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn\’t he be required to wear a number in the 80\’s or 10-19?[/quote]According to the roster on the Bears\’ web site, he\’s listed as a PR/KR.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:34 am |

    Paul, or anyone else, photography question:

    How are you getting such good shots of neon signs at night? What settings are you using? Flash or not? Close and no zoom or farther back and zooming in?

    I tried to take a photo of a sign recently and took several shots and just couldn’t get it to come out right.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2008 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”286168″]Also, on number changes in the NFL, the only place it might make sense for the league to force the switch could be if a player changed from say a offensive lineman to a fullback or tight end. Sure they could report eligible but having to do that every play would become real tedious. I’m not talking about situations like how Vrabel plays on goal line situations, I’m speaking of the rare occasion when a player might make a permanent position change and normally this doesn’t happen at the NFL level.

    Obviously the switch back to the O-line from a FB or TE position would probably require a switch back. I don’t think the league would want interior linemen wearing numbers in the 20s, 30s or 40s.

    But to let Hester play WR with #23, I see no harm no foul.[/quote]
    I think it was Aundray Bruce that once had to switch from #93 to #83 (with the Raiders, I think?) because he washed out as a defensive player and they moved him to TE. The permanent position changes do happen, but they are rare. Even more rare when it is a #1 overall draft pick like Bruce.

  • Paul Lukas | August 26, 2008 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”286163″]also, jh, you made the original post and you started with “To veer a bit off topic”. I didn’t think there was anything off topic with your question and as you can see it spawned some good responses. I just wanted to put that out there because we’ve been told about off-topic posting in the past few weeks. I would feel talking about uniform numbers is totally ON topic.[/quote]

    Agreed. Anything uni-related is on-topic, even if it doesn’t relate to the lead entry of the day or the current discussion in the comments.

  • GoGoSox | August 26, 2008 at 11:35 am |

    Does anybody remember some time ago in the ticker there was mention of a high school kid in Arizona who got his high school to wear the Indiana candy-stripe pants. I ask because IU just signed a kid from Arizona who said he was a big IU fan from way back. Wondering if it is the same kid.

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”286142″][quote comment=”286140″]Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)[/quote]

    Based on this Orlando Sentinel College Football preview I’d say he’s generally pretty perplexed when it comes to sporting events.

    http://deadspin.com/...

    and computers:
    http://www.huffingto...

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 11:48 am |

    [quote comment=”286151″][quote comment=”286150″]A friend of mine sent me a write-up someone did entitled “10 Things to Look Forward to for Football Season” and the #2 thing on the list I just have to share: #2 Chastising Wal-Mart Jerseys

    [quote]Much like sixteenth-century Britain, in the world of college football, there are social classes. Hierarchies, if you will. And grown men in Wal-Mart jerseys are the fricking indentured servants of college football fandom. Everyone looks down on them. And for good reason. Because if you could afford season tickets, Miller Lite, a wife, and the gas money to get to your favorite college town, you can afford a real fricking jersey.

    Not a fricking Wal-Mart jersey. We all know Wal-Mart jerseys. Those hideous team-oriented nylon beasts ugly enough to double as a future throwback for the 2046 Cincinnati Bengals. We all know them. And we all hate them. For instance, there is perhaps no jersey in college football as simple and elegant as the white-on-red home uni of the Alabama Crimson Tide. And what better way to show your home-game allegiance to an old-school masterpiece than by trashing it up with white zebra stripes, 3D numbers, grey shoulder squares and D-cup-sized elephant logos? No matter what your education-level, job-status, career, salary, athletic ability, talent, house-size, dick-size, primary-TV-size, or ass-getting ability, you may forever look down on anyone in a jersey purchased from the king of Everyday Low Prices.

    You could be a janitor with a two-inch dick, a GED and a publicly visible STD, and so long as you’re a college football fan, you have total social permission to chastise any man in a Wal-Mart football jersey. It doesn’t matter if he’s the CEO of the fricking Northern Hemisphere. His jersey looks like something a Chinese Rugby team would wear. To practice. You could put the King of England in a Wal-Mart jersey and he’d immediately be labeled a redneck douche of epic proportions. Wal-Mart jerseys. The college football equivalent of a fanny-pack.[/quote]

    Spot on![/quote]

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! So awesome and very well said.[/quote]

    Almost as good as softball guy!
    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”286173″][quote comment=”286168″]Also, on number changes in the NFL, the only place it might make sense for the league to force the switch could be if a player changed from say a offensive lineman to a fullback or tight end. Sure they could report eligible but having to do that every play would become real tedious. I’m not talking about situations like how Vrabel plays on goal line situations, I’m speaking of the rare occasion when a player might make a permanent position change and normally this doesn’t happen at the NFL level.

    Obviously the switch back to the O-line from a FB or TE position would probably require a switch back. I don’t think the league would want interior linemen wearing numbers in the 20s, 30s or 40s.

    But to let Hester play WR with #23, I see no harm no foul.[/quote]
    I think it was Aundray Bruce that once had to switch from #93 to #83 (with the Raiders, I think?) because he washed out as a defensive player and they moved him to TE. The permanent position changes do happen, but they are rare. Even more rare when it is a #1 overall draft pick like Bruce.[/quote]
    Wow Stuby, I honestly did not know that (in my best Johnny Carson voice!)

    In another direction, what about Jim Jenson? He played a long time with the Dolphins, wearing #11 and this well pre-dated the liberalization of the WR numbering. Wasn’t he drafted as a QB but played just about every position but that? I recall him primarily as a WR but also and RB and a special teamer. But as long as Miami listed him as a QB (and I’m sure he could play in an emergency role) he could wear #11.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |

    [quote comment=”286173″][quote comment=”286168″]Also, on number changes in the NFL, the only place it might make sense for the league to force the switch could be if a player changed from say a offensive lineman to a fullback or tight end. Sure they could report eligible but having to do that every play would become real tedious. I’m not talking about situations like how Vrabel plays on goal line situations, I’m speaking of the rare occasion when a player might make a permanent position change and normally this doesn’t happen at the NFL level.

    Obviously the switch back to the O-line from a FB or TE position would probably require a switch back. I don’t think the league would want interior linemen wearing numbers in the 20s, 30s or 40s.

    But to let Hester play WR with #23, I see no harm no foul.[/quote]
    I think it was Aundray Bruce that once had to switch from #93 to #83 (with the Raiders, I think?) because he washed out as a defensive player and they moved him to TE. The permanent position changes do happen, but they are rare. Even more rare when it is a #1 overall draft pick like Bruce.[/quote]
    Another point, when did numbers in the 90s come into play, or maybe a better question is: where the 90s used in the NFL prior to the numbering rules?

    I ask because at every level of football other than the NFL, numbers in the 90s are eligible for receivers. Some schools use the 90s to denote Tight Ends.

    Also, in the days of old, numbers in the 80s were used more to denote defensive linemen. Some colleges, notably PSU and Bama, still issue DL 80s from time to time.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”286176″][quote comment=”286142″][quote comment=”286140″]Why is John McCain’s hand below his heart? Is he using his hand to cover up the place where his American flag lapel pin should be but he didn’t wear it? I smell a conspiracy!

    (please, it’s a joke)[/quote]

    Based on this Orlando Sentinel College Football preview I’d say he’s generally pretty perplexed when it comes to sporting events.

    http://deadspin.com/...

    and computers:
    http://www.huffingto...

    very true, angry young guy…but…at least mccain can SPELL ;)

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 12:02 pm |

    One more time. A veteran player who has been rightly assigned a number for an “eligible” position won’t be asked to change it because of a change to another “eligible” position. Not while he’s with the team that assigned him the number. If he changes teams, that would be different.

    Had the Falcons moved Micheal Vick to running back or wide receiver he would not have been required to change his #7 while with the Falcons. Not by the Falcons, not by the league.

    Jets could move Favre to tight end, and league would let him stay #4…while with the Jets, anyway.

    Has nothing to do with being assigned the number before the new numbering codes. Has to do with it being “your” number once it’s been properly assigned.

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”286165″][quote comment=”286123″]Regarding the Oregon Ducks and the reflective jersey, I know nothin of that situation specifically but I want to counter with another case of reflective gear.

    The sneakerheads in here may be able to back me up on this but I had this pair of Air Jordan XIII (http://www.deadstock...).

    You can’t tell in that photo but the entire side of that sneaker, save the red suede parts, is reflective. When I had those shoes, there were photos of me and the shoe looked completely different because of it. I’m assuming the reflection came from the way the camera flash hit the shoe and I’m wondering if that’s the case with this Oregon photo (although it looks REALLY bright on that jersey).

    I don’t ever recall any of the lead up to that sneaker release mentioning the reflective nature of the side and at that time, my college years, I was much more of a sneakerhead than I am now and I really kept track of trends, releases, etc. I’m sure I could be forgetting but who knows.[/quote]

    Sneakerhead Rebuttal:

    For years, Nike has been using 3M material, originally with running gear and shoes. Over the years, thay have begun adding it to many different types of products, including Basketball kicks and football jerseys, remember Colorado last year?[/quote]

    Nike Dunks:
    http://www.skiptomys...

    Air Max ’97:
    http://images.niceki...

    Air Jordan V:
    http://www.pickyours...

    Air Max ’95:
    http://i259.photobuc...

    When Colorado played FSU last year, great pics were taken that show the 3M reflective material:
    http://www.youtube.c...

    http://seminoles.cst...

  • Ronnie Poore | August 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    i remember back in the ’60s Fred Biletnikoff was #25 and Don Maynard of the Jets was #13…these guys were what we today refer to as wide receivers, but if you look on a roster from 1968 it’ll list these guys as “FLANKER”. maybe the Bears are bringing back that old position.

  • JeffB | August 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm |

    I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”286183″][quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    i remember back in the ’60s Fred Biletnikoff was #25 and Don Maynard of the Jets was #13…these guys were what we today refer to as wide receivers, but if you look on a roster from 1968 it’ll list these guys as “FLANKER”. maybe the Bears are bringing back that old position.[/quote]

    Back then an eligible number was good about anywere. Dan Abramowicz was 46, Lennie Moore 24, Bobby Mitchell 49, Tommy McDonald wore 25, 29, 8 and 9, Paul Warfield 42, Reggie Rucker 33, Ahmad Rashad 28, Lance Alworth 19, Elmo Wright 17, Gene Washington 18, Kyle Rote 44…wide recievers all of them. Bob Tucker was a tight end, 36. QB John Hadl 21, QB Charlie Connerly 42. All over the map.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm |

    The NFL didn’t formally cofify the number-by-position system until 1973.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm |

    Ugh.

    Make that “The NFL didn’t formally codify the number-by-position system until 1973.”

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 12:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”286183″][quote comment=”286152″]To veer a bit off topic. What have the Bears done to allow Devin Hester to keep his #23? To refer to the case of Reggie Bush, the NFL has been particularly strict regarding it’s numbering policy. It Hester’s case, since he is now on the depth chart as a WR, shouldn’t he be required to wear a number in the 80’s or 10-19?[/quote]

    i remember back in the ’60s Fred Biletnikoff was #25 and Don Maynard of the Jets was #13…these guys were what we today refer to as wide receivers, but if you look on a roster from 1968 it’ll list these guys as “FLANKER”. maybe the Bears are bringing back that old position.[/quote]
    It’s a shortened form of flankerback, and can be used to describe the WR, in a traditional two back, two receiver, one TE set, that is OFF the line of scrimmage (and hence, can go in motion). The WR on the line, that cannot motion would be referred to as the “Split End”.

    I think FLANKER is still used for termonology purposes but not as a descriptor of the position. For example, I think some systems use X, Y and Z to describe the flanker, tight end and split end (in old terms). I guess you hear the term “slot receiver” but that’s used more with three WR sets.

    I guess for the media, fan purposes, etc, a WR is a WR but folks that know football know that the two are very different positions.

    On a related note, I love watching old NFL Films shows where the receivers still get into three-point stances at the line. I think FSU did this on the college level relatively recently.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    You had a meeting at Nye’s? Sorry I wasn’t around for that. Drove right past Nye’s Sunday around noon after softball. Decided to head downtown and check progress on Twins’ and Gophers’ new faciltities. Looking forward to both.

    —Ricko

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 12:41 pm |

    [blockquote]One more time.[/blockquote]
    Sorry Ricko, as one of the primary posters on this topic, I wasn’t aware this was addressed before.

    [blockquote]Had the Falcons moved Micheal Vick to running back or wide receiver he would not have been required to change his #7 while with the Falcons. Not by the Falcons, not by the league.

    Jets could move Favre to tight end, and league would let him stay #4…while with the Jets, anyway.

    Has nothing to do with being assigned the number before the new numbering codes. Has to do with it being “your” number once it’s been properly assigned.[/blockquote]

    Wow…I’d love to see that officially in writing somewhere from the league. Ricko, you’ve forgotten more unis than I could ever wish to know but in some cases, I just can’t see that being true.

    Maybe in a case like Vick, he’d be allowed to keep #7 as a WR/RB. But the rare cases where a skill player might go to the line, I can’t see that happening.

    For instance, if the Giants would have said to Lorenzen, “OK, you’re too big for QB, you’re a guard now” I can’t see the NFL being OK with him wearing #12 in the interior line.

    I guess these cases would rarely, if ever happen so maybe the rule is written without considering this type of situation.

    Also, the team and/or player might use common sense and make the number change on their own.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm |

    One more time.

    Sorry Ricko, as one of the primary posters on this topic, I wasn’t aware this was addressed before.

    Had the Falcons moved Micheal Vick to running back or wide receiver he would not have been required to change his #7 while with the Falcons. Not by the Falcons, not by the league.

    Jets could move Favre to tight end, and league would let him stay #4…while with the Jets, anyway.

    Has nothing to do with being assigned the number before the new numbering codes. Has to do with it being “your” number once it’s been properly assigned.

    Wow…I’d love to see that officially in writing somewhere from the league. Ricko, you’ve forgotten more unis than I could ever wish to know but in some cases, I just can’t see that being true.

    Maybe in a case like Vick, he’d be allowed to keep #7 as a WR/RB. But the rare cases where a skill player might go to the line, I can’t see that happening.

    For instance, if the Giants would have said to Lorenzen, “OK, you’re too big for QB, you’re a guard now” I can’t see the NFL being OK with him wearing #12 in the interior line.

    I guess these cases would rarely, if ever happen so maybe the rule is written without considering this type of situation.

    Also, the team and/or player might use common sense and make the number change on their own.[/quote]

    Sorry, my tags were messed up, I corrected so easier viewing

  • Paul Lukas | August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”286189″][quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    You had a meeting at Nye’s?[/quote]

    And how:
    http://www.uniwatchb...

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”286186″]The NFL didn’t formally cofify the number-by-position system until 1973.[/quote]

    And it wasn’t as rigid as today’s. A wideout (esp. if—but not necessarily—playing flankerback; the first of which was #47, btw, Elroy Hirsh) still could wear pretty much any number 1-49 or 80 to 89 cuz was technically a running back. That’s why you’d still see things like Biletnikoff (25) and Cliff Branch (21) in same starting lineup)…or both SE and FL wearing numbers in the 80s (Swann, 88; Stallworth 82).

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm |

    In that situation, Lorenzen would be moving from an eligible position to an ineligible one. So in Ricko’s scenario, he would be required to change his number.

  • Jim MI | August 26, 2008 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    Hey no fair! Detroit hasn’t had one yet!!! :)

  • Beeker | August 26, 2008 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=\”286167\”][quote comment=\”286160\”][quote comment=\”286122\”]Why is he blacking out the swoosh on his hat when you can see the swoosh on his shirt?

    http://farm4.static....

    For some weird reason, I believe that there is a rule that headwear worn during ATP events is not allowed to have any type of writing on them. Just a company logo that cannot exceed a certain size. Since Dri Fit is a corporate trademark, it must be removed. John Isner does the same black out job on his hats as well. I\’ll have to dig to find the exact rule…[/quote]

    I found it! http://www.atptennis...
    Page 220

    Allows only *one* corporate logo not exceeding 2 sq. inches on headwear. May Include writing.[/quote]

    Interesting – it also says that on the bag, towel and other equipment \”Standard manufacturer\’s logo plus 2 separate commercial I.D.\’s each not to exceed 4 sq.in.(25.8 sq.cm)\”.

    So how do they get away with the oversized tennis bags, emblazoned with giant logos? (this is the best photo I could find, but it clearly shows that the Wilson logo is much larger than 4 sqaure inches). Seems like another instance of selective rule enforcement.

    http://www.usopen.or...

  • sbs | August 26, 2008 at 12:59 pm |

    I went to a Stanford/Oregon game last year and noticed the reflective oregon uniforms first-hand after taking photos of the game. i will send an example to uni-watch when i get home today (west coast for me).

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 1:02 pm |

    Now, now, now, I never said an “eligible” number would be allowed in an “ineligible” postion (except in “reporting” situations such as long snappers or other special team assignments, et al). I clearly said I was talking about a switch from one “eligible” postion to another. Lorenzen to the interior line (or some reverse of that; a lineman to full-time TE, for example) wouldn’t be that.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”286198″]Now, now, now, I never said an “eligible” number would be allowed in an “ineligible” postion (except in “reporting” situations such as long snappers or other special team assignments, et al). I clearly said I was talking about a switch from one “eligible” postion to another. Lorenzen to the interior line (or some reverse of that; a lineman to full-time TE, for example) wouldn’t be that.[/quote]

    Well, you did say if he moved to Guard.

    As to TE, I don’t know. Would love to read the actual rule.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”286198″]Now, now, now, I never said an “eligible” number would be allowed in an “ineligible” postion (except in “reporting” situations such as long snappers or other special team assignments, et al). I clearly said I was talking about a switch from one “eligible” postion to another. Lorenzen to the interior line (or some reverse of that; a lineman to full-time TE, for example) wouldn’t be that.[/quote]
    Sorry, sorry, mea culpa and all that.

    I obviously wasn’t thinking in terms of eligible positions versus non-eligible. My apologies.

    Yes, from eligible to another eligible that would be allowed.

    And great point on flankers TECHNICALLY being RBs. Hence why you saw WRs with traditional RB numberes.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 1:14 pm |

    Just sayin’…Hester could become the next dominant WR in the NFL…and his number with the Bears won’t change unless HE wants it to change.

    Nobody’s doing any “throwback” thing…or slipping something under the NFL Rules Radar. His number was correct for his original position, and now he’s changed to another “skill” position. Neither the Bears nor the NFL is gonna tell him to switch to a number in the 80s or the teens.

    They reason it seems so unusual is that so few people change positions anymore. Lennie Moore started out as a running back, became a flanker, then moved back to running back…all with the Colts. Bobby Mitchell spent his career in Cleveland as a full-time RB alongside Jim Brown (the wideouts were Billy Howton and Ray Renfro), then became a wide receiver after trade to Washington. Charley Taylor was NFL Rookie of the Year as a running back, but went into HOF as a wide receiver and one-time NFL leader in career receptions. NFL was just…different then.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm |

    So I’m clear, if Hester left the Bears, he’d have to conform to a number in the 10-19, 80-89 range correct?

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”286201″]Just sayin’…Hester could become the next dominant WR in the NFL…and his number with the Bears won’t change unless HE wants it to change.
    [/quote]

    I don’t think we actually know that.

    As mentioned above, he’s still listed as a “PR/KR” on the Bears’ website. So long as they keep using him in that role, there’s no reason for him to switch. He’s a returner who also plays some WR.

    But what if he switched full time to WR? We can speculate, but until we actually look at the rule we don’t know.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm |

    I’m not saying it’s written rule, though it may well be.

    I think it’s more about not jerking around a veteran..in this specific case, a veteran whose team decided that he should play some wide receiver instead of only running back kicks.

    Remember Roy Green of Cardinals? Started as #25, a DB. Then became a two-way guy, and finally a full-time starting wideout. He switched to #81 cuz he wanted it, as a WR. League didn’t make him. He could easily have kept 25. At the time there still were a number of WR with numbers not in the 80s.

  • Teebz | August 26, 2008 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    I swear that if I had seen you in one of the pictures, Jeff, I’d go to my grave stating that Paul had just made up the whole “going-to-Oregon” thing. ;o)

    Nye’s and Kay’s sound similar and look similar… too coincidental!

    I’d definitely make the trip for another one in Minneapolis… although, I’d plan it better with work this time. That was a blast!

    Ironically, Jeff, I got an email yesterday from the Moose store. Are you still looking for that Molson Canadian sponsor patch for your Moose jersey?

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”286202″]So I’m clear, if Hester left the Bears, he’d have to conform to a number in the 10-19, 80-89 range correct?[/quote]

    We think. Maybe.

    At least MLB publishes their rulebook on its Web site….

  • RedWing in Colorado | August 26, 2008 at 1:33 pm |

    Read that story on cheerleaders and the dress code and thought I’d pass along our experience opening a new school. We just went ahead and ordered cheer uniforms that were two inches longer than what everyone else had, so that we knew they would fit in the dress code.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm |

    Okay, found a copy of the 2006 NFL Rule Book online.

    Don’t know if it’s authentic, or if the relevant passage is still in effect two years later, but let’s assume for the moment that it is.

    Rule 5 Players, Substitutes, Equipment

    Article 4: Players Numbered by Position
    All players must wear numerals on their jerseys in accordance with Rule 5, Section 3, Article 3(c), and such numerals must be by playing position as follows: quarterbacks, punters, and placekickers, 1-19; running backs and defensive backs, 20-49; centers, 50-59 (60-79 if 50-59 unavailable); offensive guards and tackles, 60-79; wide receivers, 10-19 and 80-89; tight ends, 80-89; defensive linemen, 60-79 (90-99 if 60-79 unavailable); and linebackers, 50-59 (90-99 if 50-59 unavailable).

    If a player changes his position during his playing career in the NFL and such change moves him out of a category specified above, he must be issued an appropriate new jersey numeral.

    Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2008 at 1:48 pm |

    I thought TEs could wear numbers in the 40s a la Dallas Clark of the Colts.

  • Robb | August 26, 2008 at 1:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”286188″]

    I think FLANKER is still used for termonology purposes but not as a descriptor of the position. For example, I think some systems use X, Y and Z to describe the flanker, tight end and split end (in old terms). I guess you hear the term “slot receiver” but that’s used more with three WR sets.

    I guess for the media, fan purposes, etc, a WR is a WR but folks that know football know that the two are very different positions.

    On a related note, I love watching old NFL Films shows where the receivers still get into three-point stances at the line. I think FSU did this on the college level relatively recently.[/quote]

    Back in my HS, we used the spread and each position was lettered like you said, I believe it went X (Weak Side Wide Out) H (WS Slot) Y (Strong Side Slot) Z (SS Wide Out). It gets a little more complicated, because Y played the slot, but could also play Tight End. And H was more of a slot receiver but could also play Wing (set up at three yards outside the tackle and two yards off the line of scrimmage) but we never used a Wing and a TE on the same side of a formation. Three basic ones looked kinda like this:
    X__H__TGCGT__Y__Z or X_____TGCGT_H_Y_Z or
    X__H__TGCGTY____Z

    Oh, and I saw receivers using a 3-point stance in a NCAA game in the 80’s – I want to say it was the Cal-Stanford game with the band on the field, but I cant be sure.near

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”286210″][quote comment=”286188″]

    I think FLANKER is still used for termonology purposes but not as a descriptor of the position. For example, I think some systems use X, Y and Z to describe the flanker, tight end and split end (in old terms). I guess you hear the term “slot receiver” but that’s used more with three WR sets.

    I guess for the media, fan purposes, etc, a WR is a WR but folks that know football know that the two are very different positions.

    On a related note, I love watching old NFL Films shows where the receivers still get into three-point stances at the line. I think FSU did this on the college level relatively recently.[/quote]

    Back in my HS, we used the spread and each position was lettered like you said, I believe it went X (Weak Side Wide Out) H (WS Slot) Y (Strong Side Slot) Z (SS Wide Out). It gets a little more complicated, because Y played the slot, but could also play Tight End. And H was more of a slot receiver but could also play Wing (set up at three yards outside the tackle and two yards off the line of scrimmage) but we never used a Wing and a TE on the same side of a formation. Three basic ones looked kinda like this:
    X__H__TGCGT__Y__Z or X_____TGCGT_H_Y_Z or
    X__H__TGCGTY____Z

    Oh, and I saw receivers using a 3-point stance in a NCAA game in the 80’s – I want to say it was the Cal-Stanford game with the band on the field, but I cant be sure.near[/quote]
    At your HS, did they use the numbers of the passing tree when plays were called? I’m just curious because the guys that I know that coach right now, even if they were in a four WR set, use three numbers.

    So an “888” would mean all four WRs run an 8 route (post). Although I don’t know how they account for plays that would have differnt routes run.

    I pick “888” because that NFL Films soundbite, Marv Levy was coaching the Chiefs: “Tell ya what we oughta do is run an 888 deep down the middle of the field and get a pass interference don’t ya think?”

    I love that clip because the QB is rolling his eyes as he heads back to the huddle and Levy says it was such a lack of confidence like “this is all I got”

  • MLB2PDX | August 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm |

    Paul, glad you enjoyed your time in Portland. Seems like you got to see a decent amount, for the short time you were here. I really wish the meeting time would have been different, but oh well. Next time.

    And as for Oregon’s unis, not 100% sure but I think they “expire” after this season and will be getting new ones next year. That fucking reflective, diamond plate, yuppie-Harley shit better be gone on the next ‘go round’! Embarrassing. But, I guess I’d rather have that than camo, like the basketball team…or flames like the white and yellow helmets. Shit, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next uni has flames, over laid on camo, with diamond plate covering everything…

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm |

    “Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner.”

    And that’s where the “not jerking around a veteran” I mentioned likely would come in. And, failing that, Bears could just continue to list Hester as PR/KR, too. Still a few guys who are really tight ends out there wearing #’s in 40’s, too.

    My point is, I think they look the other way a lot if the player’s personal preference regarding a number he’s worn for some time isn’t truly disruptive to the numbering system…as far as changing a number he’s had with the same team. that is.

    I’d think with a team change it might be “back to the rule book,” though.

    If it isn’t, then the NFL is even farther down to road to “Player as Faceless Automaton” than I thought…and just another example of the No Fun League at its best (or worst).

    Somehow Keyshawn always was able to keep 19, wasn’t he? Long before 11-19 were officially allowed for WR’s. Probably the PR/KR dodge.

    And Dallas Clark has played a lot of running back for the Colts lately, has he?

    Not meaning to aruge, just think there always will be exceptions and probably rightly so. To make Hester change numbers would just be…stupid.

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”286209″]I thought TEs could wear numbers in the 40s a la Dallas Clark of the Colts.[/quote]

    Maybe Dallas is officially considered an H-Back. Chris Cooley of the Redskins (at least under Gibbs) was an H-Back and wears #47.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”286213″]”Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner.”

    And that’s where the “not jerking around a veteran” I mentioned likely would come in. And, failing that, Bears could just continue to list Hester as PR/KR, too. Still a few guys who are really tight ends out there wearing #’s in 40’s, too.

    My point is, I think they look the other way a lot if the player’s personal preference regarding a number he’s worn for some time isn’t truly disruptive to the numbering system…as far as changing a number he’s had with the same team. that is.

    I’d think with a team change it might be “back to the rule book,” though.

    If it isn’t, then the NFL is even farther down to road to “Player as Faceless Automaton” than I thought…and just another example of the No Fun League at its best (or worst).

    Somehow Keyshawn always was able to keep 19, wasn’t he? Long before 11-19 were officially allowed for WR’s. Probably the PR/KR dodge.

    And Dallas Clark has played a lot of running back for the Colts lately, has he?

    Not meaning to aruge, just think there always will be exceptions and probably rightly so. To make Hester change numbers would just be…stupid.[/quote]
    Key was allowed to wear #19 outside of the rules with the Jets and we he went to the Bucs, I don’t think the rule letting players freely wear 10-19 was in place just yet. I can remember at the press conference when he was being introduced as a Buc, a reporter asked him what number he would wear and he said in a definite, defiant tone “Oh, it’s gonna be 19.” Then he turned to his side, not sure if he was asking the GM or owner or what and was less reserved “it’s gonna be 19 isn’t it?”

    Key’s moves to Dallas and Carolina were within the rule though.

  • Geeman | August 26, 2008 at 2:25 pm |

    Last year I was watching on ESPN Classic the Nebraska-Georgia Tech game in the 1990 Citrus Bowl (where Tech won the national championship). Nebraska receivers (split end and flanker, or wingback as N calls it) were still using three-point stances.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”286214″][quote comment=”286209″]I thought TEs could wear numbers in the 40s a la Dallas Clark of the Colts.[/quote]

    Maybe Dallas is officially considered an H-Back. Chris Cooley of the Redskins (at least under Gibbs) was an H-Back and wears #47.[/quote]
    He’s listed as a TE on the Colts roster and so are 3 other guys who also wear numbers in the 40s. Seems like it would just be alot easier if everyone except O-Linemen wore whatever they hell they wanted.

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”286215″][quote comment=”286213″]”Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner.”

    And that’s where the “not jerking around a veteran” I mentioned likely would come in. And, failing that, Bears could just continue to list Hester as PR/KR, too. Still a few guys who are really tight ends out there wearing #’s in 40’s, too.

    My point is, I think they look the other way a lot if the player’s personal preference regarding a number he’s worn for some time isn’t truly disruptive to the numbering system…as far as changing a number he’s had with the same team. that is.

    I’d think with a team change it might be “back to the rule book,” though.

    If it isn’t, then the NFL is even farther down to road to “Player as Faceless Automaton” than I thought…and just another example of the No Fun League at its best (or worst).

    Somehow Keyshawn always was able to keep 19, wasn’t he? Long before 11-19 were officially allowed for WR’s. Probably the PR/KR dodge.

    And Dallas Clark has played a lot of running back for the Colts lately, has he?

    Not meaning to aruge, just think there always will be exceptions and probably rightly so. To make Hester change numbers would just be…stupid.[/quote]
    Key was allowed to wear #19 outside of the rules with the Jets and we he went to the Bucs, I don’t think the rule letting players freely wear 10-19 was in place just yet. I can remember at the press conference when he was being introduced as a Buc, a reporter asked him what number he would wear and he said in a definite, defiant tone “Oh, it’s gonna be 19.” Then he turned to his side, not sure if he was asking the GM or owner or what and was less reserved “it’s gonna be 19 isn’t it?”

    Key’s moves to Dallas and Carolina were within the rule though.[/quote]

    There were a few rare receivers that wore “low” numbers when Keyshawn first wore 19. There was a guy in Minnesota that wore “18”. It was very rare but it did happen.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm |

    If teams were out of 80’s they could assign wideouts pretty much any number they wanted (mostly would be in the teens) and tight ends numbers in the 40s. Happened all the time in camp. Sometimes, when a guya made the final cut, he’d keep the strange number…esp. as number of WR’s teams kept increased (and both they and TE’s were mandated to be in the 80s).

    Odd things would happen, too. When Vikings acquired Dave Casper and Archie Manning from the Oilers, 87 wasn’t available so Casper took 44 (imagine that, Chuck Foreman and Dave Casper wore the same number for the Vikings).

    For the record, punter Greg Coleamn had 8, so Manning took 4.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”286213″]Not meaning to aruge, just think there always will be exceptions and probably rightly so. To make Hester change numbers would just be…stupid.[/quote]

    As much as I support the concept of numbers by position, you’re right, there should always be exceptions. So long as Hester remains an eligible receiver with the the Bears, he should be allowed the option of retaining his number.

  • KT | August 26, 2008 at 2:54 pm |

    It works!

    Keyshawn Johnson came into the NFL in 1996. I think the rules were changed (cough cough) coincidentally at that time.

    Who wore 18 in Minnesota prior to Keyshawn?

    Little-known fact and I only know it because I was there: When Wendell Davis (admit it – your mind just said “Ooooh, ugly astroturf knee injury”) came back and played for Indianapolis in 1994 or 1995, he wore #10.

    He never got on the field, though, and his profootball-reference.com page doesn’t reflect his Colts career for that reason. But he was #10.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote]Who wore 18 in Minnesota prior to Keyshawn?[/quote]

    wait…what?

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”286216″]Last year I was watching on ESPN Classic the Nebraska-Georgia Tech game in the 1990 Citrus Bowl (where Tech won the national championship). Nebraska receivers (split end and flanker, or wingback as N calls it) were still using three-point stances.[/quote]

    That’s because receivers at Nebraska weren’t any different than lineman!

    William Bell, Coleman Rudolph, Marco Coleman…Tech had a great team that year and their unis looked great!

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”286195″][quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    Hey no fair! Detroit hasn’t had one yet!!! :)[/quote]

    I’m more upset that at the last New York Uni-Party, (Brooklyn, before the Super Bowl), noone took any pics!

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”286224″][quote comment=”286195″][quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    Hey no fair! Detroit hasn’t had one yet!!! :)[/quote]

    I’m more upset that at the last New York Uni-Party, (Brooklyn, before the Super Bowl), noone took any pics![/quote]

    and yet you had your camera with you the whole time

  • Rob Ullman | August 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm |

    That photo of the girl smoking outside the bar is sublime.

  • KT | August 26, 2008 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”286222″][quote]Who wore 18 in Minnesota prior to Keyshawn?[/quote]

    wait…what?[/quote]

    More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets? Unless I mis-read reply #97 above.

    You know WTF I meant. You’re a bright guy. :)

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | August 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm |

    Great blog today!!! Loved the neon… All the show and tell at Kay’s really makes me wonder when you will make it to Texas, what would make that happen?

    I also have to say I loved Rian’s Gothams shirt!

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 3:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”286227″][quote comment=”286222″][quote]Who wore 18 in Minnesota prior to Keyshawn?[/quote]

    wait…what?[/quote]

    More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets? Unless I mis-read reply #97 above.

    You know WTF I meant. You’re a bright guy. :)[/quote]

    actually, kenn, i didn’t … im busy and slow (in the fuckin retard mentally challenged sense) today…

    i seriously thought you were asking about keyshawn wearing 18 at minnesota, not how the rephrased question read

    my apologies :)

  • Tom Farley | August 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm |

    The NFL didn’t formally cofify the number-by-position system until 1973.
    Ugh.
    Make that “The NFL didn’t formally codify the number-by-position system until 1973.”

    Heh. Chance, when I haven’t been “formally cofified” I don’t think or spell clearly, and am generally avoided by the other members of the house …

    I love seeing the All-America Conference footage where Otto Graham is wearing 60, Frankie Albert has on 63 and Y.A. Tittle is … 76, I think? I remember reading somewhere that that was a AAC league mandate, quarterbacks with the numbers in the 60s and 70s.

  • Tom Farley | August 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm |

    When Wendell Davis (admit it – your mind just said “Ooooh, ugly astroturf knee injury”)

    You bet I did. Am I recalling correctly that he tore both ACLs simultaneously?

    That memory of the notorious turf at the Vet is paired with Billick refusing to play a preseason game because of the field condition.

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | August 26, 2008 at 3:22 pm |

    I have also seen pics in the past that you could see it was reflective. My dad and I have marvelled at Oregon and Hawaii’s unis years before I found Uni Watch. I of course, have slipped off the edge and proudly obsess about it now… but I can always count on a call from him when some college has thrown something weird out there!

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    “More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets?”

    David Palmer, maybe? Can’t remember for sure.
    Damn, wish there was something out there like “NOW BATTING, NUMBER…” for NFL.

  • Doc | August 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm |

    From vikings.com

    18/84 Bland, Tony, WR, Florida A&M 1996-98

    other than that, i’m pretty sure Moss wore 18 during the preseason his rookie year. only remember that because my roommate was pissed when he switched to 84 when the season started.

  • Doc | August 26, 2008 at 3:32 pm |

    didn’t explain there, sorry. he was pissed because he bought a moss #18 before the ’98 season

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm |

    Here is another pic of Adrian Peterson’s facemask, however what is more visible are:
    1. The mess on his numbers
    2. His Player Exclusive Nike Super Bad 2 cleats, complete with purple accents
    3.Socks with some type of logo
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”286225″][quote comment=”286224″][quote comment=”286195″][quote comment=”286184″]I always really enjoy the reports from the road trips and seeing the unique things people choose to wear.

    Teebz, Kay’s did look like Nye’s, didn’t it? I thought the same thing even before reading your comment.

    I hope there’s another Minneapolis meeting in the not too distant future. I really enjoyed the last one.[/quote]

    Hey no fair! Detroit hasn’t had one yet!!! :)[/quote]

    I’m more upset that at the last New York Uni-Party, (Brooklyn, before the Super Bowl), noone took any pics![/quote]

    and yet you had your camera with you the whole time[/quote]

    You are so right…I am included in that group to be upset with!

  • KT | August 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”286231″]When Wendell Davis (admit it – your mind just said “Ooooh, ugly astroturf knee injury”)

    You bet I did. Am I recalling correctly that he tore both ACLs simultaneously?[/quote]

    Yes. Eww.

    [quote]
    That memory of the notorious turf at the Vet is paired with Billick refusing to play a preseason game because of the field condition.[/quote]

    Was it his decision? I just remember him saying “I’m going home tonight with someone’s ass in my briefcase, I just need to know the name of that person,” referring to the decision-making party.

  • fxs | August 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”286236″]
    3.Socks with some type of logo
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Looks like Phiten.

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | August 26, 2008 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”286187″]Ugh.

    Make that “The NFL didn’t formally codify the number-by-position system until 1973.”[/quote]
    Damn, I was sitting here trying to figure out what the hell “cofify” meant….

  • Matthew | August 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”286155″]What I want to know is did Matthew in the Spokane jersey accidentally drop a pitcher of beer or anything, just for nostalgia?[/quote]

    Good call! That was how I got folks at the gathering to know who the Chiefs were!

    Not exactly our proudest moment.

    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Tom Farley | August 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm |

    Was it his decision? I just remember him saying “I’m going home tonight with someone’s ass in my briefcase, I just need to know the name of that person,” referring to the decision-making party.
    Hmm … yeah, I may have jumped to that conclusion. That was the preseason where they were the HBO “Hard Knocks” team, right? The visual that sticks is of him down on the field, poking his foot into a disturbingly deep hole in the turf.

    Whoever made the decision to cancel the game made the right call. When it’s the preseason and you know the risk of injury is even higher than usual …

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm |

    What’s unique about this number talk is that Michael jackson (HEE HEE!) with the Browns sported that #1 well before the teens were allowed to the WRs because the Browns were out of 80 numbers. However, he had to switch to #81 once it was available so it was short lived. I don’t remember that situation happening again with a single digit or even a 10-19 number until much later. (i.e. Key)

    I remember a few years ago ESPN did a story about WRs not wanting to wear numbers in the 80s ecause they looked too boxy. The story hinted that maybe eventually they’d be allowed single digits too.

    I think it would be totaly boss to see larry Fitzgerald an Braylon Edwards to wear thier proper #1 again.

  • KT | August 26, 2008 at 4:33 pm |

    The risk is probably about the same. But the “aw, shit” factor is much higher if a guy gets hurt in a preseason game.

  • =bg= | August 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”286229″][quote comment=”286227″][quote comment=”286222″][quote]Who wore 18 in Minnesota prior to Keyshawn?[/quote]

    wait…what?[/quote]

    More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets? Unless I mis-read reply #97 above.

    You know WTF I meant. You’re a bright guy. :)[/quote]

    actually, kenn, i didn’t … im busy and slow (in the fuckin retard mentally challenged sense) today…

    i seriously thought you were asking about keyshawn wearing 18 at minnesota, not how the rephrased question read

    my apologies :)[/quote]
    Keyshawn never played for the Vikes. Maybe you mean Moss, who wore 84.

    Now there was a Gene Washington who wore 84 for the vikes..and Gene Washington, the league’s Gene Washington, and he wore 18 for the Niners.

    There was also a WR for the Colts in the early 70’s..wore 17. Sam Havilcek I think.

    Here’s a really good one tho. 1971 bengals roster:

    10 Eric Crabtree WR
    11 Virgil Carter QB
    12 Greg Cook QB
    13 Ken Riley QB
    14 Ken Anderson QB
    15 Dave lewis P
    16 Horst Muhlmann K
    17 Speedy Thomas WR
    18 Paul Robinson RB
    19 Essex Johnson RB
    20 Lemar Parrish DB

  • Chris | August 26, 2008 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”286239″][quote comment=”286236″]
    3.Socks with some type of logo
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Looks like Phiten.[/quote]
    Looks more like Reebok

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 5:14 pm |

    Just a general question about numbering rules. Has anyone ever been watching NCAA football and been thoroughly confused watching, say, a wide receiver wearing #8 get tackled by a linebacker wearing #35 and think, “Why is that fullback tackling that quarterback?”?

    Does the NFL think it’s game is SO complicated and sophisticated that the public can’t possibly follow it?

    Or maybe they’re obliquely admitting their part-time officating crews are easily confused?

    I really have never understood the need to be so anal retentive about numbers. Eligible and ineligible, sure. But I watched before instant replay and never once–not once–thought Night Train Lane or Carl Eller (both #81)were split ends. Or that Bobby Layne (#22) was a shifty halfback. I knew Sam Huff or Jim Marshall (both #70) didn’t play in the offensive line and, even though they both wore #19, I could tell the difference between Lance Alworth and Johnny Unitas. Honest. I could. Really.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”286233″]”More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets?”

    David Palmer, maybe? Can’t remember for sure.
    Damn, wish there was something out there like “NOW BATTING, NUMBER…” for NFL.[/quote]

    Maybe not for the League as a whole, but some teams have them.

  • chance | August 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”286143″][quote comment=”286141″]Thanks for the pics, Paul – I miss Portland.

    Your photo of Kay’s sums up my memories of the city pretty well – pretty girl having a smoke, wet streets reflecting all that neon. Ah, college.

    I’m a little disappointed that it appears nobody showed up in Portland Beavers gear – they have one of the best looks in the minors, and in the dugout could easily pass for a major league team.[/quote]

    Hell, they look better than half of the MLB…[/quote]

    Or if not the beautful modern versions, then one of the gorgeous thowbacks. The Beavers just might have about of the best visual heritage in baseball.

  • =bg= | August 26, 2008 at 5:49 pm |

    Just for Paul;

    http://omg.yahoo.com...

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm |

    Anyone like Robert Riger’s art?

    Here you’ll find a look a some of his baseball work…

    http://vault.sportsi...

  • =bg= | August 26, 2008 at 5:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”286120″]Montreal Canadiens have a logo for their 100th season.

    http://canadiens.nhl...

    Pretty good as logos go. Simple, that’s good. Also like how they used the font from their away jerseys. It is going to be weird seeing that at center ice for a whole season rather than one of my favorite logos…[/quote]

    Not a hockey fan any longer (ah, memories of the 1971 Dallas Blackhawks, the 1972 Cincinnati Swords and the 1974-1978 Cincinnati Stingers..)..

    but—–

    The Canadians jerseys are TIMELESS.
    The Yankees of hockey………………….eh?

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 5:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”286248″][quote comment=”286233″]”More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets?”

    David Palmer, maybe? Can’t remember for sure.
    Damn, wish there was something out there like “NOW BATTING, NUMBER…” for NFL.[/quote]

    Maybe not for the League as a whole, but some teams have them.[/quote]

    I think it was Kelly Campbell who wore “18” for the Vikes about 6-8 years ago.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”286253″][quote comment=”286248″][quote comment=”286233″]”More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets?”

    David Palmer, maybe? Can’t remember for sure.
    Damn, wish there was something out there like “NOW BATTING, NUMBER…” for NFL.[/quote]

    Maybe not for the League as a whole, but some teams have them.[/quote]

    I think it was Kelly Campbell who wore “18” for the Vikes about 6-8 years ago.[/quote]

    Thought of him. Was he 16 or 18?

  • Juan Grande | August 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”286254″][quote comment=”286253″][quote comment=”286248″][quote comment=”286233″]”More specifically, who wore #18 at Minnesota before Keyshawn wore #19 with the Jets?”

    David Palmer, maybe? Can’t remember for sure.
    Damn, wish there was something out there like “NOW BATTING, NUMBER…” for NFL.[/quote]

    Maybe not for the League as a whole, but some teams have them.[/quote]

    I think it was Kelly Campbell who wore “18” for the Vikes about 6-8 years ago.[/quote]

    Thought of him. Was he 16 or 18?[/quote]

    I think you’re right Ricko, #16.

  • KT | August 26, 2008 at 6:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”286245″]
    Keyshawn never played for the Vikes. Maybe you mean Moss, who wore 84.

    Now there was a Gene Washington who wore 84 for the vikes..and Gene Washington, the league’s Gene Washington, and he wore 18 for the Niners.

    There was also a WR for the Colts in the early 70’s..wore 17. Sam Havilcek I think.[/quote]

    Havrilak, if memory serves.

    [quote]Here’s a really good one tho. 1971 bengals roster:

    10 Eric Crabtree WR
    11 Virgil Carter QB
    12 Greg Cook QB
    13 Ken Riley QB
    14 Ken Anderson QB
    15 Dave lewis P
    16 Horst Muhlmann K
    17 Speedy Thomas WR
    18 Paul Robinson RB
    19 Essex Johnson RB
    20 Lemar Parrish DB[/quote]

    Legacies. If you had a number pre-merger, you could keep it, even after the new rules went in.

    I don’t believe you can wear #00 anymore. Jim Otto was, I believe, the last.

    [quote]
    Does the NFL think it’s game is SO complicated and sophisticated that the public can’t possibly follow it?[/quote]

    I don’t know. I do know that the NFL likes to set itself apart in all things, and, yes, they are very anal when it comes to how they like things done (like the uniform police).

    [quote]Or maybe they’re obliquely admitting their part-time officating crews are easily confused?[/quote]

    Well, you know I love ya, Ricko, but now you’re getting into territory about which you’re under-informed.

    These “part-time” officiating crews probably spend as much time, if not more, working at this than a lot of people spend at their “regular” jobs.

    I used to think of NFL officials as doddering old men, too. I thought that you had to be a dentist for at least 20 years before they’d let you be an NFL official.

    Now I know that there is no other group of officials, anywhere, that is as highly-trained, highly-scrutinized, held as accountable or under as much pressure as NFL officials. And it’s the hardest gig in officiating to get – almost as hard to keep.

    Are there great ones and not-so-great ones? You bet. Just like in any other profession. Are there NFL officials who make me scratch my head and wonder how the hell they got there and stay there? You bet. But I’m not the one scouting them, recruiting them, evaluating them or dismissing them and while I only have justthismuch of an idea about what they have to go through on a weekly basis (and have a slightly larger idea of just how hard the actual job is on Sunday afternoons), I am 100% sure that it’s more intense than your average fanboy in his Barcalounger with NFL Sunday Ticket could possibly handle.

    [quote]I really have never understood the need to be so anal retentive about numbers. Eligible and ineligible, sure. But I watched before instant replay and never once–not once–thought Night Train Lane or Carl Eller (both #81)were split ends. Or that Bobby Layne (#22) was a shifty halfback. I knew Sam Huff or Jim Marshall (both #70) didn’t play in the offensive line and, even though they both wore #19, I could tell the difference between Lance Alworth and Johnny Unitas. Honest. I could. Really. [/quote]

    Really? You could? Not shitting? Honestly? Really? Truly? Good for you. :)

    There are lots of things I don’t completely understand about why certain things are the way they are. I figure there’s either a good reason now, or there was a good readon then.

    As for numbers, well, I can tell you from experience that the game is hard enough with high school juniors running about. Anything that makes it easier at the professional level, well, that’s a good thing, even if it deprives us of some Brad Van Pelt moments.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 6:52 pm |

    No, no, no, didn’t mean to demean NFL officials. Wasn’t the point, not at all.

    I was saying, “C’mon, NFL, come up with a serious reason why( other than a dreaded loss of comformity and individuality) the earth possibly would spin off its axis and tumble into the sun if Anthony Carter had worn #1 for the Vikings as he had at Michigan and in the USFL.”

    Was poking fun at lack of a legitimate justification.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 6:53 pm |

    Oh, last “OO” was WR Ken Burrough of first the Saints and later the Oilers.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm |

    WR Koren Robinson (NC State) wore #18 for Vikings in 2005.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 7:08 pm |

    Last NFL “0” was, I believe, an early Saints DB named Obert Logan.

  • Ricko | August 26, 2008 at 7:18 pm |

    Before that was Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). Wore 33 with Chicago Cardinals, but 0 with Redskins (58-60), Lions (61) and Broncos (62).

    Have photos of him with ‘Skins and Lions. Saw him on TV with Broncos.

  • Kek | August 26, 2008 at 7:57 pm |

    Didn’t LeCharles Bently come out in his press conference after he signed with the Browns wearing a #00 jersey and said he wanted to wear the number but the no fun league wouldn’t let him.

  • Mike McAllister | August 26, 2008 at 8:09 pm |

    The CFL is getting into throwbacks…. details here.

  • Mike McAllister | August 26, 2008 at 8:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”286263″]The CFL is getting into throwbacks…. details here.[/quote]

    There’s nothing really there on what they’ll be wearing, but there is a quick look here.

  • S. Bennett | August 26, 2008 at 8:21 pm |

    A better view of CFL retro here:

    http://cflshop.mrx.c...

    Did they actually have the league crest in the “V” of the collar? I doubt it.

    SB

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 8:43 pm |

    question (prolly more for brinke) but open to anyone…

    ivo minar is wearing this manufacturer called “TTK”

    anyone ever hear of them? i kinda like his open gear…

  • E_Ro | August 26, 2008 at 8:48 pm |

    I was looking at this story about the Ottawa Senators allowing a 13 year old practice with them.

    http://www.canada.co...

    The kid is wearing a practice sweater that looks like practice sweater, unlike Smith!

  • Robb | August 26, 2008 at 9:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”286211″][quote comment=”286210″][quote comment=”286188″]

    I think FLANKER is still used for termonology purposes but not as a descriptor of the position. For example, I think some systems use X, Y and Z to describe the flanker, tight end and split end (in old terms). I guess you hear the term “slot receiver” but that’s used more with three WR sets.

    I guess for the media, fan purposes, etc, a WR is a WR but folks that know football know that the two are very different positions.

    On a related note, I love watching old NFL Films shows where the receivers still get into three-point stances at the line. I think FSU did this on the college level relatively recently.[/quote]

    Back in my HS, we used the spread and each position was lettered like you said, I believe it went X (Weak Side Wide Out) H (WS Slot) Y (Strong Side Slot) Z (SS Wide Out). It gets a little more complicated, because Y played the slot, but could also play Tight End. And H was more of a slot receiver but could also play Wing (set up at three yards outside the tackle and two yards off the line of scrimmage) but we never used a Wing and a TE on the same side of a formation. Three basic ones looked kinda like this:
    X__H__TGCGT__Y__Z or X_____TGCGT_H_Y_Z or
    X__H__TGCGTY____Z

    Oh, and I saw receivers using a 3-point stance in a NCAA game in the 80’s – I want to say it was the Cal-Stanford game with the band on the field, but I cant be sure.near[/quote]
    At your HS, did they use the numbers of the passing tree when plays were called? I’m just curious because the guys that I know that coach right now, even if they were in a four WR set, use three numbers.

    So an “888” would mean all four WRs run an 8 route (post). Although I don’t know how they account for plays that would have differnt routes run.

    I pick “888” because that NFL Films soundbite, Marv Levy was coaching the Chiefs: “Tell ya what we oughta do is run an 888 deep down the middle of the field and get a pass interference don’t ya think?”

    I love that clip because the QB is rolling his eyes as he heads back to the huddle and Levy says it was such a lack of confidence like “this is all I got”[/quote]

    Yeah, we used the number tree too, but we also had a few letters thrown in there. I was a lineman, but I knew most of the stuff just from the team meetings. I know that H and G were definitely in there, possibly I and F too, but letters were always more complicated than the normal routes on the tree. For example I know that H and G were those post/corner routes that changed direction (receiver would run, cut like a normal post/corner, take a few steps and then cut 90 degrees to the corner/post). Some of our plays would only be two numbers like “02” in which the outside receivers would run 0’s and the slot would run a 2 on both sides of the formation.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 9:18 pm |

    [quote]I was looking at this story about the Ottawa Senators allowing a 13 year old practice with them.[/quote]

    kid was cut from the chinese team…”too old”

  • MPowers1634 | August 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”286246″][quote comment=”286239″][quote comment=”286236″]
    3.Socks with some type of logo
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Looks like Phiten.[/quote]
    Looks more like Reebok[/quote]

    Instinct says, no way theyre Reebok however, they are the unifrom supplier for the league!

  • Jason | August 26, 2008 at 9:35 pm |

    Sorry if this has been covered already, but the CFL is having a “retro week.” Toronto and Winnipeg’s jerseys can be seen here. More info here.

  • Tom Farley | August 26, 2008 at 9:36 pm |

    A better view of CFL retro here:

    http://cflshop.mrx.c

    Did they actually have the league crest in the “V” of the collar? I doubt it.
    When I visited my in-laws in Mississauga in ’98, the better half’s uncle took me over to the CFL Hall of Fame in Hamilton. We were the only people in the place. Which was a little sad and kinda cool simultaneously.

    The docent asked us which CFL highlight film we wanted to watch. I picked one from the mid-’60s with Joe Kapp winning the Grey Cup.

    (Didn’t see any logo at the collar. So the link may be to a faux-back.)

  • Jason | August 26, 2008 at 9:38 pm |

    Whoops. Looks like some beat me to it. Oh well, at least it wasn’t the same stuff.

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 9:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”286270″][quote comment=”286246″][quote comment=”286239″][quote comment=”286236″]
    3.Socks with some type of logo
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Looks like Phiten.[/quote]
    Looks more like Reebok[/quote]

    Instinct says, no way theyre Reebok however, they are the unifrom supplier for the league![/quote]

    pretty sure they’re phiten

    go back to the pick of AD…then zoom to 400%…then look at this again

    im pretty sure that’s a phiten logo

  • Micah | August 26, 2008 at 9:41 pm |

    Yeah I think those socks are the NFL Equipment logo that Reebok makes; highly doubt Peterson would be pubbing it though, since he is a Nike-sponsored athlete.

  • Ben | August 26, 2008 at 10:08 pm |

    I have a few different things to post. Hope they havent been posted before.

    First, Wolfsburg soccer team has a different kit sponsor http://www.uksoccers...

    Also, in me newspaper yesterday there was a nice story on the Vintage Baseball Federation. Just take a look. http://www.vintagebb...

  • Sammy | August 26, 2008 at 10:26 pm |

    I just saw the 2000 Orange Bowl on Big Ten Network (thanks, comcast), and I noticed that Michigan had TWO bowl patches. On their left chest, they had the regular FedEx OB logo, which Bama had as well, on their right chest. But, Michigan had a patch (or maybe even embroidered right on the jersey) something that looked like it says, “Michigan Orange Bowl,” and it looks like the date. I don’t know why they would want another reminder of what school and bowl game they are in. The only good picture I could find is here. Has anyone seen a team wearing two bowl patches before?

  • LI Phil | August 26, 2008 at 10:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”286277″]I just saw the 2000 Orange Bowl on Big Ten Network (thanks, comcast), and I noticed that Michigan had TWO bowl patches. On their left chest, they had the regular FedEx OB logo, which Bama had as well, on their right chest. But, Michigan had a patch (or maybe even embroidered right on the jersey) something that looked like it says, “Michigan Orange Bowl,” and it looks like the date. I don’t know why they would want another reminder of what school and bowl game they are in. The only good picture I could find is here. Has anyone seen a team wearing two bowl patches before?[/quote]

    interesting…

    here’s tom brady in a little better picture…still can’t quite make out what it says under the

    MICHIGAN
    Orange Bowl

    patch though

  • BigBootyLover58 | August 26, 2008 at 11:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”286172″]Paul, or anyone else, photography question:

    How are you getting such good shots of neon signs at night? What settings are you using? Flash or not? Close and no zoom or farther back and zooming in?

    I tried to take a photo of a sign recently and took several shots and just couldn’t get it to come out right.[/quote]

    I’m wondering the exact same thing. Anyone???

  • Frank | August 26, 2008 at 11:15 pm |

    Donald Young blacked out the Dri-Fit logo on his cap because the Grand Slam tournaments prohibit any type of writing or words on caps and sweatbands worn on court.

  • max | August 26, 2008 at 11:52 pm |

    So Nike is going to be responsible for someones death…GREAT MARKETING STRATEGY!!! I definitely wouldn’t tell the media what they did.

    Just bought a Charlestown Chiefs jersey. I can’t wait to get it.

    http://www.onlinespo...

  • LarenR | August 26, 2008 at 11:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”286278″][quote comment=”286277″]I just saw the 2000 Orange Bowl on Big Ten Network (thanks, comcast), and I noticed that Michigan had TWO bowl patches. On their left chest, they had the regular FedEx OB logo, which Bama had as well, on their right chest. But, Michigan had a patch (or maybe even embroidered right on the jersey) something that looked like it says, “Michigan Orange Bowl,” and it looks like the date. I don’t know why they would want another reminder of what school and bowl game they are in. The only good picture I could find is here. Has anyone seen a team wearing two bowl patches before?[/quote]

    interesting…

    here’s tom brady in a little better picture…still can’t quite make out what it says under the

    MICHIGAN
    Orange Bowl

    patch though[/quote]
    I can’t quite make it out, but the spacing/number of characters makes me think it’s the date, “Jan. 2, 2000”

  • =bg= | August 27, 2008 at 12:09 am |

    [quote comment=”286266″]question (prolly more for brinke) but open to anyone…

    ivo minar is wearing this manufacturer called “TTK”

    anyone ever hear of them? i kinda like his open gear…[/quote]

    Yes, I have. At one time I was the stadium announcer for our local ATP tourney, one of the major ones, so I was reaaally into it, played a lot, too.

    Here’s the site: http://www.tennistek...

    The big players at the open are obviously Nike and Adidas..to a lesser extent, Reebok &..who knows. But there are a zillion smaller lines. Like Gonzales tonight, he is from Argentina I think, and wore ‘Topper’;

    http://en.wikipedia....(sports)

    In the late 70s, Fila was really cool, with Borg and Vilas. The stuff was amazingly pricey and well-made, not like it is now. Ellesse (pronounced L.S.after founder Leonardo Servadio) had Vilas and Evert..Sergio Tachinni was huge with McEnroe and Sabatini. There were smaller lines then, too, like Kim Top Line (Martina,) Lafont, L’Apina Australian (Lendl at first) and more.

    Some lines get huge into it and drop off the map.
    Puma used to do Becker and Serena, then they’ve vanished. Puma, Fila (my choice, the Fila Wud-1), Adidas, Kneissel, Fischer, and Yamaha all did racquets..then poof.

  • =bg= | August 27, 2008 at 12:10 am |

    [quote comment=”286256″][quote comment=”286245″]
    Keyshawn never played for the Vikes. Maybe you mean Moss, who wore 84.

    Now there was a Gene Washington who wore 84 for the vikes..and Gene Washington, the league’s Gene Washington, and he wore 18 for the Niners.

    There was also a WR for the Colts in the early 70’s..wore 17. Sam Havilcek I think.[/quote]

    Havrilak, if memory serves.

    [quote]Here’s a really good one tho. 1971 bengals roster:

    10 Eric Crabtree WR
    11 Virgil Carter QB
    12 Greg Cook QB
    13 Ken Riley QB
    14 Ken Anderson QB
    15 Dave lewis P
    16 Horst Muhlmann K
    17 Speedy Thomas WR
    18 Paul Robinson RB
    19 Essex Johnson RB
    20 Lemar Parrish DB[/quote]

    Legacies. If you had a number pre-merger, you could keep it, even after the new rules went in.

    I don’t believe you can wear #00 anymore. Jim Otto was, I believe, the last.

    [quote]
    Does the NFL think it’s game is SO complicated and sophisticated that the public can’t possibly follow it?[/quote]

    I don’t know. I do know that the NFL likes to set itself apart in all things, and, yes, they are very anal when it comes to how they like things done (like the uniform police).

    [quote]Or maybe they’re obliquely admitting their part-time officating crews are easily confused?[/quote]

    Well, you know I love ya, Ricko, but now you’re getting into territory about which you’re under-informed.

    These “part-time” officiating crews probably spend as much time, if not more, working at this than a lot of people spend at their “regular” jobs.

    I used to think of NFL officials as doddering old men, too. I thought that you had to be a dentist for at least 20 years before they’d let you be an NFL official.

    Now I know that there is no other group of officials, anywhere, that is as highly-trained, highly-scrutinized, held as accountable or under as much pressure as NFL officials. And it’s the hardest gig in officiating to get – almost as hard to keep.

    Are there great ones and not-so-great ones? You bet. Just like in any other profession. Are there NFL officials who make me scratch my head and wonder how the hell they got there and stay there? You bet. But I’m not the one scouting them, recruiting them, evaluating them or dismissing them and while I only have justthismuch of an idea about what they have to go through on a weekly basis (and have a slightly larger idea of just how hard the actual job is on Sunday afternoons), I am 100% sure that it’s more intense than your average fanboy in his Barcalounger with NFL Sunday Ticket could possibly handle.

    [quote]I really have never understood the need to be so anal retentive about numbers. Eligible and ineligible, sure. But I watched before instant replay and never once–not once–thought Night Train Lane or Carl Eller (both #81)were split ends. Or that Bobby Layne (#22) was a shifty halfback. I knew Sam Huff or Jim Marshall (both #70) didn’t play in the offensive line and, even though they both wore #19, I could tell the difference between Lance Alworth and Johnny Unitas. Honest. I could. Really. [/quote]

    Really? You could? Not shitting? Honestly? Really? Truly? Good for you. :)

    There are lots of things I don’t completely understand about why certain things are the way they are. I figure there’s either a good reason now, or there was a good readon then.

    As for numbers, well, I can tell you from experience that the game is hard enough with high school juniors running about. Anything that makes it easier at the professional level, well, that’s a good thing, even if it deprives us of some Brad Van Pelt moments.[/quote]

    Bingo! Havrilak. From….Bucknell?
    Wasn’t Ken Burrough (WR) the last 00?

  • LI Phil | August 27, 2008 at 12:27 am |

    [quote comment=”286283″][quote comment=”286266″]question (prolly more for brinke) but open to anyone…

    ivo minar is wearing this manufacturer called “TTK”

    anyone ever hear of them? i kinda like his open gear…[/quote]

    Yes, I have. At one time I was the stadium announcer for our local ATP tourney, one of the major ones, so I was reaaally into it, played a lot, too.

    Here’s the site: http://www.tennistek...

    The big players at the open are obviously Nike and Adidas..to a lesser extent, Reebok &..who knows. But there are a zillion smaller lines. Like Gonzales tonight, he is from Argentina I think, and wore ‘Topper’;

    http://en.wikipedia....(sports)

    In the late 70s, Fila was really cool, with Borg and Vilas. The stuff was amazingly pricey and well-made, not like it is now. Ellesse (pronounced L.S.after founder Leonardo Servadio) had Vilas and Evert..Sergio Tachinni was huge with McEnroe and Sabatini. There were smaller lines then, too, like Kim Top Line (Martina,) Lafont, L’Apina Australian (Lendl at first) and more.

    Some lines get huge into it and drop off the map.
    Puma used to do Becker and Serena, then they’ve vanished. Puma, Fila (my choice, the Fila Wud-1), Adidas, Kneissel, Fischer, and Yamaha all did racquets..then poof.[/quote]

    thanks, brinke!

    yeah..late 70’s/early 80’s (my JHS & HS years)…big time into tacchini (jimbo, nasty & vitas wore him, then mac)…LOOOVVVVED the 79 open final (was there…also 82, 83, 84 & 88)…and connors was like my god…then he got his own “JC” line (which i hated), but mac kept the faith till the swoosh finally took him & andre…

    had some fila & ellesse outfits too…and of course, the fila ripoff, TODD1…plus ‘Boast” (they had like a pot leaf for a logo)…and some lacoste thrown in too…probably some adidas as well

    i know there’s a bunch of ‘lesser’ lines (to wit, minar & gonzales)…but for the most part, im not impressed…i did like ivo minar’s “kit” tho

    does anyone wear RBK anymore? i remember a-rod had some pretty nifty outfits (including that custom outfit he won the open in…course, now he wears the gator…

  • jj | August 27, 2008 at 8:20 am |

    even the cfl is catching throwback disease

  • jj | August 27, 2008 at 8:21 am |
  • JeffB | August 27, 2008 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”286205″]
    Ironically, Jeff, I got an email yesterday from the Moose store. Are you still looking for that Molson Canadian sponsor patch for your Moose jersey?[/quote]

    Actually, I did get one of those. Thanks for remembering.