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

Mom’s Day Open Thread

happy mother's day header

By Phil Hecken

Well, it’s Mother’s Day, 2009. Hopefully, if you have a mom, you’re spending this special day with her. If not, well, you can always turn to MLB, where it’s that special time of year once again. If you’re not watching or going to a game, but you do have a special someone, make sure you pick up a little something just for her. Something from MLB not quite her style? How about a book maybe? No?

Course, you could always get her Rays flops, Yankee “negligee”, Mets Girl tanks, or this neato “I only date Cubs” t-shirt. Those probably aren’t so good for mom, though.

If you’re so inclined, you could do mom’s day the MLB way. For the 5th year, MLB is making a complete ass of itself Going To Bat For Cancer. So expect the Nats to screw something up purposely put an “upside down ‘W’ on the scoreboard (ok, no they won’t because they’re playing in Arizona), see the assorted pink sweatbands on arms (will the Yankees go for this crap?), and around the ankles, and be on the lookout for the occasional pink wearing douchebag (the cap, however, looks good on her). There’ll also be ‘cancer ribbon’ home plates and pink ribbon decals on player unis.

Some teams will inevitably turn to specialty bags to commemorate the day. And of course, Louisville Slugger will do its part, cranking out pink batslots and lots of bats. Many of which will never see the field, but will instead be sold for charity. But a few of these bats will see game action. Hmmm — I wonder if A-Roid will partake this year.

So, Happy Mother’s Day everyone. Let us know if you’re doing any uni-related things today, or what you’re doing for your mom, sis, grandma, wife, or that special lady in your life. And, since I won’t be taking my mom to a game today, I think I’ll take a bat to her instead.

The floor is yours.

 

77 comments to Mom’s Day Open Thread

  • Nick | May 10, 2009 at 7:04 am |

    DAY LATE RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY’S
    “MY FAVORITE MLB CAPS” QUESTION ….

    AL – 1926 Philly A’s — White crown, Dark Blue Bill and piping, with Elephant sillouette.

    NL – 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers — White crown, Dodger Blue Bill and piping, with “B” in same Blue.

    NL – close second – 1950’s Stan Musial St. Louis Cards cap with Navy Blue crown, Red bill, Red “ST.L” (with no White trim).

    Is there ANY sane reason in the world why that is not the Cards current road cap?

  • Tris Wykes | May 10, 2009 at 8:33 am |

    My mother would have been fine if sports never intruded on her life in any way. And yet she spent hours tossing a big plastic baseball towards me and watching me miss it with a big plastic bat. I never did become a good hitter, but it wasn’t for mom’s trying. Also, I forgive her for unknowingly sending me out to face neighborhood ridicule in 1977 because she’d dressed me in a Tampa Bay Buccaneers t-shirt.

  • Sarran | May 10, 2009 at 8:41 am |

    Happy mothers day uniwatchers!

  • JTH | May 10, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    To answer a question so eloquently stated yesterday:
    [quote comment=”328630″]Why is that every time anyone references the 1914 Cubs hat they have to use the retarded looking bear from New Era and not the crisp, pristine looking bear — the way it’s meant to be portrayed — by American Needle?[/quote]
    Well, it was the first one I found. Sorry it didn’t live up to your standards.

    I actually own an American Needle 1914 Cubs. You’re right. It blows away that New Era piece of crap. Maybe I should have taken a picture of it and used that.

  • JTH | May 10, 2009 at 9:00 am |

    And another reference to yesterday’s comments…

    Kek, I’m not taking you up on that bet unless you give me odds.

  • Kevin M. | May 10, 2009 at 9:40 am |

    I actually own a Mother’s Day base from the Devil Rays game in 2005. A friend of my mom’s bought it at an auction in memory of my grandmother who died of cancer in 2005 and then had it signed by several players including Carl Crawford and Scott Kazmir. My parents had nowhere to put it in therr house so they gave it to me. I now have it in a shadow box sitting in my bedroom.

  • LL | May 10, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    ESPN covered yesterday’s college lacrosse games and in their reporting on Brown vs. JHU they threw in a little uni analysis:
    “Fashion Note: Two nice uniform looks today. Brown with the names on the back of their jerseys, allowing fans to immediately know who they are looking at, and Hopkins in the all white unis with the cartoon Blue Jay sticker on the sides.:
    http://blogs.insidel...

  • Neil L | May 10, 2009 at 10:49 am |

    Justin Morneau will be wearing black and pink Reebok cleats for the game today.

  • mtjaws | May 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    Back in my Little League days, Mom was always there to play catch as we played outside each evening. She’d really get into it. Always fun that she “pitched in” like that.

    And even on an “open thread” day, Phil gives us plenty to see and read about what we’ll see on the field today. Good work.

  • muddlehead | May 10, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    yesterday cont. as an a’s fan, happy to see a’s hats in the popular vote. funny the two i wear to games not included. red white and blue w/american flag on side from a jul 4 game some years back – so it qualies as an official gamer – and the all black w/ green a’s white outline. nl hats – dig the mets original blue with orange ny. and, of course les expos and brew crew.

  • Dan King | May 10, 2009 at 11:42 am |

    my mom didn’t really help with baseball, but she’s the one that introduced me to soccer, and its been a major part of my life since then. so to repay her, my brother and i are surprising her by taking her out to dinner (we both live an hour away).

    and personal rant- why the hell do mothers day and fathers day have to be awareness days for cancer? i know the whole if you love them tell them to get checked, but still. the last thing i want to do when celebrating the person that gave birth to me is be reminded of friends that have passed because of cancer. not saying its not a good cause, i just don’t get it.

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    Looks like the Brian McCann hockey helmet experiment didn’t last long. He was back to wearing the standard catcher’s mask over his glasses last night. ESPN showed him working with the hockey mask in the bullpen prior to the game, but I guess it just wasn’t working for him.

  • Chaz | May 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm |

    Was the “making a complete ass of itself” comment really necessary? And the girl wearing the cap really isn’t that good looking.

  • Tom Hedrick | May 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”328647″]Was the “making a complete ass of itself” comment really necessary? And the girl wearing the cap really isn’t that good looking.[/quote]

    I thought it was

  • Wollen1 | May 10, 2009 at 12:21 pm |

    I’m getting YOUR mom Phillies negligee.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm |

    “I think I’ll take a bat to her instead.”

    You’re gonna whack your mom with a bat?
    ON mother’s day?

    Eeek.

  • chico | May 10, 2009 at 12:41 pm |

    this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 12:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”328650″]”I think I’ll take a bat to her instead.”

    You’re gonna whack your mom with a bat?
    ON mother’s day?

    Eeek.[/quote]

    And BTW, I was kidding on the double meaning in case anyone missed that!

  • Brad | May 10, 2009 at 12:54 pm |

    It’s no longer Mother’s Day – it’s CANCER DAY!

    HAPPY CANCER DAY EVERYONE!!!

    Screw MLB.

  • LI Phil | May 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”328650″]”I think I’ll take a bat to her instead.”

    You’re gonna whack your mom with a bat?
    ON mother’s day?

    Eeek.[/quote]

    it’s the perfect time — when she’ll be least expecting it!

    im just not sure whether to do it while she’s mopping the floor, cooking dinner, or waxing dad’s car…

  • Teebz | May 10, 2009 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”328651″]this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.[/quote]

    Are you mentally-challenged?

    How the eff do you come to those conclusions?

  • gb | May 10, 2009 at 1:26 pm |

    In the third link of ‘lots and lots of bats’, why is there a Mariano Rivera bat?

    In (going on) 15 years in the majors, he’s had exactly ONE at-bat. They really need to make him a mothers day bat?

    If I were a Rivera fan, I’d rather have a pink glove or pink ball with his name on it. Not that I want to give them ideas for making anything else pink. I personally have no desire to celebrate my mother by coating everything in pepto-bismol.

  • Lee | May 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=\”328656\”][quote comment=\”328651\”]this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.[/quote]

    Are you mentally-challenged?

    How the eff do you come to those conclusions?[/quote]

    Well I won\’t go so far as concluding that Phil is an asshole, homophobic & angry. But some of what he wrote doesn\’t help.
    I do find much of what he writes to be inappropriate to the subject at hand. Not just today either, although this one is pretty over the top.

  • Jtk57 | May 10, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    I’ve always thought Paul’s website could use a bit more “Ass”, “Douchebag” and “Crap”; way to elevate.

  • Teebz | May 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”328659″][quote comment=\”328656\”][quote comment=\”328651\”]this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.[/quote]

    Are you mentally-challenged?

    How the eff do you come to those conclusions?[/quote]

    Well I won\’t go so far as concluding that Phil is an asshole, homophobic & angry. But some of what he wrote doesn\’t help.
    I do find much of what he writes to be inappropriate to the subject at hand. Not just today either, although this one is pretty over the top.[/quote]

    And all the pink that MLB is rolling out for one freaking day isn’t over the top?

    Why is today the only day that we’re reminded in spades that MLB cares about mothers or women afflicted with breast cancer or other types of cancers?

    Personally, I hate what MLB does for one freaking day. Maybe, y’know, commit a week or a month to the cause? Maybe they could donate some cash from ticket sales to the causes instead of coming up with a line of merchandise for one freaking day only?

    All in all, can they make a real effort to the cause instead of half-assing a merchandise line for one day?

    Probably not. That would be bad for business. Who cares about the women afflicted with cancer, right?

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm |

    Steve’s has been on a roll lately.

    http://www.thatsmybo...

    Today’s entry is a treat for the Mets fans – but who’s the dude with the glasses?

  • Joe Barrie | May 10, 2009 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”328662″]Steve’s has been on a roll lately.

    http://www.thatsmybo...

    Today’s entry is a treat for the Mets fans – but who’s the dude with the glasses?[/quote]

    ?Roy McMillan

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”328663″][quote comment=”328662″]Steve’s has been on a roll lately.

    http://www.thatsmybo...

    Today’s entry is a treat for the Mets fans – but who’s the dude with the glasses?[/quote]

    ?Roy McMillan[/quote]
    I believe you are correct, sir…
    http://farm4.static....

  • Greg | May 10, 2009 at 2:39 pm |

    Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?

  • Tim | May 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    We’ll all need to forgive Phil for his grumpiness today. He’s from the Internet, you see.

    My mother was raised a die-hard Cardinals fan in So. Illinois, and somehow found the gall to marry an equally die-hard Cubs fan from Montrose Ave. and raise 3 little Cubbie-loving boys. Yeah, she got the WS wins when we didn’t, but today, I’m watching her ‘Birds with her. And to throw back to yesterday, in her honor…

    -40-55 Navy/Red Cards hat – As much as I hate the Cards, this hat looked great on FANS. My grandfather passed away with his on the nightstand next to him… never washed it.

    -56 Cubs cap – lighter Cubbie Blue, no frills on the older “C” logo… this hat was a piece of forgotten history.

  • The Hemogoblin | May 10, 2009 at 3:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If I remember correctly, they’re wearing white at home this year.

  • MPowers1634 | May 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm |

    I would like to wish all of UW a Happy Mothers’ Day.

    I would LOVE to instruct all of the weekend warriors who come here solely to bitch about the entries to go scratch.

    It’s obvious why you”re here on the web complaining about Phil…because even today your mothers don’t want you around.

    This goes out to Phil, Bryan, Vince, Paul and anyone else that is part of the UW family…Keep up the great work!

  • Michael | May 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”328661″][quote comment=”328659″][quote comment=\”328656\”][quote comment=\”328651\”]this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.[/quote]

    Are you mentally-challenged?

    How the eff do you come to those conclusions?[/quote]

    Well I won\’t go so far as concluding that Phil is an asshole, homophobic & angry. But some of what he wrote doesn\’t help.
    I do find much of what he writes to be inappropriate to the subject at hand. Not just today either, although this one is pretty over the top.[/quote]

    And all the pink that MLB is rolling out for one freaking day isn’t over the top?

    Why is today the only day that we’re reminded in spades that MLB cares about mothers or women afflicted with breast cancer or other types of cancers?

    Personally, I hate what MLB does for one freaking day. Maybe, y’know, commit a week or a month to the cause? Maybe they could donate some cash from ticket sales to the causes instead of coming up with a line of merchandise for one freaking day only?

    All in all, can they make a real effort to the cause instead of half-assing a merchandise line for one day?

    Probably not. That would be bad for business. Who cares about the women afflicted with cancer, right?[/quote]
    God I would hate the world if I was as cynical as you. Is it somewhat about merchandising? Yeah. But your comment just drips with hypocriticalness…if MLB decided to do the pink thing for a full month you can bet this blog would go INSANE in disgust. And ok, there only doing a tribute to women one day, but thats like saying it’s disrespectful to MLK by only giving him one day. Seriously man, I really respect your hockey knowledge and all, but jeez…

  • Michael | May 10, 2009 at 3:40 pm |

    And Phil, I love your posts…I would even say you should start your own blog so we could read your stuff every day, but IDK if you have the time or would feel like stepping on Paul’s toes like that

  • MPowers1634 | May 10, 2009 at 3:41 pm |

    And BTW…my apologies for not handing in my homework on time, Phil!

    I’m simple…

    Willie Mays era New york Giants and Duke Snidewr era Dodgers…cuz that’s when baseball was simply a game.

    Men went to the ballgames in shirts and ties and still talk about theose ballgames today, the way it was.

    Those caps are a link to that past for me and will always represent baseball and what it should be…like the Rockwell painting of the umpire checking the weather.

  • MPowers1634 | May 10, 2009 at 3:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”328671″]And BTW…my apologies for not handing in my homework on time, Phil!

    I’m simple…

    Willie Mays era New york Giants and Duke Snidewr era Dodgers…cuz that’s when baseball was simply a game.

    Men went to the ballgames in shirts and ties and still talk about theose ballgames today, the way it was.

    Those caps are a link to that past for me and will always represent baseball and what it should be…like the Rockwell painting of the umpire checking the weather.[/quote]

    http://imagecache5.a...

  • Eric B in KC | May 10, 2009 at 3:56 pm |

    kc royal mike jacobs is using the pink bat today. he’s the first i’ve noticed in the royals/angels game.

    as i was typing that, he broke the bat and got a single.

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”328671″]And BTW…my apologies for not handing in my homework on time, Phil!

    I’m simple…

    Willie Mays era New york Giants and Duke Snidewr era Dodgers…cuz that’s when baseball was simply a game.

    Men went to the ballgames in shirts and ties and still talk about theose ballgames today, the way it was.

    Those caps are a link to that past for me and will always represent baseball and what it should be…like the Rockwell painting of the umpire checking the weather.[/quote]
    I’ll have to give you an ‘Incomplete’ on your homework, Mr. Powers. You failed to submit an American League cap.

  • JTH | May 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”328672″][quote comment=”328671″]And BTW…my apologies for not handing in my homework on time, Phil!

    I’m simple…

    Willie Mays era New york Giants and Duke Snidewr era Dodgers…cuz that’s when baseball was simply a game.

    Men went to the ballgames in shirts and ties and still talk about theose ballgames today, the way it was.

    Those caps are a link to that past for me and will always represent baseball and what it should be…like the Rockwell painting of the umpire checking the weather.[/quote]

    http://imagecache5.a...
    I’ve always felt sorry for this batboy.

    Incidentally, that’s supposed to be the only cover for the Saturday Evening Post that Rockwell did as a watercolor. The others were all oil on canvas.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm |

    Via Twitter:
    sf_giantsMake sure and take a look at Lincecum’s custom Mother’s Day cleats today as he takes on Old Man Weaver and the Dodgers at 1pm #SFgiants

    Will look for ’em.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”328668″]I would like to wish all of UW a Happy Mothers’ Day.

    I would LOVE to instruct all of the weekend warriors who come here solely to bitch about the entries to go scratch.

    It’s obvious why you”re here on the web complaining about Phil…because even today your mothers don’t want you around.

    This goes out to Phil, Bryan, Vince, Paul and anyone else that is part of the UW family…Keep up the great work![/quote]

    I agree 100%. Negative complainers- go home.

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 4:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    Raiders never–repeat NEVER–wore any kind of gold in 1963, at least not after training camp (and that was limited to equipment from previous seasons, not the new sans stripes jerseys, for example). 1963 was the year Al Davis arrived, and he immediately changed the team colors to silver and black. Those football cards are black and white team PR photos hand-colored by an artist who was given incorrect team colors, I imagine. There’s a card of Claude “Hoot” Gibson from the same set that shows him using light gold training tape to hold up his black socks. Um…no. No way. Not in 1963. And it’s virtually proof positive that the colorist didn’t know his ass from his elbow about football (he thought it was a stripe that high on the sock). He just colored them the way he assumed the unis might look based on bad information, and on his incorrect assumptions of how players wore their unis.

    Don’t believe me, ask Timmy B.

    —Ricko

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    The Franchise pulls his pants down so low, it’s hard to see any ‘custom’ look to his shoes. Maybe the Reebok vector logo is pink- but it’s hard to see.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm |

    Well, here are his pink trim Reeboks after all.
    http://img.photobuck...

  • subway | May 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm |

    ah well, let’s try once again.
    http://img.photobuck...

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”328684″][quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

    Too back those Cowboy ‘throwbacks” have more things wrong that right, especially the jerseys…by a landslide.
    Wrong color, wrong jersey design, wrong jersey logo.
    That’s pretty much the big three.

    —Ricko

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”328685″][quote comment=”328684″][quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

    Too back those Cowboy ‘throwbacks” have more things wrong that right, especially the jerseys…by a landslide.
    Wrong color, wrong jersey design, wrong jersey logo.
    That’s pretty much the big three.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Cowboys need to make a throwback of this to wear on Thanksgiving

    http://media.pegasus...

  • =bg= | May 10, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”328685″][quote comment=”328684″][quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

    Too back those Cowboy ‘throwbacks” have more things wrong that right, especially the jerseys…by a landslide.
    Wrong color, wrong jersey design, wrong jersey logo.
    That’s pretty much the big three.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yeah those aren’t throwbacks, that’s just the 90’s alternate double-star Apex design. Besides..that’s RYAN LEAF in that photo. Erp.

  • Stuby | May 10, 2009 at 5:15 pm |

    OK, Ricko. Which shade of blue is correct?

    http://www.allanstan...

    http://media.pegasus...

  • Squiddie | May 10, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
  • LarryB | May 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm |

    Happy Mothers Day to all Uniwatch’s moms

    I did see pink bats today on the Indians Tigers game and Phillies game too.

    Tha Raiders with silver numbers and black outline is sharp

    http://lh5.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

  • LarryB | May 10, 2009 at 5:56 pm |

    Saints gold with black outline numbers is was sharp

    http://lh4.ggpht.com...

    http://lh4.ggpht.com...

  • Glen H | May 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    My two hat selections:

    Cubs 1912
    http://www.wrigleyvi...

    Brew Crew Ball in Glove panel
    http://www.lids.com/...

  • Jeff C. | May 10, 2009 at 7:18 pm |

    In today’s d-backs vs. nationals game Ron Valons numbers on the front of her jersey were peeling off in the bottom of the sixth. Can anyone get a screen grab?

  • Brooks Simpson | May 10, 2009 at 8:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”328655″][quote comment=”328650″]”I think I’ll take a bat to her instead.”

    You’re gonna whack your mom with a bat?
    ON mother’s day?

    Eeek.[/quote]

    it’s the perfect time — when she’ll be least expecting it!

    im just not sure whether to do it while she’s mopping the floor, cooking dinner, or waxing dad’s car…[/quote]

    This box should have been pink.

  • scott | May 10, 2009 at 8:26 pm |

    Re: the person who keeps asking about why MLB doesn’t mandate players wear their stirrups and sanitaries a certain way. Just a guess, but it seems most of MLB’s mandates relate to the cap, jersey and pants. The way undershirts are worn (long sleeve, short sleeve, turtleneck, etc.), and socks and stirrups are displayed seems to have always been left up to the individual player.

  • Greenie | May 10, 2009 at 8:32 pm |

    Happy Mother’s Day!

    And Brewer’s jersey records through 32 games:

    Home Whites: 7-4
    Away Grays: 4-3
    Alt Blue on White Pants: 2-2
    Alt Blue on Gray Pants: 5-4
    Alt Pinstripes: 0-1
    Total: 18-14

    Luck favors the traditional whites and grays: 11-7
    Alts: 7-7

  • Teebz | May 10, 2009 at 8:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”328669″]
    God I would hate the world if I was as cynical as you. Is it somewhat about merchandising? Yeah. But your comment just drips with hypocriticalness…if MLB decided to do the pink thing for a full month you can bet this blog would go INSANE in disgust. And ok, there only doing a tribute to women one day, but thats like saying it’s disrespectful to MLK by only giving him one day. Seriously man, I really respect your hockey knowledge and all, but jeez…[/quote]

    When it comes to a billion-dollar sports organization trying to line their pockets, cynicism should rule the roost.

    How about floating some additional profits to the charity instead of making it one day only? Why not have it all week? What would be wrong with that?

    It’s not like I’m asking them to wear pink for an entire week. All I’m saying is that somethings, like cancer research, are bigger than others, like baseball. Especially if you’ve been touched by it.

  • Cooper's Dad | May 10, 2009 at 8:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”328669″][quote comment=”328661″][quote comment=”328659″][quote comment=\”328656\”][quote comment=\”328651\”]this post really makes you look like an asshole. are you homophobic or something? why does pink make you so uncomfortable and angry? you should talk to some one, sir.[/quote]

    Are you mentally-challenged?

    How the eff do you come to those conclusions?[/quote]

    Well I won\’t go so far as concluding that Phil is an asshole, homophobic & angry. But some of what he wrote doesn\’t help.
    I do find much of what he writes to be inappropriate to the subject at hand. Not just today either, although this one is pretty over the top.[/quote]

    And all the pink that MLB is rolling out for one freaking day isn’t over the top?

    Why is today the only day that we’re reminded in spades that MLB cares about mothers or women afflicted with breast cancer or other types of cancers?

    Personally, I hate what MLB does for one freaking day. Maybe, y’know, commit a week or a month to the cause? Maybe they could donate some cash from ticket sales to the causes instead of coming up with a line of merchandise for one freaking day only?

    All in all, can they make a real effort to the cause instead of half-assing a merchandise line for one day?

    Probably not. That would be bad for business. Who cares about the women afflicted with cancer, right?[/quote]
    God I would hate the world if I was as cynical as you. Is it somewhat about merchandising? Yeah. But your comment just drips with hypocriticalness…if MLB decided to do the pink thing for a full month you can bet this blog would go INSANE in disgust. And ok, there only doing a tribute to women one day, but thats like saying it’s disrespectful to MLK by only giving him one day. Seriously man, I really respect your hockey knowledge and all, but jeez…[/quote]
    I don’t find what Teebz posted to by ‘cynical’, per se. I see his point MUCH MORE clearly than the gentleman who posted that Phil was an a-hole homophobe. I’m not even sure what Phil posted that was SO offensive…actually, NOTHING he said was offensive in the least. He stated his opinion…and, if I’m correct…this blog is ENTIRELY opinion based. I guess I am confused as to why some people are so effing sensitive and jump all over Phil/Paul/Bryan/Teebz/Whomever any time they throw out a thought or opinion. Lighten up, folks. And who knows…maybe Teebz IS a cynical bastard. But even so, he does make an excellent point. And I appreciate cynical bastards ;o)

  • Teebz | May 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”328699″]
    I don’t find what Teebz posted to by ‘cynical’, per se. I see his point MUCH MORE clearly than the gentleman who posted that Phil was an a-hole homophobe. I’m not even sure what Phil posted that was SO offensive…actually, NOTHING he said was offensive in the least. He stated his opinion…and, if I’m correct…this blog is ENTIRELY opinion based. I guess I am confused as to why some people are so effing sensitive and jump all over Phil/Paul/Bryan/Teebz/Whomever any time they throw out a thought or opinion. Lighten up, folks. And who knows…maybe Teebz IS a cynical bastard. But even so, he does make an excellent point. And I appreciate cynical bastards ;o)[/quote]

    I appreciate the comment, Cooper’s Dad.

    I am entirely a cynical bastard when it comes to a billion dollar company making money off a cause. Donating 10% of sales today means that 90% still go into MLB’s pockets. WHY CAN’T ALL THE MONEY GO TO CHARITY?

    It’s not like they can use pink bats for anything else, ffs. And that’s f*%king disgusting when they want to be recognized as “a partner” in the fight against cancer.

  • timmy b | May 10, 2009 at 9:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”328678″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    Raiders never–repeat NEVER–wore any kind of gold in 1963, at least not after training camp (and that was limited to equipment from previous seasons, not the new sans stripes jerseys, for example). 1963 was the year Al Davis arrived, and he immediately changed the team colors to silver and black. Those football cards are black and white team PR photos hand-colored by an artist who was given incorrect team colors, I imagine. There’s a card of Claude “Hoot” Gibson from the same set that shows him using light gold training tape to hold up his black socks. Um…no. No way. Not in 1963. And it’s virtually proof positive that the colorist didn’t know his ass from his elbow about football (he thought it was a stripe that high on the sock). He just colored them the way he assumed the unis might look based on bad information, and on his incorrect assumptions of how players wore their unis.

    Don’t believe me, ask Timmy B.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    About a month and a half ago, I decided to search thru the pages of the Oakland Tribune (courtsey newspaperachive.com) from 1963 and 1964 as there had been disputes on what exactly the Raiders did wear for away games for these two seasons.

    Please allow me to quote myself:

    1963 (sleeve numerals light all season long):
    9/7 at Houston: Light numerals, solid black socks
    9/28 at New York: Light numerals, solid black socks
    10/5 at Buffalo: Photo too dark to clearly see
    10/11 at Boston: Thick black numerals, solid black socks
    10/27 at San Diego: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/28 at Denver: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks

    1964:
    9/19 at Houston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    10/3 at Buffalo: paper not available
    10/10 at New York: paper not available
    10/16 at Boston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/1 at San Diego: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: paper not available
    11/29 at Denver: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks

    Conclusion:
    1963 at least for first games, Raiders DID have silver (assumed) numerals with black outline on sleeves and body. for at least last four games, Raiders had thick black numerals on body, while keeping silver numerals on sleeves. Socks were solid black early in season, then changed to a very thin NW stripe pattern, outer stripes white, inner stripe silver.

    1964, even though 3 issues of Tribune missing on archive, can assume with some certainty that the away jersey had silver numerals on sleeves and body with a very thick black outline on the body numerals and a thinner black outline on sleeves for the FULL season. Socks were black with the thin NW stripes; outers white, inner silver, also for the FULL season.

    The only mystery then would be what the Raiders wore for the 10/5/64 game in Buffalo.

    Not sure who, but somebody provided me with a screen grab from a 1963 game where indeed, it appears that the Raiders did wear silver body numbers early in the season.

    This is where LarryB may have some color screen gems of the Raiders in 1963 to confirm the Raiders white jersey look.

  • Cooper's Dad | May 10, 2009 at 9:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”328702″][quote comment=”328699″]
    I don’t find what Teebz posted to by ‘cynical’, per se. I see his point MUCH MORE clearly than the gentleman who posted that Phil was an a-hole homophobe. I’m not even sure what Phil posted that was SO offensive…actually, NOTHING he said was offensive in the least. He stated his opinion…and, if I’m correct…this blog is ENTIRELY opinion based. I guess I am confused as to why some people are so effing sensitive and jump all over Phil/Paul/Bryan/Teebz/Whomever any time they throw out a thought or opinion. Lighten up, folks. And who knows…maybe Teebz IS a cynical bastard. But even so, he does make an excellent point. And I appreciate cynical bastards ;o)[/quote]

    I appreciate the comment, Cooper’s Dad.

    I am entirely a cynical bastard when it comes to a billion dollar company making money off a cause. Donating 10% of sales today means that 90% still go into MLB’s pockets. WHY CAN’T ALL THE MONEY GO TO CHARITY?

    It’s not like they can use pink bats for anything else, ffs. And that’s f*%king disgusting when they want to be recognized as “a partner” in the fight against cancer.[/quote]
    I am with you 100%. Why not take gate receipts for the day along with merch sales — ALL merch sales (hats, jerseys, etc.) at the stadium that day — and put it towards the fight against cancer? I am like you (I think) when I say that it’s a sham to claim to be “in the fight against breast/colon cancer” and then half-ass the effort. I say “screw MLB” for their efforts. Let’s build more $1B stadiums at taxpayers expense, instead. Because THAT is how you beat cancer

  • MPowers1634 | May 10, 2009 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”328674″][quote comment=”328671″]And BTW…my apologies for not handing in my homework on time, Phil!

    I’m simple…

    Willie Mays era New york Giants and Duke Snidewr era Dodgers…cuz that’s when baseball was simply a game.

    Men went to the ballgames in shirts and ties and still talk about theose ballgames today, the way it was.

    Those caps are a link to that past for me and will always represent baseball and what it should be…like the Rockwell painting of the umpire checking the weather.[/quote]
    I’ll have to give you an ‘Incomplete’ on your homework, Mr. Powers. You failed to submit an American League cap.[/quote]

    Fair enough…I’ll go with Ball-in-Glove Brewers sans the logoman in back.

    Haha…when they wore those, they were in the A.L.

    I also LOVE this cap although, I don’t know if they have actually ever worn them as caps.

    http://2.bp.blogspot...

    http://cache.daylife...

  • LI Phil | May 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”328678″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    Raiders never–repeat NEVER–wore any kind of gold in 1963, at least not after training camp (and that was limited to equipment from previous seasons, not the new sans stripes jerseys, for example). 1963 was the year Al Davis arrived, and he immediately changed the team colors to silver and black. Those football cards are black and white team PR photos hand-colored by an artist who was given incorrect team colors, I imagine. There’s a card of Claude “Hoot” Gibson from the same set that shows him using light gold training tape to hold up his black socks. Um…no. No way. Not in 1963. And it’s virtually proof positive that the colorist didn’t know his ass from his elbow about football (he thought it was a stripe that high on the sock). He just colored them the way he assumed the unis might look based on bad information, and on his incorrect assumptions of how players wore their unis.

    Don’t believe me, ask Timmy B.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    so…next you’re gonna tell us that these teams never wore the uniforms depicted on these football cards

    i’m shocked…shocked that there’d be errors

  • steve | May 10, 2009 at 10:19 pm |

    I believe those are their college uniforms…certainly the case with Billy Cannon (LSU) , and I think Abner Haynes, who went to North Texas State.

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 10:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”328688″]OK, Ricko. Which shade of blue is correct?

    http://www.allanstan...

    http://media.pegasus...

    The second photo. Royal blue. Same color as Colts. Saw both Cowboys and Colts (and Rams, who also wore royal at the time) in person during early Viking years at Met Stadium. Saw Bears, too, so I could tell the diference. Know what, though, didn’t have to see the Bears to be able to recognize royal blue on the Cowboys. Shoot, they stuck with royal when they added the silver. Navy only came around years later when they decided they needed to ditch the bad luck royal jerseys once and for all.

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | May 10, 2009 at 10:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”328703″][quote comment=”328678″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    Raiders never–repeat NEVER–wore any kind of gold in 1963, at least not after training camp (and that was limited to equipment from previous seasons, not the new sans stripes jerseys, for example). 1963 was the year Al Davis arrived, and he immediately changed the team colors to silver and black. Those football cards are black and white team PR photos hand-colored by an artist who was given incorrect team colors, I imagine. There’s a card of Claude “Hoot” Gibson from the same set that shows him using light gold training tape to hold up his black socks. Um…no. No way. Not in 1963. And it’s virtually proof positive that the colorist didn’t know his ass from his elbow about football (he thought it was a stripe that high on the sock). He just colored them the way he assumed the unis might look based on bad information, and on his incorrect assumptions of how players wore their unis.

    Don’t believe me, ask Timmy B.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    About a month and a half ago, I decided to search thru the pages of the Oakland Tribune (courtsey newspaperachive.com) from 1963 and 1964 as there had been disputes on what exactly the Raiders did wear for away games for these two seasons.

    Please allow me to quote myself:

    1963 (sleeve numerals light all season long):
    9/7 at Houston: Light numerals, solid black socks
    9/28 at New York: Light numerals, solid black socks
    10/5 at Buffalo: Photo too dark to clearly see
    10/11 at Boston: Thick black numerals, solid black socks
    10/27 at San Diego: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/28 at Denver: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks

    1964:
    9/19 at Houston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    10/3 at Buffalo: paper not available
    10/10 at New York: paper not available
    10/16 at Boston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/1 at San Diego: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: paper not available
    11/29 at Denver: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks

    Conclusion:
    1963 at least for first games, Raiders DID have silver (assumed) numerals with black outline on sleeves and body. for at least last four games, Raiders had thick black numerals on body, while keeping silver numerals on sleeves. Socks were solid black early in season, then changed to a very thin NW stripe pattern, outer stripes white, inner stripe silver.

    1964, even though 3 issues of Tribune missing on archive, can assume with some certainty that the away jersey had silver numerals on sleeves and body with a very thick black outline on the body numerals and a thinner black outline on sleeves for the FULL season. Socks were black with the thin NW stripes; outers white, inner silver, also for the FULL season.

    The only mystery then would be what the Raiders wore for the 10/5/64 game in Buffalo.

    Not sure who, but somebody provided me with a screen grab from a 1963 game where indeed, it appears that the Raiders did wear silver body numbers early in the season.

    This is where LarryB may have some color screen gems of the Raiders in 1963 to confirm the Raiders white jersey look.[/quote]

    I had these from the Jets album.

    http://lh5.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 10:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”328707″]I believe those are their college uniforms…certainly the case with Billy Cannon (LSU) , and I think Abner Haynes, who went to North Texas State.[/quote]

    When those 1960 cards were printed, AFL teams hadn’t even been to their first training camps yet. That entire set is players in NFL, CFL or college unis. Many of the NFL cards were that way, too. I remember a Lennie Moore card that’s a PR photo of him in his Penn State #42. Or Tommy McDonald of the Eagles in Oklahoma colors.

    Not the most reliable period for football cards. As has been noted here, check the R.C. “Alley Ooop” Owens card from a few years later. He was an African American 49er WR who wore #27. The card is a blonde white Steeler tackle wearing number #78, or maybe #76. Anyway, I remember getting the card in a pack and thinking, “Huh?”

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”328709″][quote comment=”328703″][quote comment=”328678″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    Raiders never–repeat NEVER–wore any kind of gold in 1963, at least not after training camp (and that was limited to equipment from previous seasons, not the new sans stripes jerseys, for example). 1963 was the year Al Davis arrived, and he immediately changed the team colors to silver and black. Those football cards are black and white team PR photos hand-colored by an artist who was given incorrect team colors, I imagine. There’s a card of Claude “Hoot” Gibson from the same set that shows him using light gold training tape to hold up his black socks. Um…no. No way. Not in 1963. And it’s virtually proof positive that the colorist didn’t know his ass from his elbow about football (he thought it was a stripe that high on the sock). He just colored them the way he assumed the unis might look based on bad information, and on his incorrect assumptions of how players wore their unis.

    Don’t believe me, ask Timmy B.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    About a month and a half ago, I decided to search thru the pages of the Oakland Tribune (courtsey newspaperachive.com) from 1963 and 1964 as there had been disputes on what exactly the Raiders did wear for away games for these two seasons.

    Please allow me to quote myself:

    1963 (sleeve numerals light all season long):
    9/7 at Houston: Light numerals, solid black socks
    9/28 at New York: Light numerals, solid black socks
    10/5 at Buffalo: Photo too dark to clearly see
    10/11 at Boston: Thick black numerals, solid black socks
    10/27 at San Diego: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks
    11/28 at Denver: Thick black numerals, thin stripes on black socks

    1964:
    9/19 at Houston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    10/3 at Buffalo: paper not available
    10/10 at New York: paper not available
    10/16 at Boston: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/1 at San Diego: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks
    11/8 at Kansas City: paper not available
    11/29 at Denver: Light numerals with thick black o/l, thin stripes on black socks

    Conclusion:
    1963 at least for first games, Raiders DID have silver (assumed) numerals with black outline on sleeves and body. for at least last four games, Raiders had thick black numerals on body, while keeping silver numerals on sleeves. Socks were solid black early in season, then changed to a very thin NW stripe pattern, outer stripes white, inner stripe silver.

    1964, even though 3 issues of Tribune missing on archive, can assume with some certainty that the away jersey had silver numerals on sleeves and body with a very thick black outline on the body numerals and a thinner black outline on sleeves for the FULL season. Socks were black with the thin NW stripes; outers white, inner silver, also for the FULL season.

    The only mystery then would be what the Raiders wore for the 10/5/64 game in Buffalo.

    Not sure who, but somebody provided me with a screen grab from a 1963 game where indeed, it appears that the Raiders did wear silver body numbers early in the season.

    This is where LarryB may have some color screen gems of the Raiders in 1963 to confirm the Raiders white jersey look.[/quote]

    I had these from the Jets album.

    http://lh5.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    The numbers are silver. C’mon, people, if a new coach and GM comes in a changes the team’s colors from light gold & black to silver & black (and that includes silver hlmets and pants)…and they also get new jerseys unlike any they’ve had before…why the hell would the numbers be gold? Seriously.

    We’re putting out trust in a colorist who doesn’t know a high stripe at the base of the knee isn’t white training tape?
    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 10, 2009 at 11:07 pm |

    …who doesn’t know it IS white training tape.

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | May 10, 2009 at 11:13 pm |

    I was wondering how and what info they used to do those cards.

    Just today I had been looking at a site and wondering about the colors on some of the olders uniforms.

    How hard would it have been to get the things right?

  • LarryB | May 10, 2009 at 11:19 pm |

    On many of the dvds I do the grabs from they rarely say the date of any action shown.

    Seeing the Jets #41 would be Matt Snell and his first year was 1964. The sideline guys are bundled up as if it was cold. I mean the cop and photographer etc in this picture

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

  • Teebz | May 11, 2009 at 12:00 am |

    [quote comment=”328712″]…who doesn’t know it IS white training tape.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Rick, I’m hoping you’ll know this.

    Who now owns the rights to the Minnesota Fighting Saints name? Is it the NHL or the previous owner of the WHA club?

    The reason I ask is I am working on a bit of a project for my blog about defunct teams, but I can’t seem to find info about who definitively owns the rights to the former WHA franchises.

    Thanks for any info you may have (or anyone else for that matter). :o)

  • Ben in London | May 11, 2009 at 7:30 am |

    [quote comment=”328687″][quote comment=”328685″][quote comment=”328684″][quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

    Too back those Cowboy ‘throwbacks” have more things wrong that right, especially the jerseys…by a landslide.
    Wrong color, wrong jersey design, wrong jersey logo.
    That’s pretty much the big three.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yeah those aren’t throwbacks, that’s just the 90’s alternate double-star Apex design. Besides..that’s RYAN LEAF in that photo. Erp.[/quote]

    [quote comment=”328687″][quote comment=”328685″][quote comment=”328684″][quote comment=”328682″][quote comment=”328665″]Just catching up with yesterday’s ticker item about the 1963 Raider unis. I don’t think the gold vs silver numbers will matter since in all four throwback games, Oakland is likely to be wearing black: home vs. Chargers, Jets and Chiefs and on the road vs. Cowboys. I don’t think we’ll see white throwbacks. Am I reading this wrong?[/quote]

    If the Cowboys wear their blue throwbacks, the Raiders will have to wear white.[/quote]
    Not so fast, my friend…
    http://www.geocities...

    Too back those Cowboy ‘throwbacks” have more things wrong that right, especially the jerseys…by a landslide.
    Wrong color, wrong jersey design, wrong jersey logo.
    That’s pretty much the big three.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yeah those aren’t throwbacks, that’s just the 90’s alternate double-star Apex design. Besides..that’s RYAN LEAF in that photo. Erp.[/quote]

    They’re still throwbacks
    “Dallas players will wear an adaptation of the traditional double-star jerseys the Cowboys wore from 1960-66 and 1994. The jersey features a blue torso with white numerals and sleeves highlighted by a bold white star atop each shoulder.”

    http://www.geocities...