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

Monday Morning Uni Watch

Picture 1.png

I don’t suppose we could get the Cardinals to wear throwbacks in the Super Bowl, could we?

The Cowboys notwithstanding, I almost always root for the NFC team in the Super Bowl. But I may make an exception this year, cuz I don’t see how I can possibly root for those awful Arizona uniforms. Plus they’ll probably spend half the game showing shots of Kurt Warner’s scary-looking wife, which will just make the Cards more annoying.

Anyway, a few notes from yesterday:

• The Steelers didn’t just beat the Ravens three times this season — they beat them in three separate uniforms. Check it out: Week 4, Week 15, and yesterday. Has this ever happened before in a single NFL season? Doubt it.

• Great moment in Ravens/Steelers game when Baltimore was short on defensive linemen and had to use backup tight end Edgar Jones had to line up at right defensive end, creating the unusual sight of No. 84 in the defensive trenches. (Big thanks to James T. Huening for the screen grab.)

• Ever notice that the Steelers’ helmets have always had a very flat, non-glossy finish? Michael Pescatore says he’s been told that the team’s equipment staff used to achieve this effect by buffing the helmet shells with steel wool or Brillo. Not clear if they still do that, but their helmets definitely have more of a matte surface than other black-helmeted teams.

• Several readers have already noted that all the conference championship gear features the Reebok wordmark instead of the vector logo (plus most of it is ugly and overpriced, but that fits squarely in the dog-bites-man category). This is definitely a trend in Reebok’s branding, but Reebok representatives have assured me that there are no plans to put the wordmark on game uniforms.

• Speaking of gear, during the Steelers’ on-field celebration, Art Rooney III was wearing a cap with an upside-down Steelers logo. (Screen grab courtesy of Glenn Chavez.)

• Several hours before the Steelers/Ravens game, Marc Andre Fleury was named the first star of yesterday afternoon’s Penguins/Rangers game. Check out what he wore for the occasion. (My thanks to Timothy Welsh for the tip.)

So now we wait for two weeks. The NFC is the designated home team this year, so the game should look like this.

How many days until pitchers and catchers..?

Raffle Reminder: In case you missed it on Friday, I’m currently raffling off a free poster from Historic Football Posters. For details, look here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: According to this message board thread (whose accuracy I can’t vouch for), Iowa and Purdue will unveil new hoops uniforms next month (with thanks to Brad Eenhuis). … Lots of nice shots of ballparks during winter here. … Here’s an interesting shot of Reds prospect Juan Francisco with tape on his earflap. Other shots of him show his flaps tape-free. Anyone know more about this? (All pics courtesy of David Sonny.) … Nearly a quarter-century before the Obama campaign used “Yes We Can” as its slogan, Dave Cash got the 1974 Phillies to adopt the same catch phrase. It showed up on the groundskeepers’ uniforms (here’s a closer look), the Vets Stadium scoreboard, and Cash’s necklace (interesting historical chapter illuminated by Anthony Fiala). … Several readers have noted that Tyler Hansbrough’s American flag patch has been crooked in recent UNC games. … Gorgeous color-on-color shot: Alabama vs. Tennessee, from the Namath era (with thanks to Robert Leavell). … Matt Bennum notes that Max Talbot’s left sleeve number was coming loose two Saturdays ago. … Cool multi-exposure shot of Bill Mazeroski here (with thanks to Daniel Weimann). … You probably know that the 1948 NFL championship game was played in a snowstorm, but did you know that players from the Eagles and Cardinals had to help remove the tarp before the game? I learned that factoid from Kevin McGuire, who asks a good question: “The Eagles (the home team) wore white jerseys for that game. Was it normal for them to wear white at home back then? Did it have anything to do with the weather? It doesn’t seem to me though that wearing white in a snowstorm would generate much of an advantage for the home team.” Anyone know more about this? … Speaking of that game, Phil came up with this article, which gives a really good account of the playing conditions. … Good story from Jeffrey Hunter, who writes: “Back in the 1980s, I was one of the two guys who did the 8mm coaching films for Auburn football. North Texas came in for a non-conference game and forgot their uniforms, so the AU staff stayed up all night putting green numbers on spare AU away jerseys. North Texas ended up wearing AU away jerseys with blue and orange stripes and green numbers — it was a hoot.” … Lots of sports biz-related news available here (with thanks to Joe Hilseberg). … Frightening but hilarious (major find by Brinke Guthrie). … Apparently Jesus is a Jets fan (thanks, Kirsten). … In addition to having the worst sleeve patch in MLB history, the Mets now also have a minor league affiliate with one of history’s worst triple-A road uniforms. Additional photo here, and details here. … Here’s something new: a final-season logo for a gymnastics coach. Details here (with thanks to Philip Caldwell). … Oh, man — stick to the makeup, guys (blame Skott Daltonic). … Here’s something I haven’t seen before: Jazz assistant coach Scott Layden wearing Jazz-branded khakis. … The Harlem Globetrotters will all wear No. 44 tomorrow. … Here’s another example of a football team playing basketball. That’s QB Art Schlichter calling his bookie going in for the layup (with thanks to Richie Murray). … Sad news out of Pittsburgh, where Heinz is removing the little pickle from their logo (with thanks to Greg Netherwood). … These were once worn by Nile Kinnick, and now you can own them. Details here (with thanks to Bill Mitchell). … Most databases and other historical resources indicate that the decal on the Broncos’ helmets from 1962-66 was white. But now a Broncos scholar on the Chris Creamer board has come up with photographic evidence clearly indicating that the 1966 decal had a blue outline around the white horse. … Fascinating assortment of old Venezuelan baseball photos here (nice find by Pablo Souki). … Lots of scans from old goalie equipment catalogs here, and lots of super-detail-oriented goalie observations here (good find by Brendan Tarpey). … The Cavs and Hornets both wore throwbacks on Friday night. … Mat Orefice notes that the Clarkson hockey players wear decals of their national flags on their helmets. Is that common in college hockey? … Last Friday night’s Forewords show was a big success. It’s hard to take photos of something that takes place in a darkened room, but Collateral Gammage went ahead and did it anyway. … Randy Williams was watching highlights of the 1995 MLB season (now there’s a hot Saturday night..) and snagged this shot of Kenny Lofton’s shoe. “It looks like he has ’90 FT’ stitched on the side,” he says, “which would make sense, since he had led the AL in steals for three straight seasons.” … Sam Posey says this photo is his grandfather’s 1941 high school football team from Upper Sandusky, Ohio. Love the striped shoulder yokes and striped helmets. … Wardrobe malfunction story from Brian Borkenhagen, who delivered the following report after Saturday’s Wisconsin-Milwaukee/Cleveland State basketball game: “On the third possession of the game, UWM’s Anthony Hill was having trouble keeping his shorts up. He was open, though, and caught a pass beyond the arc with his uniform shorts at about hip level. He fired a 3-pointer, which dropped his drawers to just above knee level (he was wearing another pair of black shorts underneath). The shot went in, and his ‘celebration’ was pulling up his uni shorts and trying to tie them tighter on the way back. He managed to keep the shorts up on the defensive end, but the next trip down the court the shorts were again sagging. The next stoppage of play led to him getting pulled to deal with the issue. He did not have any further issues after that. When they kidded him about it on the postgame show, he said (paraphrasing), ‘I came down the floor and the strings were out of my shorts, so every time I hit the strings, the shorts loosened up more.'” … The Chiba Lotte Marines have come out with a 40th-anniversary patch. “The four seagulls match different colors from the team’s past,” says Jeremy Brahm. … According to this story Sharks defenseman Rob Blake, who took a puck in the jaw the other day, will have to wear a caged helmet when he’s able to return to action (credit Brendan Tarpey again). … No photo, but apparently there was a player in yesterday’s East/West Shrine Game named Lawrence Sidbury, but his NOB was “SIDBUBY.” … The St. Cloud hockey team wore throwbacks the other day (with thanks to John Thompson). … The Dayton basketball team may wear black uniforms this Thursday to mark Obama’s inauguration. … Andy Erickson sent along this video clip from Bobby Orr’s 1979 retirement ceremony, which I assume took place at Boston Garden. But if that’s the case, why are the Bruins (looking on from their bench) wearing their road uniforms? And why is the opposing team dressed in “KC” jerseys, since there was no NHL franchise in Kansas City in 1979? As a bonus oddity, some of the KC players are wearing mismatched helmets. I’m sure there’s a simple explanation for this — could someone please tell me what it is? [Update: Mystery solved in today’s comment Nos. 6, 7, and 8.] … Excellent article on the how Wisconsin’s motion-W logo was developed here (with thanks to Jeff Ash). … Kim Kolb has created a historical survey of the DC United’s uniforms. … Not uni-related but kinda brilliant. … Major find by Bryan Grupp: a 1950s Cleveland Barons ashtray! … Michigan wore 1989 throwbacks on Saturday. … Volunteers who’ll be working at the Super Bowl have had their uniforms issued to them (thanks, Phil). … Phil also reminded me that the MLB Network is debuting a Negro Leagues documentary tonight, which should make for some good uni-watching. … Atlanta’s Kari Lehtonen, who’s previously worn masks featuring Transformers, Final Fantasy X characters, and Kill Bill characters, is breaking in another pop culture-themed mask. This time he’s got Heath Ledger as the Joker, presumably because the Oscars are right around the corner (thanks, Teebz). … Special congrats to Society of Sports Uniforms Research prexy Donovan Moore, a long-suffering Arizona Cardinals fan who’s probably on Cloud 9 right about now.

 

247 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Robert in Dallas | January 19, 2009 at 8:35 am |

    The story of North Texas wearing green-numbered Auburn uniforms is a great one, but where are the photos?

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 8:38 am |
  • PETER | January 19, 2009 at 8:53 am |

    Bobby Orr Night was 1-9-79 correct?

    According to this schedule
    http://www.databaseh...

    they did not play that night…could it have been an exhibition?

  • Jared | January 19, 2009 at 8:57 am |

    Kurt’s wife is no longer scary:

  • Jared | January 19, 2009 at 8:58 am |
  • Steven | January 19, 2009 at 9:02 am |

    The Bruins were playing the Soviet Wings that night in an exhibition game (the Wings won 4-1).

  • PETER | January 19, 2009 at 9:03 am |

    If you watch Part one fo that video, they Bruins are playing the Wings of the Soviet in that game…looking for their jersey now

  • PETER | January 19, 2009 at 9:04 am |

    here it is ( a modern version…I love Cyrllic Font on hockey jerseys! )

    http://images.google...

  • Kevin G. | January 19, 2009 at 9:06 am |

    Does anyone else wonder why the conference championship t-shirts say, “2008 NFC (or AFC) Conference Champions”? The “C” already stands for Conference, so the shirt is basically saying, “2008 National Footbal Conference Conference Champions.” I guess it is just another idiotic decision bt Reebok.

  • Daren L | January 19, 2009 at 9:07 am |

    What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey? They’re nothing to write home about, but I don’t see how they rate as “one of history’s worst Triple-A road uniforms”.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 9:09 am |

    [quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 9:12 am |

    #5 – that would had been after the 2006 season opener – wow, have to say Brenda has stepped up her game. Kurt has some kind of patch on (one-game deal for the first regular-season game at Phoenix Stadium??).

    Seems like Brenda stays in the background these days, and (correct me if I’m wrong) she wasn’t shown on the telecast. It always scares me though that the network could go overboard again (like nine years ago) for the Super Bowl.

    Kurt doesn’t bother me though, he’s toned the preaching down a bit – and he probably nailed down a HOF berth by winning yesterday.

    I’m as old school as anyone, but the Cards uniforms don’t bother me much, the old ones were way outdated and they kept the classic logo mostly intact.

    Also Zach Johnson won on the PGA Tour yesterday, completing the Iowa Christian double…

  • Stuby on the Blackberry | January 19, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    That Olan Mills/Sears photo blog is hilarious. Glad they didn’t use any shots of my family from the 70s. We had pretty much every fashion “Don’t” covered.

  • The Oakville Endive | January 19, 2009 at 9:19 am |

    Interesting point on the Steeler’s helmet. I think it’s a look that the NY Giants should adopt. I think it’s silly to go retro, as the Giants have, but have a very trendy glossy helmet.

    As for Kurt Warner’s wife (based on the above picture)
    a) The St Louis Rams era wife has been either ditched
    b) Or there’s something to be said for all that praying and thanking the Lord that Kurt does

    Or maybe it’s “c” – both of the above.

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 9:21 am |
  • Ross H | January 19, 2009 at 9:22 am |

    Just noticed that in the Week 4 pic of Steelers-Ravens #57 for the Ravens has no helmet.

  • Scott in Erie | January 19, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    Paul –

    Before you start calling people scary, maybe you and your gal oughta look in the mirror. Just like me and my wife (and probably just about everybody here I imagine), you guys ain’t exactly Brangelina.

    That kind of shit really diminishes you professionally, man.

  • Ricko | January 19, 2009 at 9:29 am |

    [quote comment=”310714″]Kurt and Brenda from last night…[/quote]

    Part of what made Brenda scary was that spikey Road Warrior hairdo.
    No, wait, that was a LOT of what made Brenda scary.
    Not all, but a lot.

    —Ricko

  • BDiamond | January 19, 2009 at 9:30 am |

    Ugh the Ravens were killing me yesterday with both their play on the field and their pants. I really dislike their black sock/pant combo as it looks more like a leotard. I tried to convey this to my room mate who said “So what?” The only one who looked decent was #41 Frank Walker who at least wore his whites calf high. I think they’d really benefit to a sock similar to the Pats away whites with the striping, or add some side striping (purple) to the black pants. Thoughts?

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 9:32 am |

    Here’s an old classic Brenda picture from the St. Louis days – here’s another from February 2005.

  • BDiamond | January 19, 2009 at 9:33 am |

    [quote comment=”310717″][quote comment=”310714″]Kurt and Brenda from last night…[/quote]

    Part of what made Brenda scary was that spikey Road Warrior hairdo.
    No, wait, that was a LOT of what made Brenda scary.
    Not all, but a lot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    When I think of his wife I always think of the mom from Webster.

    http://www.tripletsa...

  • Chris M | January 19, 2009 at 9:36 am |

    [quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]

    I agree with the NY looking horrible, but if you look on the Bisons shop website, they have a picture of the uniform without the “NY” and it looks 10x better:

    http://buffalobisons...

    But as a team uniform set, they look like crap as they don’t really go together well at all.

  • Jeff | January 19, 2009 at 9:36 am |

    You have the same picture twice for the Cavs/Hornets game

  • Ricko | January 19, 2009 at 9:38 am |

    And that was my point. Back in St. Louis Super Bowl days she just had one seriously bad hairstyle, and that helped form people’s opinion of her.

    That’s her next to Warner in today’s lead photo, isn’t it? Actually, a great looking woman when she doesn’t opt for such a severe haircut.

    She’s almost 10 years older than he, isn’t she?

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 9:39 am |

    These monday posts by Paul make my annoying monday mornings so much better.

    I wish there was a way to campaign for an all-throwback uni Super Bowl. The Cards throwback kit with striped sleeves and striped socks is GORGEOUS, and the Steelers kit from the 1970’s is a classic. The new Pittsburgh font is a tad annoying, and I don’t even need to get into the annoyances (multiple!) of the Cards jersey.

    It’s amazing that with a switch to 2 retro looks, we could go from an awfully ugly Super Bowl (aesthetically speaking) to an absolutely classic look.

    I wonder if they would join forces, to create the Sleelers-Cardinals like in 1944?

    http://www.pittsburg...

    And how sweet is this:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

  • Namhob | January 19, 2009 at 9:40 am |

    [quote comment=”310720″][quote comment=”310717″][quote comment=”310714″]Kurt and Brenda from last night…[/quote]

    Part of what made Brenda scary was that spikey Road Warrior hairdo.
    No, wait, that was a LOT of what made Brenda scary.
    Not all, but a lot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    When I think of his wife I always think of the mom from Webster.

    http://www.tripletsa...
    Hey, why’s David Bowie in that picture? Sorry, Bowie was a little before my time…

  • John T | January 19, 2009 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]

    I have to agree with Paul on this, the ‘NY’ colors do not even match the Buffalo word mark. If they want to show affiliation get the mets to design a new patch (or maybe not….)

  • Steve | January 19, 2009 at 9:54 am |

    Thanks for letting me know who the jerk responsible for Wisconsin’s “Motion W” is: Ric Suchanek. According to the linked article it’s “one of the most iconic symbols in college athletics…” They cannot be serious. It’s total amateurish crap.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”310716″]Paul –

    Before you start calling people scary, maybe you and your gal oughta look in the mirror. Just like me and my wife (and probably just about everybody here I imagine), you guys ain’t exactly Brangelina.

    That kind of shit really diminishes you professionally, man.[/quote]

    It’s true, I’ve got a face made for radio and a girlfriend who looks like Godzilla after a sex-change. Plus I’m a terrible, terrible person who should be burned at the stake for poking fun at public figures.

    But at least they don’t show me on TV all the time.

  • Namhob | January 19, 2009 at 9:59 am |

    [quote comment=”310728″][quote comment=”310716″]Paul –

    Before you start calling people scary, maybe you and your gal oughta look in the mirror. Just like me and my wife (and probably just about everybody here I imagine), you guys ain’t exactly Brangelina.

    That kind of shit really diminishes you professionally, man.[/quote]

    It’s true, I’ve got a face made for radio and a girlfriend who looks like Godzilla after a sex-change. Plus I’m a terrible, terrible person who should be burned at the stake for poking fun at public figures.

    But at least they don’t show me on TV all the time.[/quote]
    Paul, I see why Gammage goes for you; you’re such a sweet talker…

  • Stuby | January 19, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”310725″][quote comment=”310720″][quote comment=”310717″][quote comment=”310714″]Kurt and Brenda from last night…[/quote]

    Part of what made Brenda scary was that spikey Road Warrior hairdo.
    No, wait, that was a LOT of what made Brenda scary.
    Not all, but a lot.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    When I think of his wife I always think of the mom from Webster.

    http://www.tripletsa...
    Hey, why’s David Bowie in that picture? Sorry, Bowie was a little before my time…[/quote]
    It wasn’t just the Ziggy Stardust hairdo. It was dressing up like a peacock for her husband’s games that made her scary. Didn’t help that the the cameras were always on her.

    http://sportsmed.sta...

    Now that she has a more conservative look, the networks probably won’t devote as much airtime to her.

  • Wes | January 19, 2009 at 10:02 am |

    I don’t know if this was mentioned already, but Northwestern and the U of Minnesota both wore their home jerseys at yesterday’s men’s basketball game at NW. The Gophers wear gold jerseys at home, which results in color-on-color at most home games. For whatever reason, they went with the golds on the road yesterday (they usually wear maroon on the road, including last Thursday at Wisconsin). I couldn’t find a picture, but this video shows the home-on-home highlights (or lowlights for us Gophers fans – I think this may be a one-time experiment based on the results!)

    http://www.bigtennet...

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 10:08 am |

    [quote comment=”310716″]Paul –

    Before you start calling people scary, maybe you and your gal oughta look in the mirror. Just like me and my wife (and probably just about everybody here I imagine), you guys ain’t exactly Brangelina.

    That kind of shit really diminishes you professionally, man.[/quote]

    Is this for real? Is this guy serious????

  • Joe Hilseberg | January 19, 2009 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=\”310718\”]Ugh the Ravens were killing me yesterday with both their play on the field and their pants. I really dislike their black sock/pant combo as it looks more like a leotard. I tried to convey this to my room mate who said \”So what?\” The only one who looked decent was #41 Frank Walker who at least wore his whites calf high. I think they\’d really benefit to a sock similar to the Pats away whites with the striping, or add some side striping (purple) to the black pants. Thoughts?[/quote]

    The black pants are a HUGE improvement from the all white look…I hate all white on most teams, but some can pull it off. (ie – Colts)

    You are right one though…my biggest gripe with them is they need to bring back the white.purple strips on the pants and the socks…much like their pants from 1996.

    http://www.baltimore...

    http://www.baltimore...

  • Wes | January 19, 2009 at 10:10 am |

    [quote comment=”310718″]Ugh the Ravens were killing me yesterday with both their play on the field and their pants. I really dislike their black sock/pant combo as it looks more like a leotard. I tried to convey this to my room mate who said “So what?” The only one who looked decent was #41 Frank Walker who at least wore his whites calf high. I think they’d really benefit to a sock similar to the Pats away whites with the striping, or add some side striping (purple) to the black pants. Thoughts?[/quote]

    I thought those pants looked horrible too. I am usually not as observant/critical as a lot of the people who post here but that look was very bad. I mentioned it to my girlfriend and she said she had noticed the same thing – it looked like all the players had chicken legs. I don’t know if it’s the black, the lack of piping, or both, but it has a slimming effect that is not flattering for FB players. The O-linemen looked especially ridiculous – looked like they had huge white torsos and bellies, and skinny black toothpick legs. The pants themselves look cheap – looks more like a high school uniform than NFL.

  • Stuby | January 19, 2009 at 10:11 am |

    “Great for holding ice, water or DIRT” For 30 bucks, you think they’d comp you the peanuts…

    http://www.nflshop.c...

  • josh's twin | January 19, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    It’s too bad the Cards unis suck so hard because i think this Super Bowl is a matchup of the two best helmets in the NFL.

  • Scott in Erie | January 19, 2009 at 10:18 am |

    [quote comment=”310728″]

    It’s true, I’ve got a face made for radio and a girlfriend who looks like Godzilla after a sex-change. Plus I’m a terrible, terrible person who should be burned at the stake for poking fun at public figures.

    But at least they don’t show me on TV all the time.[/quote]

    I didn’t see her on TV at all last night.

    But dude, it’s just so overdone, easy and lazy. It’s like George W. Bush jokes and comments over the past year. Haha, let’s make fun of Brenda Warner. Hahaha, she has spikey hair. Hahahaha.

    Plus, as others have pointed out here, she’s got a better hairstyle and looks pretty hot.

    I guess it’s not so much that you took a surrepticious potshot at (yet another) Christian. It’s that you did it so lazily.

    From a professional writer I at least expect to be entertained while I’m mildly insulted.

  • BDiamond | January 19, 2009 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”310735″][quote comment=”310718″]

    I thought those pants looked horrible too. I am usually not as observant/critical as a lot of the people who post here but that look was very bad. I mentioned it to my girlfriend and she said she had noticed the same thing – it looked like all the players had chicken legs. I don’t know if it’s the black, the lack of piping, or both, but it has a slimming effect that is not flattering for FB players. The O-linemen looked especially ridiculous – looked like they had huge white torsos and bellies, and skinny black toothpick legs. The pants themselves look cheap – looks more like a high school uniform than NFL.[/quote]

    The surprising thing about this is the week before my room mates girlfriend made the exact same comment. She said it looked like the Ravens were just wearing straight spandex.

  • PETER | January 19, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    I’ve always thought that the Ravens pants were SUPPOSED to look like bird legs…

  • timmy b | January 19, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    In answer to Kevin mcGuire’s question on what the Eagles wore at home in 1948, this is what I found:

    10/10 Giants: white with two striped sleeves, gray pants
    10/24 Bears: white with green sleeve and side panels, gray pants
    11/14 Yanks: white with two striped sleeves, gray pants
    11/21 Redskins: white with two striped sleeves, green pants
    11/28 Steelers: white with two striped sleeves, gray pants
    12/12 Lions: plain green, gray pants
    12/19 Cardinals: white with striped sleeves and looks to be green pants (could have been gray with wet snow making them look like green)

    hope this helps

  • BrianC | January 19, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    It always bothered me that not only wasn’t the jersey they gave Orr the night he retired a “gamer”, the striping wasn’t even accurate.

    http://www3.telus.ne...

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 10:25 am |

    [quote comment=”310737″]It’s too bad the Cards unis suck so hard because i think this Super Bowl is a matchup of the two best helmets in the NFL.[/quote]

    I feel the same way. I’d say def. 2 of the top 5, if not the top-2. It’s amazing how BAD the Cards jersey is, when the helmet is so sweet. I also love the old school Steelers logo, and the matte-looking finish.

  • ClubMedSux | January 19, 2009 at 10:28 am |

    The best part of that Marc-Andre Fleury youtube vid is the following comment: “yeahhh!!! no other goalie in the league could get away with that! GO STEELERS & PENS!” He makes a good point, as we Blackhawks fans would be mightily confused if Nik Khabibulin skated out in a Steelers helmet waving a terrible towel.

  • mike | January 19, 2009 at 10:28 am |

    I contacted Purdue’s sports information director for additional info on the new hoops unis, but he only could tell me that they would be unveiled sometime this season.

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 10:28 am |

    Can anyone tell me, which Cards uniform is the white helmet, red jersey (white stripes on sleeves…somewhat similar to the old niners shirt), white pants, and red and white striped socks? It’s the “Classic Cardinals” jersey on Madden ’09, and I’ve seen it once or twice before. It’s absolutely a GORGEOUS uniform. Just wondering what year, what city. I’m thinking Chicago Cardinals in the 40’s, but I’m not sure.

  • wordtoyourmom | January 19, 2009 at 10:32 am |

    Took the words right out of my mouth.

    [quote comment=”310716″]Paul –

    Before you start calling people scary, maybe you and your gal oughta look in the mirror. Just like me and my wife (and probably just about everybody here I imagine), you guys ain’t exactly Brangelina.

    That kind of shit really diminishes you professionally, man.[/quote]

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | January 19, 2009 at 10:38 am |

    Brenda wasn’t so scary yesterday. Not my cup of tea at all but not scary. It’s the hair. No more Lance Bass/boyband coif.

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 10:42 am |
  • Pretty Boy Paulie | January 19, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    I don’t mind Arizona’s home uniforms too much, it’s the road uni that makes me cringe a bit.

    As for the Ravens below the waist they need to add striping to the pants, switch to white socks with striping or keep the pants solid black but get white striped socks or contrasting color solid socks.

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 10:46 am |

    woke up late (ahh…thank you for mid-january holidays)…so not too sure if these were both posted:

    brenda thenbrenda now

    not so scary looking now…not at all

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    Nugget alert – Kurt Warner/Zach Johnson, SAME HIGH SCHOOL!!!

  • Ricko | January 19, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”310746″]Can anyone tell me, which Cards uniform is the white helmet, red jersey (white stripes on sleeves…somewhat similar to the old niners shirt), white pants, and red and white striped socks? It’s the “Classic Cardinals” jersey on Madden ’09, and I’ve seen it once or twice before. It’s absolutely a GORGEOUS uniform. Just wondering what year, what city. I’m thinking Chicago Cardinals in the 40’s, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

    Goes back to 30s, I think. Last Cardinal striped socks with white pants were early 40s or so. Check the 1994 throwbacks (there’s a link at the right). That’s when they wore the ones with the narrow white stripes on sleeves and socks. Pants were a light “canvas” color.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    jets get rex

    /that is all

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 10:55 am |

    I’m with those who didn’t care for Paul’s potshot at Kurt Warner’s wife. It’s NEVER a classy move to take shots at a guy’s wife like that, but this was especially unclassy given the fact that Kurt Warner and his wife are, by all accounts, rock-solid, stand-up kind of people. And don’t even try that bullshit about her being a public figure, thus making her open game. The wives and families of football players are not public figures. I also agree with the person who saw through the thinly-veiled bias against Christians. It’s a tired act and I’m sick of it.

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  • xyz | January 19, 2009 at 10:58 am |

    I think the reason the Steelers have the matte finish on their helmets is that they do not paint their helmets. They leave the impregnated, black plastic shell unpainted unlike most (all) NFL teams who paint over thir impregnated colored shells. I am basing that on the fact that you can see the silver colored jawpad rivets, which are a pain in the ass to tape over and unlike the chin strap snaps do not screw out.

  • Teebz | January 19, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    Sounds like Paul opened another can of Bryan’s “High School Football Clown”.

    Everyone needs to relax. By pointing out Paul’s comment, you’re just as bad. Why? Because you keep bringing it up.

    Let it die. No one cares. We all move on.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 11:03 am |

    [quote comment=”310755″]And don’t even try that bullshit about her being a public figure, thus making her open game. The wives and families of football players are not public figures.[/quote]

    Oh, really? Then answer me this: How many other NFL players’ wives do you see on TV? How many of those wives could we even have this discussion about? Few, if any. She’s had much more exposure. Public figure.

    [quote comment=”310755″]I also agree with the person who saw through the thinly-veiled bias against Christians. It’s a tired act and I’m sick of it.[/quote]

    Yeah, that’s why I wrote about Kurt Warner’s gloves a few weeks back — because I’m anti-Christian. That’s why I put a nice photo of Warner at the top of today’s page — because I’m anti-Christian. That’s why I’m celebrating Rev. Martin Luther King’s life today — because I’m anti-Christian. Get real, people.

    Let’s get this clear: We will NOT now have a debate in the comments section about religion. If you think I’m an anti-Christian bigot, you’re free to be as misguided about that as you like. Now let’s move on.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment=”310756″]Per this – Brenda four years older than Kurt…[/quote]

    Everyone should read the information at the above link, reread Paul’s comment, and then decide who’s truly the “scary” one.

  • Daren L | January 19, 2009 at 11:06 am |

    [quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]
    I figured that was the issue. While I don’t think it sinks the entire uniform, the ‘NY’ is superfluous.

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    Any one seen something like this?

    Seeing that this is fitting considering the Beauty of most NFL Rings (Especially SB III)!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    Paul/Phil….any possibility on a rings special entry?

  • K Dawg | January 19, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    I have that Soviet Wings jersey!

    Why? Cause it has my name on the front (K.C.)

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 11:11 am |

    [quote comment=”310764″]I have that Soviet Wings jersey!

    Why? Cause it has my name on the front (K.C.)[/quote]

    actually, in Cyrllic its K & S….

  • karl newkirk | January 19, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    Regarding Lofton’s spikes, that is “90 ft” and he also had that on his Arizona license plate for the car he used in Cleveland….he lived in my building just down the street from the Jake.

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    birthday gft for myself

    http://www.russianje...

    AND am getting Cyrillic NOB

    will send Pics when I get it!

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 11:21 am |

    [quote]Paul/Phil….any possibility on a rings special entry?[/quote]

    prolly not as a stand-alone entry (not really uni-related, at least not on-field) but could be interesting…if you have some good research/info on this, send it my way

  • Stuby | January 19, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    [quote comment=”310768″]Regarding Lofton’s spikes, that is “90 ft” and he also had that on his Arizona license plate for the car he used in Cleveland….he lived in my building just down the street from the Jake.[/quote]
    I picture him driving a VW Bug with a Rolls Royce grille like Willie Mays Hayes.

  • jude | January 19, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    I asked Cap Carey, who covers Clarkson hockey for the Watertown Daily Times, to answer the question about the decals. Here’s what he said:

    “Most teams have the American flag on their helmets (a post 9/11 thing) and Clarkson also had it for several years. This year they decided to go back to a tradition from the mid 90s and put the flag of whatever country the player is from on the back of the helmets.”

    Besides covering the team for the paper, Cap also runs a Clarkson-themed blog, Knights Tales.

    And there you have it.

  • Namhob | January 19, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”310760″]

    Oh, really? Then answer me this: How many other NFL players’ wives do you see on TV? How many of those wives could we even have this discussion about? Few, if any. She’s had much more exposure. Public figure.[/quote]
    http://www.listafter... Just sayin’… :-)

  • Kenny | January 19, 2009 at 11:25 am |

    [quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]

    What are bisons anyway? The plural of bison is bison

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 11:31 am |

    I feel like this is going to happen….and what great Hockey Jersey’s

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

  • Daren L | January 19, 2009 at 11:36 am |

    [quote comment=”310774″][quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]

    What are bisons anyway? The plural of bison is bison[/quote] Both ‘bison’ and ‘bisons’ are acceptable in english. It’s your language – I’m just trying to use it.

  • jere | January 19, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    Usually I go searching for the pages with the merch for sale showing the wrong team winning. It happens every time, and it’s no longer the shock it used to be, but I still always go looking. Last night after the Steelers won, though, the NFL made it really easy. I clicked on “shop,” and they were treating it as if the Ravens had won. Here’s a screen shot I got. Again, this wasn’t something I had to go snooping for–it was right there for all to see. The proof is that the Ravens stuff is right there next to the Cardinals stuff. It was like this for at least 20 minutes before I just stopped checking. Terrible mistake!

  • mtjaws | January 19, 2009 at 11:41 am |

    Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench on Ellen show today, and Bench has ruined a Reds jersey with a bunch of stats and writing on the belly. Stripes are different from Joe’s too.

    Left photo here is the real one. Second one is to “spot the differences”.
    http://ellen.warnerb...

  • Robert in Dallas | January 19, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”310787″]Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench on Ellen show today, and Bench has ruined a Reds jersey with a bunch of stats and writing on the belly. Stripes are different from Joe’s too.

    Left photo here is the real one. Second one is to “spot the differences”.
    http://ellen.warnerb...

    I doubt that Bench selected the “stats” jersey. Some lackey at Ellen probably handed it to him prior to the show and he obliged. It does look terrible, though.

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 11:49 am |

    [quote comment=”310789″][quote comment=”310787″]Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench on Ellen show today, and Bench has ruined a Reds jersey with a bunch of stats and writing on the belly. Stripes are different from Joe’s too.

    Left photo here is the real one. Second one is to “spot the differences”.
    http://ellen.warnerb...

    I doubt that Bench selected the “stats” jersey. Some lackey at Ellen probably handed it to him prior to the show and he obliged. It does look terrible, though.[/quote]

    i agree, it was prolly a hack…but who told them it would look good tucked in?

    and bench must really be bummed that of the four men in that photo, he’s the least good looking one

  • JAson | January 19, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    Regarding the tape on this guy’s batting helmet…

    http://cincinnati.re...

    You see a lot of that in the minors and lower levels. The batting helmets are used by multiple players for the entire season and they get beat up. Usually the pads on the earflaps come loose and they tape them back on.

  • Nick | January 19, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    Michigan wore 1989 throwbacks on Saturday.

    And the still LOST! Go Bucks.

  • Brett C. | January 19, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”310791″]Regarding the tape on this guy’s batting helmet…

    http://cincinnati.re...

    You see a lot of that in the minors and lower levels. The batting helmets are used by multiple players for the entire season and they get beat up. Usually the pads on the earflaps come loose and they tape them back on.[/quote]

    Took the words right out of my mouth. I have been a minor league equipment manager for 9 years, and have had to do this on multiple occasions. While you will find some players that put the tape on because they like the look of it, the majority of the time it is because pad on the inside has come unglued.

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 12:02 pm |

    How does his helmet stay on?
    http://i189.photobuc...

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm |

    And that’s the end of the Brenda Warner thread, thanks. Yes, it was my fault, I started it, and now I’m ending it. No, that’s not fair. Yes, I’m a tyrant. Now that we’re all straight on that, let’s move on.

  • Bizzle | January 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”310800″]And that’s the end of the Brenda Warner thread, thanks. Yes, it was my fault, I started it, and now I’m ending it. No, that’s not fair. Yes, I’m a tyrant. Now that we’re all straight on that, let’s move on.[/quote]

    Thanks Jesus ;-)

  • zac p | January 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    idk if this has been brought up before but the NFL films crew at the Cardinals game yesterday were also wearing khaki shorts with an embroidered NFL Films logo on the left leg (sorry no pics)

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    Found this great retrospective SB rings on ESPn
    http://espn.go.com/n...

  • DenverGregg | January 19, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    “The NFC is the designated home team this year, so the game should look like this.”

    Cards unis aren’t great (or even good), but they’re nowhere near as bad as Falcons, Vikes, Ravens, etc. Good that we’ll probably see the red jersey set, since it isn’t as bad as the white jersey set. (Any guesses as to why so many newer jersey designs scream “Hey, look at my armpits!”?)

    Steelers unis look good from any direction, even if I’m sick of seeing them in Super Bowls. I realize that I’m in a small minority for liking the new number typeface.

    I hope that the patch bearing the rather ugly SB XLIII logo will be small, but I doubt we’ll be that lucky.

  • Jamie | January 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm |

    The only thing that really bugs me about the Cards’ uniforms is that Kurt’s shoulder pads are way too huge. He looks like Samus Aran:
    http://pressthebutto...

  • Namhob | January 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    This might be consider old hat, but I have always been thrown off by Bart Scott’s chin strap placement. http://cache.daylife...

    I know that he rarely has all 4 straps buckled, but it looks odd especially when standing with a group of “properly” chin-strapped individuals. http://imagecache2.a...

    Which is probably why when searching for pictures of him, his helmet is coming off 75% of the time.

  • interlockingtc | January 19, 2009 at 12:23 pm |

    Yesterday, I made a similar remark to Paul’s opening paragraph about about the Cardinals here…
    http://forums.scout....

    About the Brinke Guthrie link: Frightening, funny and all too real. It brought back memories of blow driers, and I could almost feel the polyester against my sad, skinny back again.

  • Stevo | January 19, 2009 at 12:31 pm |

    Anyone else notice that Marc Andre Fleury wore a gold throwback Steelers helmet to go with his throwback Penguins uni?

  • Dan King | January 19, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    “We really felt that the tomato is the hero of ketchup, and it was the right time to make the switch on our label,” Geoffrey said.

    sounds like a coach pulling a player and putting in a sub, only for the sub to become the game winner

  • buckeyes | January 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm |

    speaking of bacon. . .

    http://i.gizmodo.com...

  • Kenny | January 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”310803″]Found this great retrospective SB rings on ESPn
    http://espn.go.com/n...

    Why do they have Adam Vinatieri’s story for the Giants and the Colts?!?!

  • Patrick | January 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm |

    Too bad the Super Bowl won’t feature these uniforms

    http://www.opengroup...(SC)Jake_Plummer_Photo.jpg

    against these

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

  • Patrick | January 19, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    ok, here’s a better Cardinals link

    http://cache.gettyim...

  • Carl G | January 19, 2009 at 1:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”310736″]”Great for holding ice, water or DIRT” For 30 bucks, you think they’d comp you the peanuts…

    http://www.nflshop.c...

    I noticed that most of the Super Bowl products (including this) are available to be shipped 8-11 days after order. Maybe that’s why there is the two-week gap until the super bowl. So all the fans can have their super bowl crap on game day

  • tom farley | January 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm |

    Regarding Super Bowls and jersey choices:

    The Cowboys had been one of the white-at-home adopters in ’64, and stuck with it after most of the other teams (Browns notably excepted) had switched back to color at home.

    But with Super Bowl V — an odd-numbered game, and therefore the NFC’s pick — the Cowboys opted to wear their blue jerseys. It was a sloppy game between the ‘Boys and Colts, and the Colts won on Jim O’Brien’s last-minute field goal.

    I have often heard that the Cowboys’ aversion to voluntarily wearing their blue jerseys stems from SB V, and the thought that the blue jerseys were jinxed. This notion spread through the league: The Rams (’78), Eagles (’80) and Redskins (’82, although they were white-at-home by that point) all wore white at home for NFC championship games, supposedly to make the ‘Boys wear blue.

    So I was shocked when the Cowboys opted to wear blue at home, albeit throwback blue, against the Packers in ’07. I’m 99 percent certain that was the first time the Cowboys had worn blue at home since 1963.

    I’m 100 percent certain somebody here can confirm or deny on that.

  • Carl G | January 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm |

    Maybe I am the only one looking at it this way, but thought it was kind of odd that “The Dayton basketball team may wear black uniforms this Thursday to mark Obama’s inauguration.” At a minimum, wearing black usually means some type of in memoriam. Now, I understand that the rationale for wearing it is most likely that Obama is an african-american, but even this seems kind of a stretch to me as a tribute. I also may be looking too much into this, as the article may be indicating that they want to wear their new uniforms, that happen to be black, because of the inauguration. But the ticker entry seemed to at least tacitly imply that they wanted to wear the black jerseys because Obama is black.

  • Carl G | January 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”310809″]”We really felt that the tomato is the hero of ketchup, and it was the right time to make the switch on our label,” Geoffrey said.

    sounds like a coach pulling a player and putting in a sub, only for the sub to become the game winner[/quote]

    The pickle got Wally Pipped

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”310812″]Too bad the Super Bowl won’t feature these uniforms

    http://www.opengroup...(SC)Jake_Plummer_Photo.jpg

    against these

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

    Yes, but notice something about both of those unis. They both have something placed prominently on the sleeve: the Cardinals, a number; the Steelers, stripes. Uniforms like that simply don’t work today. Today’s players want short, tight, almost non-existent sleeves. The Cardinals new uniforms, while not perfect, are designed to look right with minimal sleeves. I like that aspect of the design. The Steelers, though, still have the sleeve stripes, which ends up looking stupid when a guy has super tight sleeves, cutting off most the stripes.

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm |

    [quote]Kurt’s shoulder pads are way too huge.[/quote]

    prolly because he’s carrying the weight of the world on them, at least in his mind

  • The Oakville Endive | January 19, 2009 at 1:24 pm |

    Two points

    1. I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey. I generally don’t like the newer uniforms – I hate the Buffalo Bills and the Seattle Seahawks with a passion – but I don’t see a lot to dislike with Arizona – provided they don’t go mono-chrome. The colors are classic – red, black and white (why is the FOX yardage marking – red and yellow – when the only yellow in their unis is the cardinal’s beak). The nouveau striping is relatively modest – and the helmet is striking – is it the only “eggshell” in the league (white with no stripes).

    2. I find this match up quite compelling. While hard to get over the Cardinals being any good, they are right now a very entertaining team. Larry Fitzgerald – is maybe at this moment the most exciting players – and when Warner’s on his game – is a great QB. The Steelers are the Steelers – with an absolute bruising defense.

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”310809″]”We really felt that the tomato is the hero of ketchup, and it was the right time to make the switch on our label,” Geoffrey said.[/quote]
    …because the words TOMATO KETCHUP on the label are so misleading?

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 1:26 pm |

    whoops…forgot to include this pic

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”310820″]
    1. I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey. I generally don’t like the newer uniforms – I hate the Buffalo Bills and the Seattle Seahawks with a passion – but I don’t see a lot to dislike with Arizona – provided they don’t go mono-chrome. The colors are classic – red, black and white (why is the FOX yardage marking – red and yellow – when the only yellow in their unis is the cardinal’s beak). The nouveau striping is relatively modest – and the helmet is striking – is it the only “eggshell” in the league (white with no stripes).
    [/quote]

    Agreed completely. I normally dislike the newer uniforms too, but the Cardinals uniforms are actually quite good. As I noted above, the design works with the fact that players don’t have sleeves. Most traditional uniforms look terrible because an old template is used for new unis. The half-stripes on the Steelers or Colts uniforms look terrible.

    Too many people here follow the motto: “If it doesn’t look exactly like it did 30 years ago, it’s crap”. For the reason I mentioned above, things sometimes look terrible when then are done the way they were 30 years ago.

  • JRJR | January 19, 2009 at 1:31 pm |

    Speaking, again, of bacon.

    http://bacolicio.us/...

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”310823″][quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.[/quote]

    I think the piping and striping on the jersey are the designers attempt to compensate for the fact that piping and striping can’t go on the sleeves like they used to. Is it executed perfectly? No. But it looks better to me than dumb half-stripes (or sometimes quarter stripes for the OLs) on so-called “old school” jerseys.

    It makes zero sense to me to force an old design onto new unis and pretending it works, rather than acknowledging the way that unis function in this day and age.

  • Bizzle | January 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm |

    Did anybody else notice that Kevin Durant is wearing, what looks like, a T-shirt underneath his Thunder uniform? How long has he been doing this? This had to have started recently…

    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”310826″][quote comment=”310823″][quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.[/quote]

    I think the piping and striping on the jersey are the designers attempt to compensate for the fact that piping and striping can’t go on the sleeves like they used to. Is it executed perfectly? No. But it looks better to me than dumb half-stripes (or sometimes quarter stripes for the OLs) on so-called “old school” jerseys.

    It makes zero sense to me to force an old design onto new unis and pretending it works, rather than acknowledging the way that unis function in this day and age.[/quote]

    So because old-school stripes don’t work (which, I agree, they often don’t anymore), we should have a bunch of gratuitous bullshit that doesn’t belong on a jersey? Outlined-collar bubblegum piping stripes up my ass, please….

    No. Keep it simple. White numbers on a red jersey — what’s wrong with that? All the other shit is bling for the sake of bling. Adds nothing, looks like crap. Bad design.

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote]Too many people here follow the motto: “If it doesn’t look exactly like it did 30 years ago, it’s crap”. For the reason I mentioned above, things sometimes look terrible when then are done the way they were 30 years ago.[/quote]

    i think that’s true to a certain extent…with the cuts of these new jerseys, old school uni styles (leading to truncated stripes on shoulders and sleeves) doesn’t look so good…but it does beg the question — is the new style fashion or function?

    obviously pajamas and dresses are the style in baseball and basketball, now…or else they’d be wearing the spandex football jerseys too…so why does football have to wear the shiny arena-league unis? what was so wrong with nfl unis in the 70’s & 80’s? nothing!

    the reason the giants “new” (old) home jersey looks so damn good today is the same reason their “new” (old) away jersey looks like shit–the new jersey cuts don’t afford teams with classic looks to go with standard shoulder and sleeve striping

    you don’t need to put all that shit that the cardinals (and don’t even get me started on the bills, seahawks, falcons et. al.) have on the jersey…but with the way these new things are cut, that’s the way the league is heading

    and which carolina jersey looks better: this, with full shoulder loops or this truncated crap?

    i still want someone to explain to me why sleeves are evil now

  • Andrew | January 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”310820″]The nouveau striping is relatively modest – and the helmet is striking – is it the only “eggshell” in the league (white with no stripes).[/quote]

    What about the Chargers?

  • mtjaws | January 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm |

    Delgado to wear Clemente’s #21 for Puerto Rico in the WBC.
    http://www.nydailyne...

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm |

    You can never go wrong with the Jets…classic…clean….Chrebet….

    http://graphics8.nyt...

  • Hibbs | January 19, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    Spagnuola is now with the Rams.
    First order of business? Ditch the alternate pants. Both of them.
    Congrats to Andy H. for winning the Croquet Championship on Sunday.

  • The Oakville Endive | January 19, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”310828″][quote comment=”310826″][quote comment=”310823″][quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.[/quote]

    I think the piping and striping on the jersey are the designers attempt to compensate for the fact that piping and striping can’t go on the sleeves like they used to. Is it executed perfectly? No. But it looks better to me than dumb half-stripes (or sometimes quarter stripes for the OLs) on so-called “old school” jerseys.

    It makes zero sense to me to force an old design onto new unis and pretending it works, rather than acknowledging the way that unis function in this day and age.[/quote]

    So because old-school stripes don’t work (which, I agree, they often don’t anymore), we should have a bunch of gratuitous bullshit that doesn’t belong on a jersey? Outlined-collar bubblegum piping stripes up my ass, please….

    No. Keep it simple. White numbers on a red jersey — what’s wrong with that? All the other shit is bling for the sake of bling. Adds nothing, looks like crap. Bad design.[/quote]

    While I will be the first to argue that this all comes down to personal preference, but I think the overall analysis of a uniform has to kept simple as well (ignoring for a minute this is the obsessive study of these things)

    In terms of rating an overall look – the basic questions have to be asked first (in order of priority)

    1. Are the colors nice – Red, Black and White – doesn’t get much better – in rating an uniform – that probably in itself counts for 50%

    2. Is the helmet design nice – one of the bests – thats worth – say 25%

    3. So is the actual design uniform flawed – I think that everything being pointed is rather subtle (not easily visible on my low def TV) – that doesn’t negate/out-weigh the positives.

    As to why not stick to the basics – while I like the basics , to often the Cardinals looked too much like a practice jersey. As to uniform inconsistency – between old school and new – I find the gloss on the NY Giants helmet – a more glaring contradiction.

  • Shea McMahon | January 19, 2009 at 2:07 pm |

    About Art Schlichter playing for a Colts charity game, he was quite the hooper. He was all-state in high school at Miami Trace HS in Washington CH, Ohio and went on to play at least one season for the Buckeyes in basketball, too.

    I’m pretty sure it was just his freshman year, but I WOULDN’T PUT MONEY ON THAT (pun).

  • Kenny | January 19, 2009 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”310832″]You can never go wrong with the Jets…classic…clean….Chrebet….

    http://graphics8.nyt...

    and concussion

  • Robert in Dallas | January 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”310790″][quote comment=”310789″][quote comment=”310787″]Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench on Ellen show today, and Bench has ruined a Reds jersey with a bunch of stats and writing on the belly. Stripes are different from Joe’s too.

    Left photo here is the real one. Second one is to “spot the differences”.
    http://ellen.warnerb...

    I doubt that Bench selected the “stats” jersey. Some lackey at Ellen probably handed it to him prior to the show and he obliged. It does look terrible, though.[/quote]

    i agree, it was prolly a hack…but who told them it would look good tucked in?

    and bench must really be bummed that of the four men in that photo, he’s the least good looking one[/quote]

    I’m sure he’s fine with it. I am always the ugliest guy in a room, and I feel fine about myself, despite not being a Hall of Famer.

  • Robert in Dallas | January 19, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    And yes, the “four guys in the picture” remark was quite humorous. Nice one.

  • cjhart12 | January 19, 2009 at 2:19 pm |

    Three separate notes:

    1. Is anyone else bothered that Fitzgerald’s numbers look so much smaller than everyone else’s? It’s like he’s wearing a kids-sized jersey.

    2. I wonder if Heinz considered the fact that they are the naming rights partner of a football stadium…and all of the signage in the stadium has a pickle. Do you realize what a pain in the ass it can be to update all of those logos? Anything from changing the enormous signs at the front entrance to a directional sign of the closest bathroom. I shudder to think if the Heinz logo is on the cup holders…

    3. Paul, I feel like you need a hug today. Wanna go to Chotchkie’s, get some coffee?

  • Patrick | January 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”310818″][quote comment=”310812″]Too bad the Super Bowl won’t feature these uniforms

    http://www.opengroup...(SC)Jake_Plummer_Photo.jpg

    against these

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

    Yes, but notice something about both of those unis. They both have something placed prominently on the sleeve: the Cardinals, a number; the Steelers, stripes. Uniforms like that simply don’t work today. Today’s players want short, tight, almost non-existent sleeves. The Cardinals new uniforms, while not perfect, are designed to look right with minimal sleeves. I like that aspect of the design. The Steelers, though, still have the sleeve stripes, which ends up looking stupid when a guy has super tight sleeves, cutting off most the stripes.[/quote]

    You seriously think the Cardinals old plain red jerseys wouldn’t work with today’s minimal sleeve look as well as the new ones? All you’d have to do is move the numbers up to the shoulder. There, done. All the black piping and unnecessary black number outlines really are just bullshit that was slapped on so the designer actually had something to do.

    As for the Steelers, I was referring more to the block numerals they used before they inexplicably went with the current dumb italic font. Old school sleeve stripes don’t work anymore, but the Steelers would look strange without them. The way they half-wrap them on the shoulder is about as good as you can do it these days, and I’d rather see that than some goofy yellow arena league piping.

    I guess the point on both teams is that they both had damn near perfect uniforms, but each has over-tweaked them. Obviously the Cardinals downgraded much more than the Steelers.

  • Hakmed | January 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm |

    Instead of the NY logo on the Bisons Road Uni, I think all MiLB teams should use their affiliated MLB team’s logo on the back of their cap and eliminate the MiLB logo. It would be small and understated and give the fan a chance to know who the visiting tam was affiliated with.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”310828″][quote comment=”310826″][quote comment=”310823″][quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.[/quote]

    I think the piping and striping on the jersey are the designers attempt to compensate for the fact that piping and striping can’t go on the sleeves like they used to. Is it executed perfectly? No. But it looks better to me than dumb half-stripes (or sometimes quarter stripes for the OLs) on so-called “old school” jerseys.

    It makes zero sense to me to force an old design onto new unis and pretending it works, rather than acknowledging the way that unis function in this day and age.[/quote]

    So because old-school stripes don’t work (which, I agree, they often don’t anymore), we should have a bunch of gratuitous bullshit that doesn’t belong on a jersey? Outlined-collar bubblegum piping stripes up my ass, please….

    No. Keep it simple. White numbers on a red jersey — what’s wrong with that? All the other shit is bling for the sake of bling. Adds nothing, looks like crap. Bad design.[/quote]

    1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.

    2. Couldn’t you also say that stripes are simply “bling for the sake of bling” too? They serve no utilitarian function on a jersey. You’re simply arguing for one sort of bling over another. While I tend to agree that stripes tend to look better then piping, there’s no essential difference between them.

    3. Again, no one claimed that the Cardinals’ uniforms are perfect. I simply applauded them for taking the new uniform tailoring into consideration unlike most teams that lazily slap their old design onto new uniforms and call it classy when it actually looks like shit.

    4. I don’t have a serious problem with the piping on the Cardinals’ uniforms. I actually think that the black collar piping gives the uniform a nice sophisticated, finished feeling. The only problem is the white armpit stripes. Otherwise, though, I think the uniforms are pretty good.

  • timmy b | January 19, 2009 at 2:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”310815″]Regarding Super Bowls and jersey choices:

    The Cowboys had been one of the white-at-home adopters in ’64, and stuck with it after most of the other teams (Browns notably excepted) had switched back to color at home.

    But with Super Bowl V — an odd-numbered game, and therefore the NFC’s pick — the Cowboys opted to wear their blue jerseys. It was a sloppy game between the ‘Boys and Colts, and the Colts won on Jim O’Brien’s last-minute field goal.

    I have often heard that the Cowboys’ aversion to voluntarily wearing their blue jerseys stems from SB V, and the thought that the blue jerseys were jinxed. This notion spread through the league: The Rams (’78), Eagles (’80) and Redskins (’82, although they were white-at-home by that point) all wore white at home for NFC championship games, supposedly to make the ‘Boys wear blue.

    So I was shocked when the Cowboys opted to wear blue at home, albeit throwback blue, against the Packers in ’07. I’m 99 percent certain that was the first time the Cowboys had worn blue at home since 1963.

    I’m 100 percent certain somebody here can confirm or deny on that.[/quote]

    here’s a little clarification:
    From Super Bowls I – XII, the “home” team had to wear dark. No choices.
    Since Super Bowl XIII, the “home” team has the choice on what color to wear.

    So in SB V, the Cowboys had to wear the blue. It was not their call. Actually, not as well known, but in 1973, the Dolphins mainly wore white at home, but for SB VIII, they had to wear aqua as per the edict in effect at the time.

    SB XIII in fact was when the choice verdict was immediately invoked as the Cowboys, representing the home team, picked their whites without a blink.

    As for the Cowboys wearing blue at home since 1963…they have worn blue throwbacks at home for these games:
    T-Day 2001 (Broncos in throwback orange)
    T-Day 2002 (Redskins in anniv. burgundy throwbacks)
    T-Day 2003 (Dolphins)
    T-Day 2004 (Bears, who wore orange)
    9/19/05 (Redskins)
    T-Day 2005 (Broncos)
    T-Day 2006 (Bucs)
    12/25/06 (Eagles)
    11/29/07 (Packers)
    11/23/08 (49ers)

    Hope this helps!

  • BDiamond | January 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”310832″]You can never go wrong with the Jets…classic…clean….Chrebet….

    http://graphics8.nyt...

    Completely disagree, this is a prime example of old styles not transitioning well to a newer template.

    It should look like this:
    http://imagecache2.a...

  • jesse | January 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm |

    Paul, any possibility you will make it down to D.C. this year for a Uniwatch party?

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”310844″][quote comment=”310832″]You can never go wrong with the Jets…classic…clean….Chrebet….

    http://graphics8.nyt...

    Completely disagree, this is a prime example of old styles not transitioning well to a newer template.

    It should look like this:
    http://imagecache2.a...

    they should also be more kelly and less suzy forest

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”310842″]
    Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
    Say what? If they had switched to this?

  • Chad | January 19, 2009 at 2:46 pm |

    panoramic of msg from the coaches box
    http://www.nytimes.c...
    where are all the fans?

  • tom farley | January 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    Thanks, Timmy B! I didn’t know about the early-years requirement.

    My money was on you or Ricko being the first to have the info.

  • Michael Emody | January 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”310813″]ok, here’s a better Cardinals link

    http://cache.gettyim...

    The Cardinals can just ask the Giants if they could borrow their red alt’s for the game.

  • Bob A | January 19, 2009 at 2:50 pm |

    I’ve been watching football so long that the mention of the Raven TE wearing “84” as a d-lineman had me puzzled at first. Numbers in the eighties used to be the regular thing for def. ends. It finally dawned on me that I hadn’t seen one in a long time.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”310847″][quote comment=”310842″]
    Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
    Say what? If they had switched to this?[/quote]

    Sorry, would have been clearer if I had said “had switched BACK to”, meaning if they went from what they have now to the plain red jersey people would be saying that they look like a high school JV team, which is what they said when they used to have plain reds.

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”310846″][quote comment=”310844″][quote comment=”310832″]You can never go wrong with the Jets…classic…clean….Chrebet….

    http://graphics8.nyt...

    Completely disagree, this is a prime example of old styles not transitioning well to a newer template.

    It should look like this:
    http://imagecache2.a...

    they should also be more kelly and less suzy forest[/quote]

    I grew up with these, http://www.fansedge....

    and I still wear the FUTURE JETS charm on my neck, Kind of miss the Future Look…

  • Bob A | January 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    re: the portrait blog:

    Mitch Hedberg did a funny bit about family pictures where everyone is looking slightly off to the left as if something more interesting is happening over there, but his cross-eyed sister could never pull it off. She always had one eye….. nevermind. Trust me, it’s funny.

  • Kenny | January 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”310848″]panoramic of msg from the coaches box
    http://www.nytimes.c...
    where are all the fans?[/quote]

    probably still coming in since there is still 14 minutes until the game starts

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 2:56 pm |

    On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.

  • super390 | January 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    Why do the Carolina Panthers get to have hoops going all the way around their sleeves instead of cut off like the Colts? Are their jerseys actually cut differently? Do they use a different supplier?

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    What doesn’t make sense about the Cardinals’ uniforms is to have a new-fangled design with throwback gray facemasks. If you’re going to go gray, go all the way and go back to the plain uniforms of the 1980s (which looked pretty good). If you’re going to go Arena League, color up the facemasks.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”310858″]What doesn’t make sense about the Cardinals’ uniforms is to have a new-fangled design with throwback gray facemasks. If you’re going to go gray, go all the way and go back to the plain uniforms of the 1980s (which looked pretty good). If you’re going to go Arena League, color up the facemasks.[/quote]
    80s-era were OK, but I think the Cards’ white jersey with the thin stripes and the Arizona flag on the sleeves is the best jersey they’ve ever had, especially when they paired it with white pants…. Maybe not these white pants, though.

  • BDiamond | January 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”310860″][quote comment=”310858″]What doesn’t make sense about the Cardinals’ uniforms is to have a new-fangled design with throwback gray facemasks. If you’re going to go gray, go all the way and go back to the plain uniforms of the 1980s (which looked pretty good). If you’re going to go Arena League, color up the facemasks.[/quote]
    80s-era were OK, but I think the Cards’ white jersey with the thin stripes and the Arizona flag on the sleeves is the best jersey they’ve ever had, especially when they paired it with white pants…. Maybe not these white pants, though.[/quote]

    Is that a towel on that guy or is he just happy to be playing ball again?

  • Robert in Dallas | January 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”310859″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.[/quote]
    Red Sox
    Celtics

    Yep. Trendy designs definitely seem to work for Boston teams.

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”310862″][quote comment=”310860″][quote comment=”310858″]What doesn’t make sense about the Cardinals’ uniforms is to have a new-fangled design with throwback gray facemasks. If you’re going to go gray, go all the way and go back to the plain uniforms of the 1980s (which looked pretty good). If you’re going to go Arena League, color up the facemasks.[/quote]
    80s-era were OK, but I think the Cards’ white jersey with the thin stripes and the Arizona flag on the sleeves is the best jersey they’ve ever had, especially when they paired it with white pants…. Maybe not these white pants, though.[/quote]

    Is that a towel on that guy or is he just happy to be playing ball again?[/quote]
    His name ain’t Player for nuthin’.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”310864″][quote comment=”310859″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.[/quote]
    Red Sox
    Celtics

    Yep. Trendy designs definitely seem to work for Boston teams.[/quote]

    Aside from the occasional wear of those uniforms, those teams are traditional (and they didn’t appear in postseason, when the games mattered).

    And have we forgotten the 2006 World Series champion Cardinals?

  • bmarlowe | January 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    KC in Cyrillic stands for Krylia Covietski (Soviet Wings).

  • Mike R. | January 19, 2009 at 3:40 pm |

    Could somebody please get Scott Layden a smaller belt?

    http://farm4.static....

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 3:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”310866″]
    And have we forgotten the 2006 World Series champion Cardinals?[/quote]
    I’d sure like to.

  • Peter | January 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”310867″]KC in Cyrillic stands for Krylia Covietski (Soviet Wings).[/quote]

    Wrong….Krylya Sovetov

    C = S in the Cyrillic Alphabet…

    i.e. CCCP = SSSR

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.

    [quote comment=”310842″]2. Couldn’t you also say that stripes are simply “bling for the sake of bling” too? They serve no utilitarian function on a jersey. You’re simply arguing for one sort of bling over another. While I tend to agree that stripes tend to look better then piping, there’s no essential difference between them.[/quote]

    Stripes have a centuries-long history in military uniforms, royal garb, university attire (I’m talking about old UK universities, not, like, UCLA), etc. They signify in particular ways because they have a heritage. All this other bling shit is just gimmickry designed to appeal to a bunch of morons who’ll fork over $200 for a polyester jersey.

    [quote comment=”310842″]3. Again, no one claimed that the Cardinals’ uniforms are perfect. I simply applauded them for taking the new uniform tailoring into consideration unlike most teams that lazily slap their old design onto new uniforms and call it classy when it actually looks like shit.[/quote]

    And collar piping, shoulder piping, and logos above nameplates “take new uniform tailoring into consideration” how..?

    [quote comment=”310842″]4. I don’t have a serious problem with the piping on the Cardinals’ uniforms. I actually think that the black collar piping gives the uniform a nice sophisticated, finished feeling.[/quote]

    Well, it’s good that someone thinks so, just for variety’s sake.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”310859″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.[/quote]

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I never said it was inviolable rule that always applied to every team. Besides, almost all of the teams you listed have a long history of winning. I was talking about teams with a history of losing. Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”310845″]Paul, any possibility you will make it down to D.C. this year for a Uniwatch party?[/quote]

    I’m always happy to have a convene a gathering when I’m traveling. At present, I have no plans to be in the DC area in the immediate future, but that could change at any time. If/when I’m there, you’ll surely know about it.

    One thing I can now report: I’ll be in Pittsburgh sometime in March or April. Details to follow soon-ishly.

  • Lincoln | January 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    I did not get a screen shot of it, but at one point during the game yesterday (I believe it was the Cards-Eagles game) during an instant replay, they were showing the referee talking on a headset with the tv he was to review the call on behind him. On the tv (that in most situations was only to be viewed by the referee himself), there was an “NFL Instant Replay HD” logo flashing on the sccreen. Is it really necessary to create a logo and have it on a screen that ONLY ONE PERSON will ever see? Seems like a tad bit of overkill, but that would be the NFL for your.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 3:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    That’s such bullshit. The Rams switched uniforms AFTER winning the Super Bowl — and soon went right back to the Super Bowl. There are lots of examples on each side of this argument, which means it’s no argument at all. Sometimes a uni change leads to success on the field; sometimes not.

    Saying that a uniform should appeal to “a younger generation” is also insulting to all the fans who are, y’know, older than 34.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”310875″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    That’s such bullshit. The Rams switched uniforms AFTER winning the Super Bowl — and soon went right back to the Super Bowl. There are lots of examples on each side of this argument, which means it’s no argument at all. Sometimes a uni change leads to success on the field; sometimes not.

    Saying that a uniform should appeal to “a younger generation” is also insulting to all the fans who are, y’know, older than 34.[/quote]

    Paul, aren’t you the one who always says that uniforms have a psychological component to them? Don’t you subscribe to the philosophy that a player who looks good will play well? I believe you’ve said as much in the past.

    So is it really far-fetched to believe that a player who puts on a uniform that he has long associated with futility might be at a psychological disadvantage to a player putting on a uniform that he associates with “coolness” or “fierceness” (even if uniwatch says it’s lame or trendy)?

    Obviously I’m not saying that any crappy team can simply change uniforms and win it all next year. Nor am I saying that teams with traditional uniforms can never win. Many factors have to come together to enable any team to win.

    But don’t you think that getting rid of a uniform that has been associated with losing for decades and bringing in a new uniform perceived to be “cool” might just sweep away some of the psychological barriers in a team’s head? Allow a fresh start, so to speak?

    I don’t see what’s bullshit about this.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”310872″][quote comment=”310859″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.[/quote]

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I never said it was inviolable rule that always applied to every team. Besides, almost all of the teams you listed have a long history of winning. I was talking about teams with a history of losing. Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying.[/quote]

    I understand. But I’m old enough to remember the Pats and Broncos doing very well and going to the Super Bowl in their older threads.

    None of those uniforms is bad, just too busy and trendy. I think the whole fad on throwbacks (aside from wanting to make money on merch, of course) stems from a yearning for the designs that stand the test of time — which doesn’t necessarily mean age but classic style (e.g., the Dodgers’ blue uniforms of the 1940s are old but not classic, but their white uniforms are both).

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”310871″][quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.[/quote]

    Disagree. Just a few months ago you complained about the OKC Thunder’s uniforms being boring and too plain.

    It seems that if a boring uniform has been around for decades, that makes it classy and sophisticated. But if a boring uniform is brand new, it’s too plain.

    Can’t have it both ways.

  • concealed78 | January 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”310842″] 4. I don’t have a serious problem with the piping on the Cardinals’ uniforms. I actually think that the black collar piping gives the uniform a nice sophisticated, finished feeling. The only problem is the white armpit stripes. Otherwise, though, I think the uniforms are pretty good.[/quote]

    That’s your opinion, but piping is ugly shit that does not belong on a uniform. Flair, bling, whatever it is, it’s ugly, out of place and reeks nothing of professional. It reeks of modern ugly fashion horrors made by designers. It looks too fancy, too girly, too flashy, which is not what football players are supposed to look like.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”310877″][quote comment=”310872″][quote comment=”310859″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Hmmm. See the Steelers, Colts, Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, UCLA basketball, USC football, Penn State football, Alabama football, et. al.[/quote]

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I never said it was inviolable rule that always applied to every team. Besides, almost all of the teams you listed have a long history of winning. I was talking about teams with a history of losing. Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying.[/quote]

    I understand. But I’m old enough to remember the Pats and Broncos doing very well and going to the Super Bowl in their older threads.

    None of those uniforms is bad, just too busy and trendy. I think the whole fad on throwbacks (aside from wanting to make money on merch, of course) stems from a yearning for the designs that stand the test of time — which doesn’t necessarily mean age but classic style (e.g., the Dodgers’ blue uniforms of the 1940s are old but not classic, but their white uniforms are both).[/quote]

    Yes, GOING to the Super Bowl, but not WINNING the Super Bowl. Pat the Patriot will always be associated with a horrendous beatdown by the Bears. The Orange Crush uniforms will always be associated with making it to the Super Bowl only to be blown out in an embarrassing way.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”310879″][quote comment=”310842″] 4. I don’t have a serious problem with the piping on the Cardinals’ uniforms. I actually think that the black collar piping gives the uniform a nice sophisticated, finished feeling. The only problem is the white armpit stripes. Otherwise, though, I think the uniforms are pretty good.[/quote]

    That’s your opinion, but piping is ugly shit that does not belong on a uniform. Flair, bling, whatever it is, it’s ugly, out of place and reeks nothing of professional. It reeks of modern ugly fashion horrors made by designers. It looks too fancy, too girly, too flashy, which is not what football players are supposed to look like.[/quote]

    Like I said above, piping and striping are essentially one in the same thing. Piping is pretty much just a really thin stripe.

    If some of you people had lived a century ago, you’d be complaining about those trendy, new-fangled stripes on the uniforms. “Why can’t teams just wear plain uniforms without the funny stripes?”

  • Christopher | January 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”310878″][quote comment=”310871″][quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.[/quote]

    Disagree. Just a few months ago you complained about the OKC Thunder’s uniforms being boring and too plain.

    It seems that if a boring uniform has been around for decades, that makes it classy and sophisticated. But if a boring uniform is brand new, it’s too plain.

    Can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Boring and simple are two different things.

    There are plenty of simple jerseys that are good looking. The Yankees, White Sox are some of my favorites. Take the Sox: Their logo in black, pinstripes, number, and name. Simple, understated, classy.

    Now, a jersey a lot of people here liked- Tampa Bay Rays’ previous jersey. I found that to be boring. It was just missing a little something, can’t put my finger on it- but when they played my teams, I didn’t feel they were a major league team.

    No, it has nothing to do with it being newer. I feel the same way about Detroit, actually. Always felt their home jersey was boring.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”310878″][quote comment=”310871″][quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.[/quote]

    Disagree. Just a few months ago you complained about the OKC Thunder’s uniforms being boring and too plain.

    It seems that if a boring uniform has been around for decades, that makes it classy and sophisticated. But if a boring uniform is brand new, it’s too plain.

    Can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Actually, if you’d taken the time (y’know, like, FIVE WHOLE SECONDS) to check my NBA season-preview column on ESPN, you’d know that I gave the Thunder’s home uniform a big thumbs up. I have issues with their road uni, but none of that has anything to do with it being too plain. And I don’t like their logo, but that’s not because it’s too plain — it’s because it doesn’t stand for anything.

    Comparing basketball jerseys (which have lots of lettering, logos, etc.) to football jerseys (which, by necessity, have almost nothing other than big uni numbers) — or comparing my assessment of one sport to my assessment of another — is an apples/oranges comparison.

    You’re not going to win this argument.

  • mmwatkin | January 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    I just wish that my Lions would switch back to their classic uniforms. My dream would be the 1983 set. I think the look was perfect with the striped socks. The next year they added too much blue to the socks.

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Sadly, many Detroiters are calling into the sports radio programs and demanding a complete uniform overhaul. That could get ugly.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”310884″][quote comment=”310878″][quote comment=”310871″][quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.[/quote]

    Disagree. Just a few months ago you complained about the OKC Thunder’s uniforms being boring and too plain.

    It seems that if a boring uniform has been around for decades, that makes it classy and sophisticated. But if a boring uniform is brand new, it’s too plain.

    Can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Actually, if you’d taken the time (y’know, like, FIVE WHOLE SECONDS) to check my NBA season-preview column on ESPN, you’d know that I gave the Thunder’s home uniform a big thumbs up. I have issues with their road uni, but none of that has anything to do with it being too plain. And I don’t like their logo, but that’s not because it’s too plain — it’s because it doesn’t stand for anything.

    Comparing basketball jerseys (which have lots of lettering, logos, etc.) to football jerseys (which, by necessity, have almost nothing other than big uni numbers) — or comparing my assessment of one sport to my assessment of another — is an apples/oranges comparison.

    You’re not going to win this argument.[/quote]

    Yes, but earlier here on this blog you said that they were too plain. You then later reconsidered and praised them. But that’s neither here nor there.

    This “argument” is about aesthetics. Thus, it is not winnable or losable. What one person finds simple another finds boring. What one person finds trendy another person finds innovative. There is no official arbiter for matters of personal taste, despite how hard some might try to assume that position for themselves.

  • Cathy | January 19, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”310823″][quote comment=”310820″]I’m surprised at just how negative a view there is towards Arizona’s red jersey.[/quote]

    Things I hate about the Cards’ red jerseys:

    1) The idiotic dark piping around the collar.

    2) The idiotic dark piping around the shoulders.

    3) The idiotic dark piping down the side panels.

    4) The underarm striping.

    5) Team logo above the nameplate.

    Are the colors and typography nice? Yes. They were also nice five years ago, before the redesign added all the dumb-ass bells and whistles. They’ve got a classic no-frills, old-school helmet paired a newfangled/arena-esque jersey/pants set. Makes zero sense.[/quote]

    Watched the game with my 80 year old father yesterday, his memorable comment in the first quarter, “What in the hell did the Cardinals do to their uniforms?! Those are the ugliest things I’ve ever seen.”

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”310885″]I just wish that my Lions would switch back to their classic uniforms. My dream would be the 1983 set. I think the look was perfect with the striped socks. The next year they added too much blue to the socks.

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Sadly, many Detroiters are calling into the sports radio programs and demanding a complete uniform overhaul. That could get ugly.[/quote]

    Yes, this makes my point. Why do the fans want a complete overhaul? Because in their minds the current uniforms are permanently associated with losing and futility. They want a new start, psychologically at least.

  • Beau A | January 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    It seems the cold weather has fueled an angry fire under us all. Anyone else notice this?

    When it was warm enough to tolerate being outdoors, we all got along fine.

    Then as soon as the snow hit, there was at least one daily argument.

    I blame the snow demons.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”310886″][quote comment=”310884″][quote comment=”310878″][quote comment=”310871″][quote comment=”310842″]1. Let’s be honest. If the Cardinals had switched to completely plain red jerseys with white numbers, you’d say, “Well, they play like a high school JV team, they might as well look like one too.” You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who knows anything about my tastes knows I would not have said that.[/quote]

    Disagree. Just a few months ago you complained about the OKC Thunder’s uniforms being boring and too plain.

    It seems that if a boring uniform has been around for decades, that makes it classy and sophisticated. But if a boring uniform is brand new, it’s too plain.

    Can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

    Actually, if you’d taken the time (y’know, like, FIVE WHOLE SECONDS) to check my NBA season-preview column on ESPN, you’d know that I gave the Thunder’s home uniform a big thumbs up. I have issues with their road uni, but none of that has anything to do with it being too plain. And I don’t like their logo, but that’s not because it’s too plain — it’s because it doesn’t stand for anything.

    Comparing basketball jerseys (which have lots of lettering, logos, etc.) to football jerseys (which, by necessity, have almost nothing other than big uni numbers) — or comparing my assessment of one sport to my assessment of another — is an apples/oranges comparison.

    You’re not going to win this argument.[/quote]

    Yes, but earlier here on this blog you said that they were too plain. You then later reconsidered and praised them. But that’s neither here nor there.[/quote]

    When you predict what I would say in a given situation and then cite a supposed example that’s erroneous, that IS here and there. Now YOU’RE trying to have it both ways.

    [quote comment=”310886″]This “argument” is about aesthetics. Thus, it is not winnable or losable. What one person finds simple another finds boring. What one person finds trendy another person finds innovative. There is no official arbiter for matters of personal taste, despite how hard some might try to assume that position for themselves.[/quote]

    Actually, arguments about subjective taste are completely winnable and losable. If you think the Mets’ new patch is a good thing, that’s not a matter of taste; it simply means you know nothing about design. Snobbery? Sure. But snobs are often right. And I’m right about the Cardinals’ jerseys.

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 4:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”310863″][quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.[/quote]

    I realize we all believe in the power of the uniform here, but this notion that uniforms can change the course of a franchise is really pretty silly IMO. Take the three examples Patriots, Broncos, Cards.

    • Patriots found Tom Brady, end of explanation there.
    • Broncos were 13-3 in 1996. Happened to lose in the playoffs. Did all the guy wake up one day and say “OMG, our uniforms suck, we have no chance today” and lost?
    • The Cards are only in the position they are because they happened to be placed in what turned out to be perhaps the worst division in NFL history. They were 3-7 against non-NFC West teams. Did they wake up in January and say “OMG, we have great uniforms, were going to the Super Bowl”. I can’t tell you when the Cards changes to this set but it wasn’t three weeks ago.

    As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?

  • Cathy | January 19, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    A comparable “cluttered” look, in my opinion, to the AZ Cardinals uniforms are Newcastle’s. http://actualidadfut... Adidas stripes, piping, horns, vertical stripes (their trademark) collar borders…whew…geez. When I watch them on TV, http://img.dailymail... I get a headache.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    OK, so this discussion is obviously bringing out my cranky side. Sorry about that.

    Anyone who thinks Arizona has a great jersey, well, maybe we shouldn’t have lunch. But go ahead, knock yourselves out — I’ll stay quiet.

  • Cathy | January 19, 2009 at 4:34 pm |

    second link didn’t work..

    http://www.whoateall...

  • concealed78 | January 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”310885″]I just wish that my Lions would switch back to their classic uniforms. My dream would be the 1983 set. I think the look was perfect with the striped socks. The next year they added too much blue to the socks.

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Sadly, many Detroiters are calling into the sports radio programs and demanding a complete uniform overhaul. That could get ugly.[/quote]

    They’ve already gotten ugly with the addition of black & the black jersey. I think the Lions looked their best in their Thanksgiving throwbacks – even with the blank silver helmet. It seemed like those shades of blue & silver were better than the current.

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”310885″]I just wish that my Lions would switch back to their classic uniforms. My dream would be the 1983 set. I think the look was perfect with the striped socks. The next year they added too much blue to the socks.

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Sadly, many Detroiters are calling into the sports radio programs and demanding a complete uniform overhaul. That could get ugly.[/quote]

    Do you remember the “sparkle” numbers? It really looked amazing. I’m going to say ’80-’81. Vaguely remember something about them being impossible to launder so they dumped them.

  • mmwatkin | January 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”310895″][quote comment=”310885″]I just wish that my Lions would switch back to their classic uniforms. My dream would be the 1983 set. I think the look was perfect with the striped socks. The next year they added too much blue to the socks.

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Sadly, many Detroiters are calling into the sports radio programs and demanding a complete uniform overhaul. That could get ugly.[/quote]

    They’ve already gotten ugly with the addition of black & the black jersey. I think the Lions looked their best in their Thanksgiving throwbacks – even with the blank silver helmet. It seemed like those shades of blue & silver were better than the current.[/quote]

    I agree that the Lions should go back to Honolulu Blue. It is still their official color but it has changed on their uniform to a more powder blue color in the early 2000’s. The blue should be a few shades darker (like on the throwback).

    I never was a fan of the silver numbers. They are hard to read (even with a white outline) and look unfinished. I do like the white numbers with silver outline. Looks sharp.

  • JTH | January 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”310896″]Do you remember the “sparkle” numbers? It really looked amazing. I’m going to say ’80-’81. Vaguely remember something about them being impossible to launder so they dumped them.[/quote]
    Not the best pic, but is this the look you’re talking about?

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”310898″][quote comment=”310896″]Do you remember the “sparkle” numbers? It really looked amazing. I’m going to say ’80-’81. Vaguely remember something about them being impossible to launder so they dumped them.[/quote]
    Not the best pic, but is this the look you’re talking about?[/quote]

    Yeah, probably. I knew someone that had one and it looked awesome. Literally, sparkles that you’d see on something like a greeting card or on a kid’s face. Don’t know how it was applied but apparently not very well as it did not last a year or two.

  • AP | January 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”310891″][quote comment=”310863″][quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.[/quote]

    I realize we all believe in the power of the uniform here, but this notion that uniforms can change the course of a franchise is really pretty silly IMO. Take the three examples Patriots, Broncos, Cards.

    • Patriots found Tom Brady, end of explanation there.
    • Broncos were 13-3 in 1996. Happened to lose in the playoffs. Did all the guy wake up one day and say “OMG, our uniforms suck, we have no chance today” and lost?
    • The Cards are only in the position they are because they happened to be placed in what turned out to be perhaps the worst division in NFL history. They were 3-7 against non-NFC West teams. Did they wake up in January and say “OMG, we have great uniforms, were going to the Super Bowl”. I can’t tell you when the Cards changes to this set but it wasn’t three weeks ago.

    As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?[/quote]

    Sigh.

    Did you even read what I wrote? I never said any of the things you’re arguing against here. I clearly said that there are a whole host of factors that combine to produce a winning team, including getting good players and building a franchise, etc. My point was simply that new uniforms often serve to provide a new psychological and symbolic start for a franchise. I don’t see how anyone can argue that this is not true. Why does this place exist if the people deny the psychological and symbolic importance of uniforms?

  • Duck | January 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm |

    Looks like I’m a day late and a dollar short. But what the hell, I’ll throw in my 2 cents. The Cardinals are a very good example of everything I hate about the new football uni trend.

    1)Football pants only look good as a solid color, or with full-length, STRIAGHT, stripes. These curvy, swervy, truncated, and pointed stripes look ridiculous. It makes most guys legs look oddly shaped, and also looks like they twisted them somehow. Just dumb.

    2) Jerseys get a little more leeway. But the same rules apply when it comes to the weirdo stripes, if you’re using stripes, make em striaght. And although the truncated look isn’t the best, it’s still better than piping and random patches of color.

    3) Piping is dumb. This is just a general rule we should all follow, not just for football unis.

    The only football uniform on Earth that breaks these rules and still looks good to me in The University of Miami. I love their current look, and I can’t for the life of me explain why. It does however prove to me that just because its new and different doesn’t mean it bad. However the vast majority of new uniforms just look like lazily designed garbage.

  • Ricko | January 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm |

    “As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    “All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?”

    I think sometimes a uni change can be the final little thing. It sort of indicates to players that everything is at last in place. I know the first time I saw a photo of the Twins new pins, etc. on a schedule/calendar in ’87 (after years of red hats and power blue roads), I turned to my then-wife and said, “Know what, they’re gonna win it all. To these kids, being finally given a set of classic unis is a subtle little hint that their time has come. They are expected to play like major leaguers now. Their apprenticeship is over.”

    Damned if I wasn’t right. And I remember thinking the same sort of thing the first time I saw those new Rays unis on a magazine cover on a Chicago O’Hare newsstand back in mid-March. I definitely flashed back to that ’87 Twins sensation, didn’t think about it, just felt it. Granted, Rays didn’t win it all, but still, sometimes new unis can be that one last little element that tells a team it’s arrived.

    —Ricko

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 5:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”310900″][quote comment=”310891″][quote comment=”310863″][quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.[/quote]

    I realize we all believe in the power of the uniform here, but this notion that uniforms can change the course of a franchise is really pretty silly IMO. Take the three examples Patriots, Broncos, Cards.

    • Patriots found Tom Brady, end of explanation there.
    • Broncos were 13-3 in 1996. Happened to lose in the playoffs. Did all the guy wake up one day and say “OMG, our uniforms suck, we have no chance today” and lost?
    • The Cards are only in the position they are because they happened to be placed in what turned out to be perhaps the worst division in NFL history. They were 3-7 against non-NFC West teams. Did they wake up in January and say “OMG, we have great uniforms, were going to the Super Bowl”. I can’t tell you when the Cards changes to this set but it wasn’t three weeks ago.

    As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?[/quote]

    Sigh.

    My point was simply that new uniforms often serve to provide a new psychological and symbolic start for a franchise.[/quote]

    Double sigh. No they don’t.

    You did say something relevant earlier, though. FANS believe that stuff, but that’s why we are fans and not running professional sports teams player development.

    I do get a kick out of those who pop in here and whine “why do you hate all that’s new?” You’re swimming against the tide here. You are of course entitled to express your opinion but if you think you are striking a blow for the “gen-whatever” uniform gang, dream on.

  • Teebz | January 19, 2009 at 5:35 pm |

    And people flipped out when I said I hate the San Jose Sharks for selling out. LOL

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 5:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”310900″][quote comment=”310891″][quote comment=”310863″][quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.[/quote]

    I realize we all believe in the power of the uniform here, but this notion that uniforms can change the course of a franchise is really pretty silly IMO. Take the three examples Patriots, Broncos, Cards.

    • Patriots found Tom Brady, end of explanation there.
    • Broncos were 13-3 in 1996. Happened to lose in the playoffs. Did all the guy wake up one day and say “OMG, our uniforms suck, we have no chance today” and lost?
    • The Cards are only in the position they are because they happened to be placed in what turned out to be perhaps the worst division in NFL history. They were 3-7 against non-NFC West teams. Did they wake up in January and say “OMG, we have great uniforms, were going to the Super Bowl”. I can’t tell you when the Cards changes to this set but it wasn’t three weeks ago.

    As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?[/quote]

    Sigh.

    My point was simply that new uniforms often serve to provide a new psychological and symbolic start for a franchise. I don’t see how anyone can argue that this is not true.[/quote]

    I don’t see where anyone has actully PROVEN that. Just cherry-picking some examples hardly compelling evidence. I promise I can find contrary examples for each that that back notion.

  • Ryan Beauchamp | January 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm |

    the 2009 NBA all-star jerseys are off the chain

    http://sports.yahoo....

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm |

    Symbolism is no substitute for astute judgment and proper management.

  • Duck | January 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”310906″]the 2009 NBA all-star jerseys are off the chain

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Looks like Adidas is taking styling cues from the SOD.

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 5:47 pm |

    Islanders alternate? ;-)
    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

  • jon | January 19, 2009 at 5:47 pm |

    wow. it seems im not alone in loving the modern unis. woot for that. i feel left out on this site a lot. ill weigh in cuz, well its a public forum so why the hell not.

    im 20. ive been watching football since i was 3, prolly earlier. and i love the modern uniforms. and my classmates and friends and most people ive met within my age cohort love modern uniforms. i absolutely love the new cards threads. so nobody has the right to say that they are a bad design. because design and style is subjective – why do you think that “high fashion” and the crap that we get pictures of models wearing on catwalks rarely ever is seen on the street? because most people disagree with “high fashion” critics. its a subjective issue.
    it seems that most people here want a jersey design that will stand the test of time and become “classic.” they want teams to look to examples of “classic” jerseys from the past when creating their designs in order to achieve that look. but the point of uniforms for sports teams in the modern world is no longer about creating a brand: it is about firing up the team and its fans and about selling merchandise (i dont care how you feel about that, but it’s a fact that one can neither deny nor rid the sports industry of).
    so will the cardinals’ look pass the test of time and become an all-time classic? in all likelihood the answer is no. but, it works for this time period because they will have a new uniform sometime in the 2010’s and a new one in the 2020’s. some people dont like that but it’s part of the world we live in.

    as for the piping-stripes thing, i agree with the people who say they’re pretty much the same thing. who has the right to say that a uniform must include only horizontal or vertical stripes that neither truncate nor taper? that’s not written in any rule book, so the teams that decide they want to try something new should go ahead and do it. if you think it looks like crap, that’s your opinion. some people, especially people who aren’t uniform aficionados, will disagree. that doesn’t mean that they are wrong, and it doesn’t mean that you are wrong. it’s all personal taste. some people like a red jersey with white numbers. others (points to self) think that look makes a team look like a high school jv squad.

    since i’ve used up enough of your alls’ day with this post, let me just say that if people make blanket statements about teams’ uniforms being “crap” or “shit” or “eyesores” or “abominations,” they need to remember that their opinion is just that – an opinion. it does not mean that the jersey is a poor design or a stupid concept.

  • Jamie | January 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm |

    I personally think the Cardinals jerseys are among the most average. I really think that you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. For example, I really love Texas Tech’s football uniforms. Like a lot. Is it because I go there? Maybe. But a lot of the things that I think work well for my Raiders don’t really work quite as well for the Cardinals.

    I do happen to disagree about PL’s assessment that arguments of subjective taste can be won or lost.

  • The Oakville Endive | January 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”310900″][quote comment=”310891″][quote comment=”310863″][quote comment=”310861″][quote comment=”310856″]On a related topic, I think there’s something to be said for teams switching from uniforms that, while classic, are associated with losing to uniforms that, while not classic, are considered “cool” by the younger generation (including the players).

    Exhibit A: The Patriots.
    Exhibit B: The Broncos.
    Exhibit C: The Cardinals.

    All three teams switched from classic uniforms to new “trendy” uniforms and soon experienced new-found success. There’s a definite psychological process at play here.[/quote]

    Tampa Bay Rays is a more recent example as well.[/quote]

    So why didn’t it work with the Vikings? As ugly as their new uniforms look, they should be preparing for their second straight Super Bowl appearance.[/quote]

    I realize we all believe in the power of the uniform here, but this notion that uniforms can change the course of a franchise is really pretty silly IMO. Take the three examples Patriots, Broncos, Cards.

    • Patriots found Tom Brady, end of explanation there.
    • Broncos were 13-3 in 1996. Happened to lose in the playoffs. Did all the guy wake up one day and say “OMG, our uniforms suck, we have no chance today” and lost?
    • The Cards are only in the position they are because they happened to be placed in what turned out to be perhaps the worst division in NFL history. They were 3-7 against non-NFC West teams. Did they wake up in January and say “OMG, we have great uniforms, were going to the Super Bowl”. I can’t tell you when the Cards changes to this set but it wasn’t three weeks ago.

    As for the Rays, I know those who worked very hard to put together a very competitive club would perhaps be insulted had someone suggested “it was the uniforms”.

    All those millions spent in things like player development and all they had to do is change the uniform?[/quote]

    Sigh.

    Did you even read what I wrote? I never said any of the things you’re arguing against here. I clearly said that there are a whole host of factors that combine to produce a winning team, including getting good players and building a franchise, etc. My point was simply that new uniforms often serve to provide a new psychological and symbolic start for a franchise. I don’t see how anyone can argue that this is not true. Why does this place exist if the people deny the psychological and symbolic importance of uniforms?[/quote]

    I agree with everything AP has said. Sorry I haven’t been around to offer more support. (I sense were in the minority)

    Thanks for the reader who pointed out there is another Eggshell in the league.

  • Teebz | January 19, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”310910″]if people make blanket statements about teams’ uniforms being “crap” or “shit” or “eyesores” or “abominations,” they need to remember that their opinion is just that – an opinion. it does not mean that the jersey is a poor design or a stupid concept.[/quote]

    Sweet! The Islanders Fisherman jersey has been accepted!

    I knew they were decades ahead of their time (14 years to be exact)! LOL

  • Jamie | January 19, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    I don’t like the Lions’ black jersey, but the black accents make them look much more professional in my opinion.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 5:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”310910″]wow. it seems im not alone in loving the modern unis. woot for that. i feel left out on this site a lot. ill weigh in cuz, well its a public forum so why the hell not.

    im 20. ive been watching football since i was 3, prolly earlier. and i love the modern uniforms. and my classmates and friends and most people ive met within my age cohort love modern uniforms. i absolutely love the new cards threads. so nobody has the right to say that they are a bad design. because design and style is subjective – why do you think that “high fashion” and the crap that we get pictures of models wearing on catwalks rarely ever is seen on the street? because most people disagree with “high fashion” critics. its a subjective issue.
    it seems that most people here want a jersey design that will stand the test of time and become “classic.” they want teams to look to examples of “classic” jerseys from the past when creating their designs in order to achieve that look. but the point of uniforms for sports teams in the modern world is no longer about creating a brand: it is about firing up the team and its fans and about selling merchandise (i dont care how you feel about that, but it’s a fact that one can neither deny nor rid the sports industry of).
    so will the cardinals’ look pass the test of time and become an all-time classic? in all likelihood the answer is no. but, it works for this time period because they will have a new uniform sometime in the 2010’s and a new one in the 2020’s. some people dont like that but it’s part of the world we live in.

    as for the piping-stripes thing, i agree with the people who say they’re pretty much the same thing. who has the right to say that a uniform must include only horizontal or vertical stripes that neither truncate nor taper? that’s not written in any rule book, so the teams that decide they want to try something new should go ahead and do it. if you think it looks like crap, that’s your opinion. some people, especially people who aren’t uniform aficionados, will disagree. that doesn’t mean that they are wrong, and it doesn’t mean that you are wrong. it’s all personal taste. some people like a red jersey with white numbers. others (points to self) think that look makes a team look like a high school jv squad.

    since i’ve used up enough of your alls’ day with this post, let me just say that if people make blanket statements about teams’ uniforms being “crap” or “shit” or “eyesores” or “abominations,” they need to remember that their opinion is just that – an opinion. it does not mean that the jersey is a poor design or a stupid concept.[/quote]

    I appreciate your points. I disagree with most of them, however. I’ll respond to one of them:

    Uniforms are not about fashion, and should not be compared to fashion. Fashion, by definition, is always changing. Uniforms are about design and style. Current fashion is ephemeral; good design is eternal.

  • Kim Kolb | January 19, 2009 at 6:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”310873″][quote comment=”310845″]Paul, any possibility you will make it down to D.C. this year for a Uniwatch party?[/quote]

    I’m always happy to have a convene a gathering when I’m traveling. At present, I have no plans to be in the DC area in the immediate future, but that could change at any time. If/when I’m there, you’ll surely know about it.

    One thing I can now report: I’ll be in Pittsburgh sometime in March or April. Details to follow soon-ishly.[/quote]

    I’ve been pinging on Paul to come down to DC for a couple of years now. If/when this ever happens.

    The invite to hit up a Screaming Eagles tailgate will always be open (tons of quality grilled meat and beer goodness).

  • jon | January 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”310915″][quote comment=”310910″]wow. it seems im not alone in loving the modern unis. woot for that. i feel left out on this site a lot. ill weigh in cuz, well its a public forum so why the hell not.

    im 20. ive been watching football since i was 3, prolly earlier. and i love the modern uniforms. and my classmates and friends and most people ive met within my age cohort love modern uniforms. i absolutely love the new cards threads. so nobody has the right to say that they are a bad design. because design and style is subjective – why do you think that “high fashion” and the crap that we get pictures of models wearing on catwalks rarely ever is seen on the street? because most people disagree with “high fashion” critics. its a subjective issue.
    it seems that most people here want a jersey design that will stand the test of time and become “classic.” they want teams to look to examples of “classic” jerseys from the past when creating their designs in order to achieve that look. but the point of uniforms for sports teams in the modern world is no longer about creating a brand: it is about firing up the team and its fans and about selling merchandise (i dont care how you feel about that, but it’s a fact that one can neither deny nor rid the sports industry of).
    so will the cardinals’ look pass the test of time and become an all-time classic? in all likelihood the answer is no. but, it works for this time period because they will have a new uniform sometime in the 2010’s and a new one in the 2020’s. some people dont like that but it’s part of the world we live in.

    as for the piping-stripes thing, i agree with the people who say they’re pretty much the same thing. who has the right to say that a uniform must include only horizontal or vertical stripes that neither truncate nor taper? that’s not written in any rule book, so the teams that decide they want to try something new should go ahead and do it. if you think it looks like crap, that’s your opinion. some people, especially people who aren’t uniform aficionados, will disagree. that doesn’t mean that they are wrong, and it doesn’t mean that you are wrong. it’s all personal taste. some people like a red jersey with white numbers. others (points to self) think that look makes a team look like a high school jv squad.

    since i’ve used up enough of your alls’ day with this post, let me just say that if people make blanket statements about teams’ uniforms being “crap” or “shit” or “eyesores” or “abominations,” they need to remember that their opinion is just that – an opinion. it does not mean that the jersey is a poor design or a stupid concept.[/quote]

    I appreciate your points. I disagree with most of them, however. I’ll respond to one of them:

    Uniforms are not about fashion, and should not be compared to fashion. Fashion, by definition, is always changing. Uniforms are about design and style. Current fashion is ephemeral; good design is eternal.[/quote]

    i understand your point there. and i agree about that part. but one point i made elsewhere in my novel of a post (didnt even realize it was that long) is that many sports uniforms, especially football uniforms, are no longer meant to be eternal. they arent designed to be used forever anymore. teams arent trying to put one uniform together that they will wear for the duration of the franchise. they are designing jerseys that match the time period they live in, and when they no longer match or when they no longer like them, the redesign them. i understand that people don’t like that, but it seems to be what is going on in sports. uniforms are temporary entities now.

  • husul | January 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”310710″][quote comment=”310709″]What’s wrong with the Bisons road jersey?[/quote]

    Nothing at all, as long as you don’t mind the “NY” being positioned where a uni number would normally go. Looks like shit.[/quote]

    Looks awesome, as a METrosexual fan, \I’m sure you don’t wanna see the NY on any other jersey…But “BUFFALO NY” in Mets script is very cool.
    “where the number should be”…says who???

    Who the fuck want’s the same damn generic uniforms over and over and over.
    This uni took some balls to make, it might take some balls to wear, but at least its not the same old Phillies/Mets/ect pattern AGAIN in baseball.

  • Giancarlo | January 19, 2009 at 6:22 pm |

    Although good design is eternal, NFL uniforms have always been changing, probably with greater frequency between the 1930s and 1970s than they do today. The challenge is to make changes without violating basic design principles (like, say, putting a navy logo on a navy jersey – or having jersey piping & pants piping that don’t align). I don’t know if it’s a failure of the educational system or what, but it appears to me that the art or technique of design has gone completely to pot, and judging by football unis it happened at some point since the late 1980s. Stuff like the new piping or truncated stripes just makes no sense to me, even if I look at it standing on my head and squinting. Some would say it’s my generational bias, but then why do virtually all NFL designs from the 1920s (way before my time) till the 1980s look pretty damn good & only afterwards the horrors begin?

    By the way, about jersey stripes, I like the solution utilized by the Dolphins, Eagles, et al, of having a single stripe at the bottom of the sleeve. Would like to see the Steelers do that, tradition be damned.

  • Ricko | January 19, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”310907″]Symbolism is no substitute for astute judgment and proper management.[/quote]

    Absolutely, but once those are in place, new unis can be the final touch. That was my point. When they’re ready for Carnegie Hall, THEN they get their new tuxedos. And that’s when they’ll wear them the best. Tuxes first and they’d be just another band in fancy suits.

    “Maestro…”

    —Ricko

  • Kurt | January 19, 2009 at 6:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”310874″]I did not get a screen shot of it, but at one point during the game yesterday (I believe it was the Cards-Eagles game) during an instant replay, they were showing the referee talking on a headset with the tv he was to review the call on behind him. On the tv (that in most situations was only to be viewed by the referee himself), there was an “NFL Instant Replay HD” logo flashing on the sccreen. Is it really necessary to create a logo and have it on a screen that ONLY ONE PERSON will ever see? Seems like a tad bit of overkill, but that would be the NFL for your.[/quote]

    That looked like a 1982-era Midway video game in that booth…

  • buyathread | January 19, 2009 at 6:34 pm |

    I’ve never posted here before and was just going to make some jokey remark about the deep pink(!) caps worn by some of the Cardinal coaches on the sidelines, but I’m too teed off about the dumb comments about Brenda Warner’s looks. You can check out the Warner’s inspiring story on wikipedia if you’re interested. I’ll continue to root for the Warners — and the Cardinals — in spite of their unis.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 6:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”310917″]one point i made elsewhere in my novel of a post (didnt even realize it was that long) is that many sports uniforms, especially football uniforms, are no longer meant to be eternal. they arent designed to be used forever anymore. teams arent trying to put one uniform together that they will wear for the duration of the franchise. they are designing jerseys that match the time period they live in, and when they no longer match or when they no longer like them, the redesign them.[/quote]

    In other words, you think uni designs have become disposable entities. And that’s an accurate description of how many teams think of them. And that is a really sad state of affairs, because it means those teams will always have to keep changing and will always look dated.

    That’s not good design — that’s fashion and merchandising and color forecasting and marketing nonsense. And just because that’s the current state of affairs for some teams, that doesn’t make it good. And it certainly doesn’t mean I won’t continue to call bullshit on it.

  • LI Phil | January 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm |

    [quote]Current fashion is ephemeral; good design is eternal.[/quote]

    agreed, 100%

    lets put the cardinals jersey (and pants) to the “is it good or is it stupid” test

    just because the uniform is formed from like 27 pieces now, doesn’t mean each piece needs it’s own piping…stupid

    does the jersey need two separate ‘white strips‘ under the armpits? hell no…stupid

    is this just a horrible combination that should be outlawed by the nfl fashion police? yes…but at least it’s matte and not shiny…what’s the point of those white things on the pants legs? stupid

    does anyone else find the black piping and random white swatches on the jersey superfluous and annoying? that’s not design for function, that’s design purely for fashion — but it’s distracting…stupid

    the cards had such a classic uni…and they ruined it with all that unnecessary crap…it’s not as bad as this…but it’s close…and it’s one step from this…and that ain’t football

  • Giancarlo | January 19, 2009 at 7:07 pm |

    There’s another drawback to replacing a tradional design with some kind of trendy anti-design. The psychological connection fans have with a team diminishes, especially among out-of-town fans. Hometowners typically go along happily with whatever changes are made, but for the general football fan it starts to feel as if there are a bunch of new franchises on the playing field that have no relation to the sport’s past. A friend and I were just talking about how it was fun to root for Denver in their orange crush days & New England in the Pat-the-Patriot era (we are not from those places) – both franchises had loads of underdog cred – but when those teams were playing for their first Super Bowl victories it was no longer appealing to root for them in their new trendy unis – they just seemed like different teams; there was no more psychological familiarity. The bond was broken. You can’t measure that bond by looking at replica jersey sales, but I think it’s real & losing it does affect how much people care about watching the NFL these days.

  • zac p | January 19, 2009 at 7:14 pm |

    you can’t compare the physical needs of a football jersey to a baseball/basketball jersey. in football you are trying not to get tackled. so a baggy jersey can actually hurt you/the team. in baseball and basketball, there is no reason not to have a baggy jersey, because in reality it will never hurt you in the game. in basketball it actually HELPS draw fouls that wouldn’t normally be seen

  • Bayview | January 19, 2009 at 7:31 pm |

    “Current fashion is ephemeral; good design is eternal.” – Paul

    Words to live by. Perhaps make it the official slogan for the site? :o)

  • Jon | January 19, 2009 at 7:51 pm |

    The Seattle Mariners were adrift for 15 years and wore either nondescript or embarrassing uniforms. After adopting classy uniforms and a new color scheme, the team (eventually) began to play respectable baseball and built a terrific outdoor stadium. I do not ascribe any connection between the M’s new duds and their improved play. I do, however, fear that the owners may fall prey to the worst instincts of many other teams by changing their look to disguise the current team’s woes on the field. Stay classy, you Mariners!

    As for the Cardinals, I like the helmets (although the tweaking to the bird wasn’t really necessary) and I like the colors, but I am not a fan of the design goo-gaws on the jerseys or pants.

  • Belgium Endive | January 19, 2009 at 7:58 pm |

    I think all this quibbling about the excessive piping in the Cardinals uni, is the equivalent of trashing the Thanksgiving day meal if the brussel sprouts are overcooked – at the end of the day these are minor design flairs – that do not ruin the overall look – which provided they stay away from the mono-chrome is more than adequate. New England Patriots has some red piping – I don’t hear screams against that uni.
    For the longest time – the Cardinals gave me the impression they simply didn’t care about their uni.
    I think the white underarms – while it could be improved – is trying to capture the same affect (or is it effect) as the yellow on the sleaves of the Buffalo Sabres jersey – for all the criticism of which, quickly was rapidly emulated.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 8:00 pm |

    [quote comment=\”310920\”][quote comment=\”310907\”]Symbolism is no substitute for astute judgment and proper management.[/quote]

    Absolutely, but once those are in place, new unis can be the final touch. That was my point. When they\’re ready for Carnegie Hall, THEN they get their new tuxedos. And that\’s when they\’ll wear them the best. Tuxes first and they\’d be just another band in fancy suits.

    \”Maestro…\”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko has spoken, so this debate should be ended. But I\’ll note humbly (before I get pulled off stage by a hook) that, on this great day, look at what a certain preacher from Georgia wore when he gave a certain speech on Aug. 28, 1963, and see if he wouldn\’t still look damn good in the same threads today. That\’s what we old geezers mean by style. It\’s why the Giants looked great in last year\’s Super Bowl just as they did in the NFL championship games of the 1950s.

  • Geeman | January 19, 2009 at 8:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”310926″]you can’t compare the physical needs of a football jersey to a baseball/basketball jersey. in football you are trying not to get tackled. so a baggy jersey can actually hurt you/the team. in baseball and basketball, there is no reason not to have a baggy jersey, because in reality it will never hurt you in the game. in basketball it actually HELPS draw fouls that wouldn’t normally be seen[/quote]

    Z. – Gotta disagree on that if you’re running down the court or around third and you trip over yo’ baggy drawers.

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 8:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”310924″][quote]Current fashion is ephemeral; good design is eternal.[/quote]

    agreed, 100%

    lets put the cardinals jersey (and pants) to the “is it good or is it stupid” test

    just because the uniform is formed from like 27 pieces now, doesn’t mean each piece needs it’s own piping…stupid

    does the jersey need two separate ‘white strips‘ under the armpits? hell no…stupid

    is this just a horrible combination that should be outlawed by the nfl fashion police? yes…but at least it’s matte and not shiny…what’s the point of those white things on the pants legs? stupid

    does anyone else find the black piping and random white swatches on the jersey superfluous and annoying? that’s not design for function, that’s design purely for fashion — but it’s distracting…stupid

    the cards had such a classic uni…and they ruined it with all that unnecessary crap…it’s not as bad as this…but it’s close…and it’s one step from this…and that ain’t football[/quote]

    Great points, Phil. I think the fact that the old Cards unis were so sweet…. it makes the new unis look that much worse. It’s like a beautiful woman, who gets waaay too much plastic surgery and it ruins the way she looks. If only she would have just stayed the way she was.

    The current Cards uniform drives me up a wall. I am on sports fan who LOVED their old threads. I loved a few different versions of their classic looks. If you look back to Chicago, St. Louis, and early Arizona years…. they have had some wonderful uniforms. Then they go, try to be trendy, and create an absolute uni abomination. It actually hurts my head to look at it, and try to figure out what the hell the uni designers were thinking. I’ll try my best do not not disrespect the contributors to this thread, who have tried to defend this designs…. but having said that, you don’t know jack shit about what a good football uniform looks like if you think this current Cardinals jersey is an acceptable option.

  • VPrime | January 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm |

    While I certainly don’t care fot their current uniforms, the Cardinals’ “classic” look is too firmly associated with losing in my eyes. For a very long time Arizona was where careers went to die.

  • =bg= | January 19, 2009 at 8:56 pm |

    “ephemeral”

    Now THAT there is a college word.

  • =bg= | January 19, 2009 at 9:00 pm |

    PS- regarding the Cards..man, they stuck with that boring look for years. Plain red jersey, couple stripes on the pants. Just…boring. No style. Not saying I like the new look- RED helmets, maybe??? Whatever, their fans have suffered long enough.

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 9:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”310753″][quote comment=”310746″]Can anyone tell me, which Cards uniform is the white helmet, red jersey (white stripes on sleeves…somewhat similar to the old niners shirt), white pants, and red and white striped socks? It’s the “Classic Cardinals” jersey on Madden ’09, and I’ve seen it once or twice before. It’s absolutely a GORGEOUS uniform. Just wondering what year, what city. I’m thinking Chicago Cardinals in the 40’s, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

    Goes back to 30s, I think. Last Cardinal striped socks with white pants were early 40s or so. Check the 1994 throwbacks (there’s a link at the right). That’s when they wore the ones with the narrow white stripes on sleeves and socks. Pants were a light “canvas” color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Thanks Ricko, you’re the man. I’ve spent the last hour looking at Cards jerseys and uniforms…and can’t find the uni I’m describing. Anyone know where I can find it, or maybe someone could post it on here? I’d love for the guys who don’t “get it”, to take a look at a truly sweet football uniform.

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 9:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”310920″][quote comment=”310907″]Symbolism is no substitute for astute judgment and proper management.[/quote]

    Absolutely, but once those are in place, new unis can be the final touch. That was my point. When they’re ready for Carnegie Hall, THEN they get their new tuxedos. And that’s when they’ll wear them the best. Tuxes first and they’d be just another band in fancy suits.

    “Maestro…”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Put in that perspective, sure, no problem. But it is important to always keep that perspective. I was responding to some more direct references made by another poster. To say “how can anybody argue against a new uniform giving a franchise a psychological start” is speculative at best, baseless at worst. I have no true basis to refute the statement but there is absolutely no real evidence to support it, either. Given that, the poster really shouldn’t get so frustrated (sigh) with someone asking “prove your claim”

    Be careful, for every ’87 Twins, there is a ’87 White Sox, an ’87 Mariners, ’85 Padres, ’79 Red Sox, ’82 A’s, ’83 Giants……and to make ANY association with what happened yesterday (the poster directly referred to the Cards as potential beneficiaries of this phenomenon) is ignoring 100 equally contributory things while looking at just one.

  • MPowers1634 | January 19, 2009 at 9:25 pm |

    Hey y’all…I’m just checking in!

    Chew on this pic of Mike Powell for a while:

    http://bostoncannons...

  • Johnny F. | January 19, 2009 at 9:31 pm |

    To my golfing buds:

    Check out the use of negative space in the Riviera Country Club logo (home of the PGA’s Northern Trust Open in February)….

    http://farm4.static....

    Pretty cool!

  • subway | January 19, 2009 at 9:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”310938″]Hey y’all…I’m just checking in!

    Chew on this pic of Mike Powell for a while:

    http://bostoncannons...

    This reminds me that we haven’t heard from Bryan in a while!

  • MPowers1634 | January 19, 2009 at 9:33 pm |

    Seems that I really missed some fireworks today!

    Looking at larry Fitzgerald, I don’t mind the Cards unis:

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”310941″]Seems that I really missed some fireworks today!

    Looking at larry Fitzgerald, I don’t mind the Cards unis:

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

    He make any uniform look good.

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 9:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”310942″][quote comment=”310941″]Seems that I really missed some fireworks today!

    Looking at larry Fitzgerald, I don’t mind the Cards unis:

    http://i.a.cnn.net/s...

    He makes any uniform look good.[/quote]

  • Robb | January 19, 2009 at 9:42 pm |

    Question: If a QB throws an interception on a 2-pt conversion attempt, does it count against his stats? NCAA or NFL?

  • Lwiedy | January 19, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    Not Rollie Fingers, but another pitcher with a batting glove: http://cgi.ebay.com/...

  • Tim | January 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”310944″]Question: If a QB throws an interception on a 2-pt conversion attempt, does it count against his stats? NCAA or NFL?[/quote]

    No in the NFL, I’m not sure about the NCAA…

  • Eric B in KC | January 19, 2009 at 10:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”310935″]RED helmets, maybe???[/quote]

    OUT! LEAVE!! NEVER COME BACK!!!

  • Carl | January 19, 2009 at 10:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”310778″]I feel like this is going to happen….and what great Hockey Jersey’s

    http://www.youtube.c...
    Holy crap. At 2:45 there’s a serious sucker punch. It reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield quote about going to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out!

  • David Murphy | January 19, 2009 at 10:43 pm |

    Dare I add a Kurt Warner comment: Rank all the NFL QB’s by who gives the most insightful interview, and I bet Warner ranks near the top. He gave a good one earlier this season in SI, commenting on how scary concussions are.

    Ditto from me on the Cards (and Lions) unis. At least neither are as bad as “my” Falcons. Love those Card helmets, and I can stand the Steelers font.

  • sam | January 19, 2009 at 10:53 pm |

    Lebron violating NBA shoe policy again tonight. The rule is each team must choose White or Black as a base shoe color, and all players shoes must be at least 51% of that color. Lebron is wearing a mostly Grey version of his signature shoe tonight. He wore the mostly Navy version when the Cavs debuted those new combination throwbacks and a mostly red NYC version when they played in the Garden. Is he getting some sort of exemption for this? I know on some days this year the NBA waived this rule to allow for some special creativity, (Christmas, Election Day) but on the dates I listed Lebron was the only exception. Anyone know the deal on this? Is the NBA turning a blind eye on this one? Is Nike picking up a fine for him?

  • Carl | January 19, 2009 at 10:54 pm |

    …at least the Cards helmets are sweet, regardless of what people think about the rest of the costumes uniforms.

    Now if we could only instigate this type of red hot banter about my Vikings, I could print it out and mail it to Zigi to show how disenfranchised the new uniforms have made the fans. At least when they move to L.A. they’ll match Minnesota’s old basketball team. Sigh…when’s spring coming?

  • tom farley | January 19, 2009 at 11:07 pm |

    RED helmets, maybe???

    OUT! LEAVE!! NEVER COME BACK!!!

    The Cards had red helmets for a couple of years in the Ollie Matson years of the mid-’50s. They combined them with white jerseys and red pants. The latter may have even been stripeless. Can’t tell from the Matson footage I’ve seen.

  • Justin | January 19, 2009 at 11:12 pm |

    Re: Ravens’ #84 as a D-Lineman

    He’s generally a back-up tight end but due to injury during the game. He was brought on to fill in, similar to Troy Brown wearing #80 and playing defensive back a few seasons ago.

    Another thing: I saw the unis in your NBA Preview Paul but just when are those “Nueva York” Knicks jerseys available for sale. I’m a die hard Celtics fan but those are really cool considering the “El Heat” and “Los Spurs” abominations

  • Robb | January 19, 2009 at 11:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”310946″][quote comment=”310944″]Question: If a QB throws an interception on a 2-pt conversion attempt, does it count against his stats? NCAA or NFL?[/quote]

    No in the NFL, I’m not sure about the NCAA…[/quote]

    Does that go for all stats as well? (completions, rushing yards, etc)

  • Tim | January 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”310954″][quote comment=”310946″][quote comment=”310944″]Question: If a QB throws an interception on a 2-pt conversion attempt, does it count against his stats? NCAA or NFL?[/quote]

    No in the NFL, I’m not sure about the NCAA…[/quote]

    Does that go for all stats as well? (completions, rushing yards, etc)[/quote]

    Correct, it does not count towards rushing stats, QB completions, etc. If the QB is 22 of 22 up to that point, and he misses the 2-point conversion, then his stat-line remains 22 of 22. If there’s a penalty and the running back rushes it in from, say the 12-yard line (as unlikely as that would be), he does not get credit for a 12-yard carry.

  • Paul Lukas | January 19, 2009 at 11:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”310953″]I saw the unis in your NBA Preview Paul but just when are those “Nueva York” Knicks jerseys available for sale. I’m a die hard Celtics fan but those are really cool considering the “El Heat” and “Los Spurs” abominations[/quote]

    I believe those jerseys will be worn on the court in March, so that’s presumably when they’ll be available for sale.

  • Chuck | January 19, 2009 at 11:30 pm |

    the flat, non glossy look on the Steelers helmet has always reminded me of coal, that is coal black. I wonder if that is the intention.

  • Tim | January 19, 2009 at 11:49 pm |

    Now that Rex Ryan is the HC of the NYJ, I wonder if he’s going to make any bold proclamations like his old man’s “you’ve got a winner in town!” when he got hired by the cards……?

  • Teebz | January 19, 2009 at 11:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”310948″][quote comment=”310778″]I feel like this is going to happen….and what great Hockey Jersey’s

    http://www.youtube.c...
    Holy crap. At 2:45 there’s a serious sucker punch. It reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield quote about going to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out![/quote]

    I have this game on DVD. You have no idea how brutal the game is.

  • Jamie | January 20, 2009 at 12:05 am |

    Every time I see “El Heat” I die a little inside.

  • Sammy | January 20, 2009 at 12:15 am |

    Dunno if anyone’s seen this or posted it yet, but I just saw the LeBron football commercial: here

  • Tall Paul | January 20, 2009 at 12:24 am |

    [quote comment=”310827″]Did anybody else notice that Kevin Durant is wearing, what looks like, a T-shirt underneath his Thunder uniform? How long has he been doing this? This had to have started recently…

    http://sports.espn.g...

    Bizzle: Read a blurb in this morning’s The Oklahoman that said it was a padded undershirt to protect an injured shoulder.

    (Dramatic pause while I go find the sports section of the newspaper…)

    DURANT PROTECTING SHOULDER

    Kevin Durant injured his left shoulder Friday against Detroit. He had an X-ray before Sunday’s game against Miami, but team officials are listing the injury as a contusion. Durant played with a padded undershirt beneath his jersey, protecting both shoulders. He cut off the pads on the right shoulder at the start of the second quarter.

    Looked for it online to link to it but gave up and, as you can see, it was short enough to just type it in.

    (Another dramatic pause…)

    And then, with one last effort, I did find the link:
    http://www.newsok.co...

  • MPowers1634 | January 20, 2009 at 6:31 am |

    [quote comment=”310950″]Lebron violating NBA shoe policy again tonight. The rule is each team must choose White or Black as a base shoe color, and all players shoes must be at least 51% of that color. Lebron is wearing a mostly Grey version of his signature shoe tonight. He wore the mostly Navy version when the Cavs debuted those new combination throwbacks and a mostly red NYC version when they played in the Garden. Is he getting some sort of exemption for this? I know on some days this year the NBA waived this rule to allow for some special creativity, (Christmas, Election Day) but on the dates I listed Lebron was the only exception. Anyone know the deal on this? Is the NBA turning a blind eye on this one? Is Nike picking up a fine for him?[/quote]

    http://img357.images...

  • MPowers1634 | January 20, 2009 at 6:40 am |

    [quote comment=”310963″][quote comment=”310950″]Lebron violating NBA shoe policy again tonight. The rule is each team must choose White or Black as a base shoe color, and all players shoes must be at least 51% of that color. Lebron is wearing a mostly Grey version of his signature shoe tonight. He wore the mostly Navy version when the Cavs debuted those new combination throwbacks and a mostly red NYC version when they played in the Garden. Is he getting some sort of exemption for this? I know on some days this year the NBA waived this rule to allow for some special creativity, (Christmas, Election Day) but on the dates I listed Lebron was the only exception. Anyone know the deal on this? Is the NBA turning a blind eye on this one? Is Nike picking up a fine for him?[/quote]

    http://img357.images...

    ttp://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/57/fullj.2b09b74850d5a4716b936aaa321c43e3/2b09b74850d5a4716b936aaa321c43e3-getty-82991181nm019_cleveland_cav.jpg

    http://i42.tinypic.c...

  • MPowers1634 | January 20, 2009 at 6:41 am |
  • MPowers1634 | January 20, 2009 at 6:43 am |

    [quote comment=\”310964\”][quote comment=\”310963\”][quote comment=\”310950\”]Lebron violating NBA shoe policy again tonight. The rule is each team must choose White or Black as a base shoe color, and all players shoes must be at least 51% of that color. Lebron is wearing a mostly Grey version of his signature shoe tonight. He wore the mostly Navy version when the Cavs debuted those new combination throwbacks and a mostly red NYC version when they played in the Garden. Is he getting some sort of exemption for this? I know on some days this year the NBA waived this rule to allow for some special creativity, (Christmas, Election Day) but on the dates I listed Lebron was the only exception. Anyone know the deal on this? Is the NBA turning a blind eye on this one? Is Nike picking up a fine for him?[/quote]

    http://img357.images...

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    http://i42.tinypic.c...