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

Cutting Goalies Down to Size

henrik-lundqvist-crossed-pads.jpg

My recent ESPN column about goalie pads prompted an interesting note from Mark Coale. “I was listening to HNIC radio the other day and they said goalie pads next season will be based on the goalies’ individual measurements,” he wrote. “They said former goalie and now league employee Kay Whitmore will spend the season going around and getting metrics on every goalie, so things will be custom-made for next year.”

This was news to me, so I went back to Tyler Hull, who works for Bauer and is the guy who provided me with all the info for that ESPN column to begin with. Here’s his very informative response:

Mark is correct. In 2003 the league limited the size of a goalie pad to 38 inches high, but goalies can use that size any way they want. Pads are measured from the inside of your ankle to your knee and then from your knee to the top of your thigh, so goalies often add “thigh rise” (i.e., extra pad) to the top to get to the 38-inch limit if they want them that high. A shorter goalie might use a 33+5 pad, or a taller goalie might use 37+1, depending on the original size of the pad and how tall the goalie is (or at least how long his legs are). The end result is that Chris Osgood and Steve Valiquette end up using the same size pad, even though one of them is 5’11” and the other one is 6’5″.

That’s just plain goofy, so starting next year goalies will be required to use pads that are measured and fitted to them by the NHL. It won’t be a big change for the bigger guys, but smaller goalies who’ve been using bigger pads will feel the crunch.

Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm — discuss.

Screen shot 2009-10-04 at 10.07.15 PM.png

Culinary Corner: I’m going to let you in on a little secret today, people. It’s such a good secret, you won’t believe you never thought of it yourself. It’s such a good secret, you won’t believe it isn’t available on supermarket shelves. It’s such a good secret, you won’t believe it hasn’t become the basis for a national restaurant chain.

It’s a really good secret.

The secret is this: When you’re heating up maple syrup for your pancakes, waffles, or French toast, spike it with an ounce or two of bourbon.

It’s so simple, so obvious, and soooooo good. Most of the alcohol vaporizes as you heat up the syrup, so the end result isn’t overly boozy — it just imbues the syrup with that great bourbon flavor and complexity.

You can try the same thing with other whiskeys, or with rum, but I’ve found bourbon works best. It doesn’t blend in properly unless you heat up the syrup, so don’t be lazy about that. And don’t bother adding bourbon to non-maple syrups like Aunt Jemima or Mrs. Butterworth — nothing can make those taste good.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Hey, speaking of food, check out this class I’ll be taking on Saturday. Guess what T-shirt I’ll be wearing. … The Broncos players who Twizzler-twisted their sock stripes on Sunday will not be fined. … Some additional images have been added to Mako Mameli‘s collection of screen shots from Showtime’s AFL history series. I especially love the Raiders’ shield-themed yard markers and red sideline hashmarks. … Also from Mako: More info on Maurice Jones-Drew’s number and NOB. … Chris Mitchel recently visited the prison museum at the state penitentiary in Anamosa, Iowa. “They had a collection of some sweet prison baseball and football team photos, some of which you can see here,” he says. “There are also some cool other pictures of various uniforms worn by the inmates (sorry, ‘offenders,’ per the warden). Stripes are not the only pattern used.” … Nike is exploiting honoring the 100th anniversary of UNC hoops by producing a series of throwback replicas, including the red-trimmed jersey and shorts (with thanks to Jordan Woodson). … The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero). … Rick Ankiel was cleaning out his locker yesterday — including an Adrian Peterson jersey (as spotted by Ben Traxel). … On Saturday Kirsten and I attended a very special party where, among other things, we were forced to don rabbit ears and pose alongside a giant bunny, which was even more terrifying than it appears in the photos. … Amazing Charleston Charlies jersey available here (great find by Dan Cichalski). … Cliff Lee didn’t have the blue squatchee on his cap last night (as noted by sharp-eyed Jay Fanelli). … Hey, remember Frozen Coke? No, of course you don’t. Ricko doesn’t even remember it, and he’s eleventeen hundred years old. But if you did remember it, you might also remember this (major find by Brinke Guthrie). … The Bunkie (La.) High School chain gang has some, uh, unique uniforms, complete with NOBs (with thanks to Chris LaHaye). … Hmm, subtle. … Braylon Edwards, making his Jets debut, went double-sock-striped last night. … There’s a guy out there who’s making super-cool hand-crafted footballs. Further details here (with thanks to Bill Austin). … Get better soon, Bizkit.

 

262 comments to Cutting Goalies Down to Size

  • DenverGregg | October 13, 2009 at 8:07 am |

    I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

    Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.

  • Paul Lukas | October 13, 2009 at 8:10 am |

    [quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”[/quote]

    Thanks — now fixed.

  • WFY | October 13, 2009 at 8:18 am |

    The bourbon and syrup sounds great, I’m eager to try it. What kind did you use?

  • Goalie007 | October 13, 2009 at 8:20 am |

    “Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm — discuss.”

    I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.

  • AB | October 13, 2009 at 8:28 am |

    I always LOVED the Raiders Yard markers and wondered why they never restarted doing that. I am sure the NFL poo-poos individuality like that now

  • Frank | October 13, 2009 at 8:31 am |

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned…

    Supposedly the original “yellow and brown” Broncos had a sock burning after their first season. The “horror” picture reminded me of that and kind of made me wish there was something like that for this round just to rekindle that story.

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 8:31 am |

    did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i don’t remember that

    was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?

  • RS Rogers | October 13, 2009 at 8:37 am |

    I don’t care if the NFL fines players for uni infractions. I do care whether a team’s coaches and player-leaders have the balls to insist that players dress like members of a team. You show your pride in and commitment to your team by wearing your uniform properly; you show contempt for your team and your teammates by screwing with your uni. I just can’t imagine Vince Lombardi or Bud Grant putting up with the kind of uni crap NFL players pull these days. Same for baseball, really: it’s a failure of leadership to let players screw with their unis.

    Re: bourbon in your syrup, there’s honestly very little that isn’t better with bourbon. Especially where pork products are involved. For dessert, try melting a shot of bourbon into caramel sauce, then pouring that over ice cream with pecans. Mmmm-good.

  • =bg= | October 13, 2009 at 8:53 am |

    all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 8:59 am |

    [quote comment=”353852″]did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i don’t remember that

    was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?[/quote]

    clever, Phil.

    I, for one, do not care for the red trimmed UNC unis.

  • Frank | October 13, 2009 at 9:01 am |

    Interesting idea, bourbon and maple syrup. I would have thought that rum, being a sugar-based liquor (as opposed to a grain-based liquor such as bourbon or rye) would have been a better fit for maple syrup than bourbon.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 9:01 am |

    Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 9:06 am |

    [quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    pro combat cleats?

    are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 9:06 am |

    [quote comment=”353852″]did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i don’t remember that

    was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?[/quote]

    Yeah, really.
    Putting Jordan’s name on a 100 yr throwback-WTF?
    And those bustin’-a-sag shorts? I suspect a century ago shorts looked more like Daisy dukes.

    These are dopey anachronisms.

  • Eric Sing | October 13, 2009 at 9:12 am |

    Nice touch by the Broncos using brown and yellow on their website this week:

    http://www.denverbro...

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 9:13 am |

    The Yellow Menace apparently to be mothballed for tomorrow night:

    http://www.tulsaworl...

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    i normally give don’t give two shits about cleats, but powers has me fascinated by those

    seriously…those look like overshells or something…

    any sneakerheads know anything?

  • Paul Lukas | October 13, 2009 at 9:15 am |

    [quote comment=”353856″]Interesting idea, bourbon and maple syrup. I would have thought that rum, being a sugar-based liquor (as opposed to a grain-based liquor such as bourbon or rye) would have been a better fit for maple syrup than bourbon.[/quote]

    Me too. But bourbon has a little more bite — works better, at least for my tastebuds.

  • Sarran | October 13, 2009 at 9:21 am |
  • Sarran | October 13, 2009 at 9:23 am |

    [quote comment=”353864″]http://www.duhancreative.com/images/portfolio/01_product_launch/02_frozen_coke.jpg

    http://images.google...
    The decades dont seem to match up with those helmets and the pics I find.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 9:23 am |

    Did someone mention rabbit ears?

    http://www.imdb.com/...

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 9:25 am |

    [quote comment=”353866″]Did someone mention rabbit ears?

    http://www.imdb.com/...

    what are you people? on dope?

  • M.Princip | October 13, 2009 at 9:26 am |

    Those leather head footballs are absoslutely the bomb diggity. I will take two, the original and the hairy. Love what he wrote here; “My kids wanted a dog, I made them a hairy football instead.”

    Rare Species of uhhhh…….. footballs.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 9:26 am |

    [quote comment=”353858″][quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    pro combat cleats?

    are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?[/quote]

    The McDavid hex pads, which are very similar to Nike Pro Combat, is the first thing that I thought of as well.

    As of now, there are only a few types of spats that go over cleats, but this doesnt seem to be any of those.

    Nike Str8 jacket:
    http://www.sportsdep...

    Spatz:
    http://ecx.images-am...

  • john in DC | October 13, 2009 at 9:28 am |

    [quote comment=”353849″]”Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm — discuss.”

    I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.[/quote]
    that and the original concern was that smaller gear would lead to more shot-related injuries. that pretty much never happened.

    and wouldn’t less bulk = more mobility, and, less stress from lugging around unnessicasrily sized gear?

    /garth snow’s shoulder pads weep in the corner

  • TBDRO | October 13, 2009 at 9:28 am |

    [quote comment=”353849″]”Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm — discuss.”

    I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.[/quote]
    Mr. Hull notes that the NHL limits “the size of a goalie pad to 38 inches high”. However, it isn’t clear if goalies can use pads smaller than 38 inches high. If they can, and the smaller goalies choose to go with the higher pads, then I would consider this unfair.

    What is wrong with setting maximum dimensions for the pads and allowing goalies to choose any size up to and including that maximum?

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 9:29 am |

    [quote comment=”353869″][quote comment=”353858″][quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    pro combat cleats?

    are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?[/quote]

    The McDavid hex pads, which are very similar to Nike Pro Combat, is the first thing that I thought of as well.

    As of now, there are only a few types of spats that go over cleats, but this doesnt seem to be any of those.

    Nike Str8 jacket:
    http://www.sportsdep...

    Spatz:
    http://ecx.images-am...

    Aside from asking Skiba, I am going to e-mail these guys the pic and ask them, because I am befuddled:

    Doug West – Equipment Manager
    Ronnie Bill – Assistant Equipment Manager
    Chris Valenti – Assistant Equipment Manager

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 9:40 am |

    [quote comment=”353871″][quote comment=”353849″]”Faaaaascinating. On the one hand, this makes sense: Smaller goalie, smaller pads. On the other hand, a shorter goalie already has a built-in disadvantage, since there’s literally less of him to cover the net, and now that shorter goalie will have the bonus disadvantage of having less pad coverage. Hmmmm — discuss.”

    I don’t know that this will result in oodles of extra goals – it may even help. A smaller pad makes for a more mobile goalie, and mobility and getting in position to stop the shot is the name of the game. There may be a few more 5 hole goals, but I think it may benefit the goalies, too. The switch from 12″ to 11″ pads didn’t result in more goals, either. Even at the beer league level, when I went to the 11″ pads I noticed a difference right away. Less pad bulk = more mobility.[/quote]
    Mr. Hull notes that the NHL limits “the size of a goalie pad to 38 inches high”. However, it isn’t clear if goalies can use pads smaller than 38 inches high. If they can, and the smaller goalies choose to go with the higher pads, then I would consider this unfair.

    What is wrong with setting maximum dimensions for the pads and allowing goalies to choose any size up to and including that maximum?[/quote]

    Some smaller goalies can cover more net with larger pads. That’s why it’s unfair. Chris Osgood has no five-hole whatsoever because of the extensions.

    That would explain why shooters go high and to the lower corners for the majority of his goals against.

  • Matt Poindexter | October 13, 2009 at 9:44 am |

    [quote comment=”353852″]did jordan ever wear the tarheel uni with red stripage? i don’t remember that

    was he wearing his high school shorts underneath?[/quote]

    If my memory is right, that red stripage was on the jerseys in the undefeated season, 1957. Jordan would have never worn it.

  • Giancarlo | October 13, 2009 at 9:48 am |

    [quote comment=”353867″][quote comment=”353866″]Did someone mention rabbit ears?

    http://www.imdb.com/...

    what are you people? on dope?[/quote]
    Go ask Alice…

    Not surprised about the bourbon thing – I see maple-infused bourbon cocktails all the time; this is just a change in emphasis.

  • Matt B | October 13, 2009 at 9:55 am |

    I don’t get the “subtle” tag on the Dolphins photo. Are you just commenting on the garish orange outfits*, or is there something else?

    *true, they are garish, but they’re not new, are they?

  • bourbon soaked idiot | October 13, 2009 at 9:57 am |

    [quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

    Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

    Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.

  • glen | October 13, 2009 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”353877″][quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

    Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

    Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.[/quote]

    Woodford Reserve or Makers Mark

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:16 am |

    Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

    Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

    —Ricko

  • bourbon soaked idiot | October 13, 2009 at 10:17 am |

    [quote comment=”353879″][quote comment=”353877″][quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

    Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

    Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.[/quote]

    Woodford Reserve or Makers Mark[/quote]
    Both are better than Jim Beam

  • Charlie | October 13, 2009 at 10:18 am |

    I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”353880″]Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

    Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    there’s a good reason for that

    and…there’s gonna be a MAROON OUT (i shit you not) tonight at ULM

    /sweet

  • iLO | October 13, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    Seems like football pants are creeping up higher on players. They’re abandoning their knee and thigh pads for less compression i guess. Sooner or later they’re gonna wear boyshorts along with their tank top jerseys (Amani Toomer style). I always see it with Ronnie Brown too. I’ve taken a helmet shot to the knee, or acutally my knee impacted a player while he was on the ground and I always wondered how bad that would have stung if i didn’t have my knee pads in place.

    By the Way…Does anyone think the 80s were significant enough to have a year dedicated to them?

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:33 am |

    [quote comment=”353883″][quote comment=”353880″]Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

    Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    there’s a good reason for that

    and…there’s gonna be a MAROON OUT (i shit you not) tonight at ULM

    /sweet[/quote]

    Ah, marooned in Monroe, eh?
    What a bunch of maroons?

    (There, I got the two obvious ones out of the way quickly)

    —Ricko

  • Rob | October 13, 2009 at 10:34 am |

    [quote comment=”353876″]I don’t get the “subtle” tag on the Dolphins photo. Are you just commenting on the garish orange outfits*, or is there something else?

    *true, they are garish, but they’re not new, are they?[/quote]

    I wondered about the “subtle” tag myself. And now, they’re not new. I know they wore them at least last year.

    But then again, and I’m wondering if it was just me, do it look the Miami HURRICANES were playing rather than the Dolphins? On the same note, I think the Hurricanes wore green jerseys last Saturday (yes, I know it’s not aqua, but close enough).

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 10:35 am |

    The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…

  • BGD | October 13, 2009 at 10:37 am |

    Braylon Edwards isn’t wearing double striped socks. He just has two pairs of socks with one on top of the other. The inner sock is pulled high, and the outer sock has some slack, making both pairs of stripes visible.

  • mackepj | October 13, 2009 at 10:37 am |

    I just got an “offer” from MLB.com. All authentic batting practice hats $9.99. In my limited experience this is the first step in introducing a new template. Hope springs eternal.

  • DenverGregg | October 13, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”353881″][quote comment=”353879″][quote comment=”353877″][quote comment=”353846″]I think there’s a link missing from “The horror, the horror (postgame shot courtesy of John Romero).”

    Bourbon makes breakfast better. A local rag yesterday mentioned a joint in Boulder that has Beam & Coffee on the morning menu.[/quote]

    Jim Beam, Yuck. Bourbon and Cream, Yuck. Wild Turkey 101 is the bourbon to use in syrup.[/quote]

    Woodford Reserve or Makers Mark[/quote]
    Both are better than Jim Beam[/quote]
    For drinking straight up, absolutely (Rebel Yell would be another good call), but I wouldn’t use the top shelf stuff to mix with syrup or coffee.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”353886″][quote comment=”353876″]I don’t get the “subtle” tag on the Dolphins photo. Are you just commenting on the garish orange outfits*, or is there something else?

    *true, they are garish, but they’re not new, are they?[/quote]

    I wondered about the “subtle” tag myself. And now, they’re not new. I know they wore them at least last year.

    But then again, and I’m wondering if it was just me, do it look the Miami HURRICANES were playing rather than the Dolphins? On the same note, I think the Hurricanes wore green jerseys last Saturday (yes, I know it’s not aqua, but close enough).[/quote]

    You got that right. Was thinking the same thing. The Dolphins’ orange alts aren’t bad looking, but if you at all subscribe to the concept of “product identity” the general look is far too similar to one long associated with the U of Miami. Not the Dolphins.

    If they’ll just DIE if they don’t have an alt for a night game, perhaps navy?
    Of course, then they’d kinda resemble Auburn, but at least that’s not exactly a team/school in their market.

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?

  • chance michaels | October 13, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    [quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

    IIRC, it’s a medical issue. If a player’s neck is hurt on a play, doctors need to be able to see their eyes to evaluate the injury without having to remove the helmet first.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    [quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

    There is a complaint amongst training staff that tinted visors make seeing an injured player’s eyes much more difficult. In a neck/head injury situation, you want to be sure that a player’s eyes can focus and follow a moving object with ease to test brain function. A tinted visor prevents that from happening when the helmet cannot/should not be removed.

    That’s the only complaint I can think of at this time.

  • Juggernaut | October 13, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    Leg pads are just he tip of the iceberg. They need to focus on chest protectors and all that. A guy like Tim Thomas is 5’8″ 170lbs and wears the largest chest protector and jersey (goalie cut to boot) possible. He’s a small guy that ends up taking up most of the net.

    A friend of mine was a professional goalie and he was always amazed at how small guys like Thomas and Belfour, both criminal offenders here, were, cause when you see them on TV you expect them, given these pads, to be some big hulking brutes.

    With the light weight of the equipment and size of the pads it just gives an unfair advantage. Go look back at a guy like Reggie Lemelin and compare his size to your average goalie today.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    We’ll Powers answer that form an official’s point of view.

    But I’d guess involves things like…

    If I’m playing defense in just about any sport, I want to be able to watch my opponent’s eyes. Hide them and he has a significant advantage.

    There’s also the matter of being able to check someone’s pupils, both in an injury situation and, in this day and age, for signs of “augmentation”.

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”353894″][quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

    There is a complaint amongst training staff that tinted visors make seeing an injured player’s eyes much more difficult. In a neck/head injury situation, you want to be sure that a player’s eyes can focus and follow a moving object with ease to test brain function. A tinted visor prevents that from happening when the helmet cannot/should not be removed.

    That’s the only complaint I can think of at this time.[/quote]

    I didn’t think it was that hard for them to take a facemask off… but, fair enough. That answers the question and at least makes some sense.

  • M.Princip | October 13, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”353884″]Seems like football pants are creeping up higher on players. They’re abandoning their knee and thigh pads for less compression i guess. Sooner or later they’re gonna wear boyshorts along with their tank top jerseys …..
    [/quote]

    Don’t be ridiculous.

  • ken | October 13, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    Goalie Equiptment – I think the league wants to do this to get goal scoring up. But I don’t think it will work. One of my friends plays in a “beer” league and is a big Martin Brodeur fan (in fact he has the same equiptment and plays a similar style) but his GGA isn’t as good as Marty’s so it isn’t the equiptment that makes the goalies good.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

    I actually don”t know…but I have to enforce it!
    luckily, I haven’t come across any in the two years that I have been officiating, although some of my colleagues have.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”353897″][quote comment=”353894″][quote comment=”353892″][quote comment=”353887″]The current look of bike short footbal pants is ridiculous. What the pros do filters down to college and then to HS and below.

    Before each HS game, we officials conference with each head coach and ask them if all players are properly equipped. If during the course of the game, we find that a player is not, it is a 15 yard penalty on the coach.

    Usually, it is a hip or “butt pad” that causes the problem, but lately it had been tinted shields and a lack of hip and thigh pads…[/quote]

    Ok, I’ll bite. Why are tinted visors an issue? Aside from the general sillyness of sunglasses at night… what difference does it make if a player’s visor is clear or not?[/quote]

    There is a complaint amongst training staff that tinted visors make seeing an injured player’s eyes much more difficult. In a neck/head injury situation, you want to be sure that a player’s eyes can focus and follow a moving object with ease to test brain function. A tinted visor prevents that from happening when the helmet cannot/should not be removed.

    That’s the only complaint I can think of at this time.[/quote]

    I didn’t think it was that hard for them to take a facemask off… but, fair enough. That answers the question and at least makes some sense.[/quote]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.

  • Hank | October 13, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”353882″]I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.[/quote]

    You may be correct. Photo of Lee at “I’m calling it Shea” (win #5) sans button http://assets.nydail...

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:53 am |

    [quote comment=”353902″][quote comment=”353882″]I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.[/quote]

    You may be correct. Photo of Lee at “I’m calling it Shea” (win #5) sans button http://assets.nydail...

    Button probably screws with reception of signals from the mother ship.

    Oh, wait…that would be BILL Lee.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment=”353899″]Goalie Equiptment – I think the league wants to do this to get goal scoring up. But I don’t think it will work. One of my friends plays in a “beer” league and is a big Martin Brodeur fan (in fact he has the same equiptment and plays a similar style) but his GGA isn’t as good as Marty’s so it isn’t the equiptment that makes the goalies good.[/quote]

    NHL goalies are able to combine extraordinary skill with an unfair advantage. If your pads go up to your hips, you’re already cheating everytime you drop to the ice because you have no five-hole. The extensions block the opening.

    Martin Brodeur is one guy who has rarely changed the style of his pads over the course of his career. Look at a guy like Osgood who is shorter and not as skilled (arguably), and he’s had the same (or more) success than the greatest goaltender statistically that the game has ever seen.

    Skill factors in for sure, but larger pads will close the chasm between the real star goalies and the so-so goalies.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    Thanks to Chance and everyone who cleared up the visor question.

    Perhaps the most annoying, and least enforced NFHS uniform rule, concerns bicep bands and any type of adornment like them.

    http://farm4.static....

    Only a single wristband three inches from the wrist and a single towel no less than 4 inches in width and 12 inches in length can be worn.

    Alot of unobservant refs let this stuff go. I am curse with the keen eye of a uni-watcher.

  • Happy Joe | October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”353903″][quote comment=”353902″][quote comment=”353882″]I believe Cliff Lee has been buttonless his entire time with the Phillies.[/quote]

    You may be correct. Photo of Lee at “I’m calling it Shea” (win #5) sans button http://assets.nydail...

    Button probably screws with reception of signals from the mother ship.

    Oh, wait…that would be BILL Lee.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Nice shout out to the Spaceman, Ricko.

  • Juke Early | October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    First sewing tips. Now cooking. This is a full service site ;-)

    Go here at your perilous leisure-

    Amazing junk food!

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:59 am |

    Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

    They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

    Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

    —Ricko

  • Hank | October 13, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    Cliff Lee update: has button on alt cap http://www.latimes.c...

  • The Ol Goaler | October 13, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”353885″][quote comment=”353883″][quote comment=”353880″]Arkansas State at Louisiana Monroe tonight.

    Well, at least we’ll get a look at couple unis we don’t see very often.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    there’s a good reason for that

    and…there’s gonna be a MAROON OUT (i shit you not) tonight at ULM

    /sweet[/quote]

    Ah, marooned in Monroe, eh?
    What a bunch of maroons?

    (There, I got the two obvious ones out of the way quickly)

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Having broadcast several games from Malone Stadium (the second deck facing the pressbox didn’t exist back then), “Marooned in Monroe” is especially apt… Arkansas State will likely be wearing this combo, while ULM will likely be wearing this… not quite as “colorful” as last night, eh?

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 11:02 am |

    [quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

    They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

    Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    There has been some scrutiny over those players as well, Ricko. However, being that lacrosse is a fringe sport, safety always wins over entertainment. Personally, they look like cartoon superheroes: giant chests and arms, tiny legs.

  • Casey (Davis, CA) | October 13, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    The Montreal Canadiens apparently won’t allow Georges Laraque to change his number to 27. According to the normally outspoken Laraque, the team thinks it would be disrespectful to the Alexi Kovalev fans. Kovalev was a very popular player who wore 27 the past several years, and is now with Ottawa.

    http://habsinsideout...

    My take – the team shop has lots of Laraque 17 and Kovalev 27 inventory, and they don’t want to eat the cost. Laraque probably doesn’t want to pay them for it, either.

  • Jeff P(udlo) | October 13, 2009 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”353899″]Goalie Equiptment – I think the league wants to do this to get goal scoring up. But I don’t think it will work. One of my friends plays in a “beer” league and is a big Martin Brodeur fan (in fact he has the same equiptment and plays a similar style) but his GGA isn’t as good as Marty’s so it isn’t the equiptment that makes the goalies good.[/quote]
    That’s an effect the might like to see, but it’s not the point at all. What they want to do is stop goalie equipment from being made just to stop pucks and make it so it’s there primarily to protect the goalie- in short, they want to make it fair.

    Brodeur is one of the very few goalies that does not use the maximum size pads BTW- His are 34″ IIRC. They’re fitted to him.

    His chest protector on the other hand… there are pillows on the arms of that thing.

  • Dennis Rodman | October 13, 2009 at 11:09 am |

    The Pittsburgh Penguins have released their Blue Unis schedule
    http://www.post-gaze...

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment=”353912″][quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

    They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

    Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    There has been some scrutiny over those players as well, Ricko. However, being that lacrosse is a fringe sport, safety always wins over entertainment. Personally, they look like cartoon superheroes: giant chests and arms, tiny legs.[/quote]

    And those shoulder pads!
    Looks like they cut a hole dead center in the bottom of a canoe and stuck their head through it.

    Not bitching, just get a kick out of it.

    —Ricko

  • Jim | October 13, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

    They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

    Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Field hockey has equally strange looking equipment (at least to an ice hockey goalie like me). Look at the pads on this goalie, especially the glove: https://www.longstre...
    Transformers indeed!

    Now this is what a real goalie looks like: http://www.sabresleg...

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 11:28 am |

    [quote comment=”353917″][quote comment=”353908″]Not really on the subject, but don’t you love how huge the goal tenders are in indoor lacrosse?

    They’re like the mastadons of team sports.

    Or maybe the Transformers. I always imagine the guy inside alll that stuff is probably 5’9″ and 130 pounds.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Field hockey has equally strange looking equipment (at least to an ice hockey goalie like me). Look at the pads on this goalie, especially the glove: https://www.longstre...
    Transformers indeed!

    Now this is what a real goalie looks like: http://www.sabresleg...

    Field hockey was reduced from what it used to look like as well. The Beijing Olympics were the first major look at the new equipment standards, and it really didn’t lower the level of play.

    Most of the changes happened in 2007 that reduced the size of the chest protectors and goalie pads. In doing so, the FIH allowed the goaltenders to join the play if they so desired.

    Because they made the equipment smaller, they realized that players could move better. Therefore, the inclusion to allow the goaltenders to join the play made the transition to smaller pads easier since teams could now use them as an additional defender or “point man” in their offensive schemes.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    Does La-Monroe have a pharmacy school?

    http://www.ulm.edu/u...

  • marc | October 13, 2009 at 11:42 am |

    cliff lee with button while with tribe.

  • Charles N. | October 13, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    GREAT JUMPING JEHOSEPHAT! Paul (and contributor Bill Austin), thanks so much for the link to the handmade footballs (and I discovered, baseballs)! That’s awesome, I want to go out and buy one of everything he makes, heh. They look wonderfully antique, and yet the maker reccommends using them as intended! So cool. Now I will get absolutely nothing done today, as I will be daydreaming about antique baseballs and footballs.

  • chance michaels | October 13, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
    While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.

  • marc | October 13, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    this guy just doesn’t “get it.”

  • chance michaels | October 13, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
    While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]
    Ugh. That should be “visors are easy to remove.”

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 11:48 am |

    [quote comment=”353921″]cliff lee with button while with tribe.[/quote]

    Ahem… Cliff Lee NOT BUTTONLESS with the Phillies. That’s from Game One of the NLDS, kids.

  • JL | October 13, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”353872″][quote comment=”353869″][quote comment=”353858″][quote comment=”353857″]Check out the Bronco behind the kicker…what’s up with his honeycombed cleats?

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    pro combat cleats?

    are those shells on top of reg’lar cleats?[/quote]

    The McDavid hex pads, which are very similar to Nike Pro Combat, is the first thing that I thought of as well.

    As of now, there are only a few types of spats that go over cleats, but this doesnt seem to be any of those.

    Nike Str8 jacket:
    http://www.sportsdep...

    Spatz:
    http://ecx.images-am...

    Aside from asking Skiba, I am going to e-mail these guys the pic and ask them, because I am befuddled:

    Doug West – Equipment Manager
    Ronnie Bill – Assistant Equipment Manager
    Chris Valenti – Assistant Equipment Manager[/quote]

    If it’s any consolation, I’m pretty sure the player in question is Broncos punter Brett Kern, who was the holder for the kick. My guess is he’s wearing some type of soccer shoes, hence they look different than “football” cleats…no spats or anything, besides I think you can see a very small hint of a white logo on his right show (viewer’s left).

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    Frozen Coke? Not only do I remember it, I love it! I love the frozen cherry stuff too. Wonder what those would be like with a shot a bourbon…

    I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.

    I too miss the Raiders shield yard markers. Did the Chargers do that as well, or did they use diamonds?

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
    While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    I wasn’t angry at all when I posted that, was just saying I started thinking about it and realized it certainly wasn’t what I’d want to do. Wasn’t criticizing TheJeff at all. Was meaning we’d probably all not want to lie their while they farted around with anything before they could start checking us out.

    Nope, nor rancor intended. Sorry about that.

    –Rocik

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”353926″][quote comment=”353921″]cliff lee with button while with tribe.[/quote]

    Ahem… Cliff Lee NOT BUTTONLESS with the Phillies. That’s from Game One of the NLDS, kids.[/quote]

    Keep it rolling…

    Cliff Lee vs. the Nationals in mid-September.

    It appears he’s buttonless in regular everyday uniforms, but keeps the button in the alternates.

  • JL | October 13, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    And sorry a few minutes late, here is the best pic I can find of shoes Broncos punter Brett Kern could possibly be wearing…this photo appears on his wikipedia page and is dated Oct 4, 2009.

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”353884″]By the Way…Does anyone think the 80s were significant enough to have a year dedicated to them?[/quote]

    Well, judging from what’s on my iPod, and my love of the USFL and MISL, and the fact that the Nuggets jerseys were awesome, and even the Eagles looked good then, I’d give a resounding yes.

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”353929″][quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
    While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    I wasn’t angry at all when I posted that, was just saying I started thinking about it and realized it certainly wasn’t what I’d want to do. Wasn’t criticizing TheJeff at all. Was meaning we’d probably all not want to lie their while they farted around with anything before they could start checking us out.

    Nope, nor rancor intended. Sorry about that.

    –Rocik[/quote]

    No worries RickO… Rocik?… Rocky… whatever

    Text does a poor job of conveying tone of voice at times.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”353933″][quote comment=”353929″][quote comment=”353923″][quote comment=”353911″][quote comment=”353901″]

    You want to lie there waiting for them to unscrew your face mask—and then jostle your head in the removing of it—all before they could even check your pupils?

    Whoa.[/quote]

    I don’t even see the point in wearing a dark mask in the first place. I was just asking. Chill out.[/quote]
    While perhaps not the most tactful way of putting it, he was just responding to the notion that facemasks are easy to remove. They aren’t, especially if you’re trying to keep the player’s head completely still.

    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    I wasn’t angry at all when I posted that, was just saying I started thinking about it and realized it certainly wasn’t what I’d want to do. Wasn’t criticizing TheJeff at all. Was meaning we’d probably all not want to lie their while they farted around with anything before they could start checking us out.

    Nope, nor rancor intended. Sorry about that.

    –Rocik[/quote]

    No worries RickO… Rocik?… Rocky… whatever

    Text does a poor job of conveying tone of voice at times.[/quote]

    Damn, I just inadvertently revealed my name back on my home planet. Now Bill Lee and I may have to leave. Rickey Henderson, too.

    —Ricko

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    I too miss the Raiders shield yard markers. Did the Chargers do that as well, or did they use diamonds?

    think they used barcodes

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

    it’s all becoming very clear now, jim

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 12:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”353936″][quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

    it’s all becoming very clear now, jim[/quote]

    Tomorrow, Diet Coke over Lucky Charms.
    (or Red Bull if you really need to get going in a hurry).

  • mike 2 | October 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 12:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    Indeed, hence all the dark glasses on thrill-a-minute TV Poker.

    Not seeing the competition’s eyes (who can say the precise situation) is something of a disadvantage.

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 12:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”353937″][quote comment=”353936″][quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

    it’s all becoming very clear now, jim[/quote]

    Tomorrow, Diet Coke over Lucky Charms.
    (or Red Bull if you really need to get going in a hurry).[/quote]

    You get me, you really really get me!

    That sounds almost as good yesterday’s lunch of canned tuna and cheddar chex mix. Add a little cracked black pepper and when it all soaks together it’s goooood.

  • mike 2 | October 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm |

    I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.

    Never bothered this guy:

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

  • mike 2 | October 13, 2009 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.

  • mmwatkin | October 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    Ahh yes…memories of my mom bribing me with a white cherry frozen coke if I behaved myself at Target.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    Interesting work from LI Phil and JTH on Sunday.

    The poll made me wonder what the results did reveal about the Uniwatch group that we didn’t already know. I don’t think it was exactly a secret that most here would call themselves “traditionalists” and everyone knew this blog had a majority male readership. If there’s been any prior polls, how was the response rate then? Has the readership changed “locations”? I for one was a little surprised to see that the readership wasn’t as East Coast-centric as I gathered from reading the comments here.

    The other thing brought to mind was whether this blog has ever led the conversation: we’ve read interviews with team and league officials about what will happen in the future, but has anyone ever consulted the writers about a decision before it’s made?

  • mtjaws | October 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”353891″][quote comment=”353886″][quote comment=”353876″]I don’t get the “subtle” tag on the Dolphins photo. Are you just commenting on the garish orange outfits*, or is there something else?

    *true, they are garish, but they’re not new, are they?[/quote]

    I wondered about the “subtle” tag myself. And now, they’re not new. I know they wore them at least last year.

    But then again, and I’m wondering if it was just me, do it look the Miami HURRICANES were playing rather than the Dolphins? On the same note, I think the Hurricanes wore green jerseys last Saturday (yes, I know it’s not aqua, but close enough).[/quote]

    You got that right. Was thinking the same thing. The Dolphins’ orange alts aren’t bad looking, but if you at all subscribe to the concept of “product identity” the general look is far too similar to one long associated with the U of Miami. Not the Dolphins.

    If they’ll just DIE if they don’t have an alt for a night game, perhaps navy?
    Of course, then they’d kinda resemble Auburn, but at least that’s not exactly a team/school in their market.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If I remember correctly, when the Dolphins first introduced the orange alts, there was lots of speculation that they wanted to remind people of the Hurricanes. And therefore get Cane fans to become Dolphin fans too. The team never said that, but there is that incentive to get people to be fans of both.

    I associate aqua and orange as the Dolphins colors, so having a navy alt would be out of place. It works as an accent color, and for some hats and shirts, but isn’t one of the two dominant colors of the team.

    I enjoyed the rare orange appearance (and awesome win!), but would rather they simply wear aqua with white at home, white with aqua on the road. I know they always reverse home/away, but wish they didn’t.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    Try Again

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.

    Never bothered this guy:

    http://www.angelfire...

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”353937″][quote comment=”353936″][quote]I had a mix of vodka, brandy and vanilla that was great with pancakes and syrup.[/quote]

    it’s all becoming very clear now, jim[/quote]

    Tomorrow, Diet Coke over Lucky Charms.
    (or Red Bull if you really need to get going in a hurry).[/quote]

    Reminds me – if you want a disgusting-looking but very delicious dessert, take equal parts Pepsi and Mountain Dew, then add a scoop of cookies and cream ice cream to it. I call it “Toxic Sludge,” but I’m thinking of renaming it” UFL Delight.”

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”353934″]Damn, I just inadvertently revealed my name back on my home planet. Now Bill Lee and I may have to leave. Rickey Henderson, too.[/quote]
    So they’ve let you know that you’re free to return now?

    ;-)

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”353881″]
    Both are better than Jim Beam[/quote]
    And Joe Buck too.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko

  • We Got Ns In The Backfield | October 13, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

    Please – the Dolphins are aqua and coral.

    I didn’t mind the coral jerseys last night at all.

  • mtjaws | October 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm |

    Oops,

    That should be this aqua over white uni picture for my preferred Dolphins at home uniforms (in post #100).

  • Hank | October 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”353924″]this guy just doesn’t “get it.”[/quote]

    “Some 1700s long-snapper.” Brilliant writing. I guess the “D” in his name is for Dope.

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 13, 2009 at 12:47 pm |

    Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.

  • mmwatkin | October 13, 2009 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I never have liked green pants in football. I was so happy when Michigan State switched to white pants on the road

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]
    Just cause they’re better than, say, the Browns’ brown pants does not make them good. I think the Jets’ all-white uniform is one of the best roadies in football and the green pants just mucks it all up.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 1:16 pm |

    “If I remember correctly, when the Dolphins first introduced the orange alts, there was lots of speculation that they wanted to remind people of the Hurricanes. And therefore get Cane fans to become Dolphin fans too. ”

    LOL. I can practically guarantee you no conversations like that ever took place with the Dolphins. That’s bloggers trying to imagine what it’s like on the inside of a pro sports organization. Don’t buy into it. Dolphins chose orange simply because the only other option for an alt would be navy. Nothing more than that.

    Given the popularity of the NFL and the Dolphins, I simply cannot imagine them feeling the need to focus time and money on Hurricane fans as a market segment. Just…no. Would be like saying, “Let’s target the Methodists”. If they target all football fans, that’ll capture Hurricane fans in the process.

    And I wasn’t supporting that navy jersey. Said if they absolutely feel the need to have one, navy would be a look they could own in South Florida, not one they’d share with the Hurricanes. That’s all.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 1:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    iggles green pants, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

    jets should never wear green pants…BUT…at least they have the good sense to wear white socks, AND they have stripes

    dolfish, on the other hand, should NOT wear orange undersocks

    they should have worn white striped socks with that getup

  • Shaggy | October 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm |

    No Mas made the list!
    http://best.complex....
    And what a horrible list it is…

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 1:27 pm |

    Phil,

    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

    The mystery of Brett Kern solved:

    http://www.worldsocc...

    http://www.worldsocc...

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”353964″]Phil,

    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

    The mystery of Brett Kern solved:

    http://www.worldsocc...

    http://www.worldsocc...

    oops, here it is:

    http://www.motorcity...

    Ronaldhino’s signature boots:

    http://www3.pictures...

    http://www.patohome....

  • DJ | October 13, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    iggles green pants, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

    The Eagles refer to it as “midnight green.”

  • joe | October 13, 2009 at 1:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
    but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    I think something we’re missing here in the pad debate is that the game itself has changed. The style of goaltending has changed dramatically, the speed, size, and capabilities of today’s players far outweighs that of yesteryear. I highly doubt that any goalie prior to the late 80’s would want to face a slapper from one of today’s players with his old equipment.

    I do think that goalie pads are a tad oversized, but not by as much as people would think. In the end I think this may force smaller goalies to change their style of play as the butterfly style of today is very equipment dependent. Although most sports favor larger players these days so I guess that’s not a big deal.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
    but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

    They look to be in nearly identical areas of the crease but Kipprusoff is more upright and inflated whereas the other tender is hunched over and is just in terrible posture for a goalie. Granted he obviously doesn’t have much for chest protection compared to Kipper.

  • JK | October 13, 2009 at 2:01 pm |

    Okay, but WHY does Cliff Lee remove the button???!!!? This mystery has been plaguing me since he signed with the Phils. I’ve even written in before about it… http://www.uniwatchb...

  • bourbon soaked idiot | October 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    iggles green pants, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

    jets should never wear green pants…BUT…at least they have the good sense to wear white socks, AND they have stripes

    dolfish, on the other hand, should NOT wear orange undersocks

    they should have worn white striped socks with that getup[/quote]

    Those green pants are great.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
    but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

    So was Rogie Vachon an anorexic midget? Because the net in his picture is HUGE compared to him. And I’m saying that Vachon’s height and weight are no different than, say, Chris Osgood.

  • mmwatkin | October 13, 2009 at 2:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”353972″][quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
    but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

    So was Rogie Vachon an anorexic midget? Because the net in his picture is HUGE compared to him. And I’m saying that Vachon’s height and weight are no different than, say, Chris Osgood.[/quote]

    To be fair, the first pic is taken from an “above the bar” aspect compared the second pic which is taken from a lower angle. Not saying the first goaltender is the same size, but it is probably closer than it looks.

    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get!

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?

  • Tyler | October 13, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    If you really want to compare the difference in pads beingfit for a player and pads being big for being big sake compare Brodeur and Fleury in this photo. Keep in mind Brodeur is 6’2″ 216 lbs one of the bigger goalies in the league. Fleury is 6’1″ 180 pounds. Yet Brodeurs gear is much smaller. Also compare the chest and arm protectors in the background.
    http://i256.photobuc...

  • Mark W | October 13, 2009 at 2:25 pm |

    Maple Syrup and Liquor? Sounds a lot like Sortilege – Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.

    http://en.wikipedia....

  • mike 2 | October 13, 2009 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”353972″][quote comment=”353967″][quote comment=”353946″][quote comment=”353942″]I posted these a couple of days ago. I think its pretty illustrative.

    http://thatsmyboy03....

    http://www.sharkspag...

    It also appears that Kipper is over a foot taller and wider than the Rogie Vachon…. which isn’t true. Kiprusoff is five inches taller and 24 pounds heavier.

    Unless you have both goalies standing in exactly the same spot in the goal crease, the images can make them look a lot taller or a lot smaller. As you can see, the nets are entirely a different size… and they have yet to change in the last 40 years.[/quote]
    but looking at their positions in the crease Kipper is actually closer to the net (not much)and should look smaller, but looks way bigger.[/quote]

    So was Rogie Vachon an anorexic midget? Because the net in his picture is HUGE compared to him. And I’m saying that Vachon’s height and weight are no different than, say, Chris Osgood.[/quote]

    I picked Vachon for the “old school” picture because, in my head anyway, he’s the icon for looking tiny in the net with his exaggerated crouch.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm |

    Garth Snow: 6’3″, 200 lbs.

    Ron Hextall: 6’3″, 200 lbs.

    There’s your comparison. Snow looks like a sumo wrestler. You can’t even see his pants!

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    [quote]Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.[/quote]

    so, basically, year round then

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”353978″]
    I picked Vachon for the “old school” picture because, in my head anyway, he’s the icon for looking tiny in the net with his exaggerated crouch.[/quote]

    I agree that his crouch is exaggerated, but the comparison falls apart at that point. I don’t think there has been anyone who has gotten as small as Vachon ever and been as good.

    Speaks volumes to his ability, though.

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”353968″]I think something we’re missing here in the pad debate is that the game itself has changed. The style of goaltending has changed dramatically, the speed, size, and capabilities of today’s players far outweighs that of yesteryear. I highly doubt that any goalie prior to the late 80’s would want to face a slapper from one of today’s players with his old equipment.

    I do think that goalie pads are a tad oversized, but not by as much as people would think. In the end I think this may force smaller goalies to change their style of play as the butterfly style of today is very equipment dependent. Although most sports favor larger players these days so I guess that’s not a big deal.[/quote]

    Goalies from the 60’s and 70’s were much tougher then goalies today, their pads were pillows taped to their legs and many wore no mask at all and plenty of players could hit a puck just as hard as players today. Todays gear is specially designed and tested to provide as much protection and be as lightweight as possible.

    Changing the size of the gear won’t change the style of play, smaller goalies will still be able to use the butterfly they just might not cover as much but it’s bit just about size, some of the better goalies in the league are smaller. Tim Thomas won the Vezina trophy last year and is 5’11”. Playing goalies is more about, quickness, reflects, anticipation, and awareness then size.

  • mmwatkin | October 13, 2009 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

    I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

    Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

    It is just a different advantage for each.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

    I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

    Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

    It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

    Choosing to use larger pads is slightly different than being short or tall. Short people don’t choose to be short; they are. To make up for their competitive disadvantage, they are using larger padding to cover up holes that may be exposed. How is that not cheating?

    If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.

    And safety isn’t compromised because you are receiving the correct amount of padding for your height.

  • odessa steps magazin | October 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    glad to see that tidbit about the goalies I sent Paul did make its way into a column.

    I believe the day they discussed it, Kelly Hrudey was one of the co-hosts, since he brought the goalie perspective to the discussion.

  • Hott Rodd | October 13, 2009 at 2:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”353956″][quote comment=”353924″]this guy just doesn’t “get it.”[/quote]

    “Some 1700s long-snapper.” Brilliant writing. I guess the “D” in his name is for Dope.[/quote]

    I haven’t read the article but it may be best to keep in mind that DJ Gallo is a sports satirist.. everything should come with a grain of salt.

  • mmwatkin | October 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”353985″][quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

    I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

    Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

    It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

    If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.
    [/quote]

    but if you make the pads of equal relative size, it doesn’t level the playing field, but rather gives the advantage to the larger goaltenders. Larger guys=larger pads=larger blocked goal

    wouldn’t you agree?

    Wouldn’t you agree?

  • Skycat | October 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”353971″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    iggles green pants, otoh…i like those…maybe it’s the different shade of green (electric? green)

    jets should never wear green pants…BUT…at least they have the good sense to wear white socks, AND they have stripes

    dolfish, on the other hand, should NOT wear orange undersocks

    they should have worn white striped socks with that getup[/quote]

    Those green pants are great.[/quote]

    Dark pants are to football the equivalent of what dark jerseys are to baseball. Those who prefer the former are probably more amenable to the latter.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm |

    everything should come with a grain of salt.

    Or, at least be taken with one.

  • Kerry P | October 13, 2009 at 2:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”353919″]Does La-Monroe have a pharmacy school?

    http://www.ulm.edu/u...
    What gave that away?

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    You’ll have to excuse me-I’ve been pounding Canadian Maple whiskey all afternoon: but this goalie pad debate seems to me about the NHL trying to make it easier to score goals when everyone knows what they should really do is eliminate the offsides rule!

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”353985″][quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

    I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

    Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

    It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

    Choosing to use larger pads is slightly different than being short or tall. Short people don’t choose to be short; they are. To make up for their competitive disadvantage, they are using larger padding to cover up holes that may be exposed. How is that not cheating?

    If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.

    And safety isn’t compromised because you are receiving the correct amount of padding for your height.[/quote]

    Teebz hit it just right, think about this argument for positions players, Martin St. Louis is 5’9″ and Zdeno Chara is 6’9″ so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.

    Plus goalies pads are designed to protect them and nothing more, they aren’t supposed to be designed to help stop pucks or give the goalie an advantage. A 5’11” goalie wearing 38 pads has nothing to do with safety or protection.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”353989″]Dark pants are to football the equivalent of what dark jerseys are to baseball.[/quote]
    How so? I really don’t see the parallel.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.

    If he can be effective with it, then yes. They didn’t make Jimmy Wynn hit home runs with a 26 inch bat.

    (reslly sorry if I’m butting into a great argument-you guys keep it up) :)

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”353988″]
    Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

    No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

    It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?

  • Chase | October 13, 2009 at 3:02 pm |

    Re: cooking/breakfast tips

    Try putting your cereal bowl in the freezer the night before. A frozen bowl keeps the milk REALLY cold and delicious!

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 3:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”353988″][quote comment=”353985″][quote comment=”353984″][quote comment=”353975″][quote comment=”353974″]
    I think it is stupid to reduce the size of pads on smaller goalies. It will pretty much eliminate teams drafting or signing undersized goaltenders. as a shorter guy, we need all the help we can get![/quote]

    So you’d rather cheat than get by on skill and ability?[/quote]

    I don’t see it as cheating. If the current set up has allowed goalies of various sizes to succeed, why change it?

    Smaller goalies have the advantage of larger pads relative to their size, and taller goalies have longer arm spans and leg spans.

    It is just a different advantage for each.[/quote]

    If the pads are measured based upon your height and weight, everyone falls under the same standards, and, therefore, ability makes the difference.
    [/quote]

    but if you make the pads of equal relative size, it doesn’t level the playing field, but rather gives the advantage to the larger goaltenders. Larger guys=larger pads=larger blocked goal

    wouldn’t you agree?

    Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

    No they need larger pads because it’s a safety issue, a 6’3″ goalie using 35″ pads would expose some of his leg to shots. Pads are only their for safety so yes larger players would get larger pads. Is it fair that larger position players have larger feet and their fore larger skates and can control the puck easier that way, should all players no matter their size be required to wear the same size skate? Or should bigger and taller players be forced to wear smaller shoulder pads because they are already big and shouldn’t be allowed the proper safety equipment because it might give them an advantage. Plus if a goalie is relying on the size of his gear to make saves him shouldn’t be in the league anyways.

    It’s the only way to keep it fare

  • We Got Ns In The Backfield | October 13, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

    Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

    Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

    Pretty simple analogy to me.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 3:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

    Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

    Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

    Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]
    So EVERY team that doesn’t have those colors in their color scheme should only wear white on white?

    That’s boring as hell.

    And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]
    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm |

    McMahon as an Eagle

    I think he started wearing the dark visor when he was with the Chargers.

  • mike 2 | October 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”353996″][quote comment=”353988″]
    Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

    No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

    It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?[/quote]

    I’d take the more talented goalie over the less talented goalie any day of the week.

    But I’d also take the more talented goalie with giant net-filling padding over the very same goalie with tiny pads.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”354004″][quote comment=”353996″][quote comment=”353988″]
    Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

    No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

    It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?[/quote]

    I’d take the more talented goalie over the less talented goalie any day of the week.

    But I’d also take the more talented goalie with giant net-filling padding over the very same goalie with tiny pads.[/quote]

    Right, therefore…

    Cheating + skill = goalie who appears better than he actually is. These are the guys who will suffer when the new rules are in place. The guys who have been working on mostly skill will only have to adjust slightly.

  • DJ | October 13, 2009 at 3:35 pm |

    And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.

    I think he meant metallic gold. My theory is that pants should use the same principle as the helmet — if it isn’t a color that you would paint your car, it probably isn’t a good color for your helmet (or your pants).

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”354004″][quote comment=”353996″][quote comment=”353988″]
    Wouldn’t you agree?[/quote]

    No. That’s like saying that Manute Bol has an advantage that Michael Jordan does not. Michael Jordan’s size didn’t make him the best player in the league. His skill did.

    It’s ability, not height, that makes a good goaltender great. Otherwise, why doesn’t an NHL team find a sumo wrestler to play net?[/quote]

    I’d take the more talented goalie over the less talented goalie any day of the week.

    But I’d also take the more talented goalie with giant net-filling padding over the very same goalie with tiny pads.[/quote]

    It’s not giant net filling padding, all goalies will be under the same rules current rules only allow for pads to be 38″ high and 11″ wide. The only change the NHL is making is the height sizing for the height of the goalies.

    The best example for pads size meaning nothing is Martin Brodeur, arguably the greatest goalie to ever play the game uses much smaller pads most goalies even those much smaller then him. It’s al about skill, some of the best goalies to ever play were smaller guys. If it’s just about size why is Stephen Valiquette who is the tallest goalie in the league at 6’5″ is a backup to Henrick Lundqvist who is 6’1″.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

    Duh,

    http://www.movieeye....

  • concealed78 | October 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm |

    Speaking of the Phillies blue button, anyone else think it should white instead of blue? I always found that to be one of the most oddest button choices in MLB. I think the Phillies would look better if they went to an all red & white scheme.

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

    Duh,

    http://www.movieeye....

    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • MPowers1634 | October 13, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 3:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”354006″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.

    I think he meant metallic gold. My theory is that pants should use the same principle as the helmet — if it isn’t a color that you would paint your car, it probably isn’t a good color for your helmet (or your pants).[/quote]
    Interesting theory. I would never paint my car this color but those pants look OK to me.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”354010″][quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

    Duh,

    http://www.movieeye....

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Forgot about Jim McMahan after he left the Bears, going to a dark visor, he wore it with the Chargers, too. Don’t remember him wearing a dark visor while in Chicago, clearly his peak years. Of course, you remember why you saw him with shades in those interviews, he had a childhood accident with a fork which injured one of his eyes, making that eye sensitive to light.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 3:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”354011″]One More:
    http://i.cdn.turner....
    Hmmm…. I could have sworn I’ve seen those last two pics somewhere before.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    Couple things I’d like to add to this goalie pad debate:

    1) Brodeur wasn’t a pure butterfly goalie, the larger pads would actually have hurt his style of play, not everyone can play his style just like he wouldn’t have been as successful as a butterflier. Same thing with Hasek.

    2) In the end size will become a bigger advantage/disadvantage as skill sets of NHL goaltenders aren’t wildly out of whack. Given nearly identical skill sets of a 5’9″ goalie vs a 6’2″ goalie with the new rules, the 6’2″ goalie will win in every case. Size will play a part in the future. Especially if smaller goalies continue to trend toward the butterfly style.

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”354016″]Couple things I’d like to add to this goalie pad debate:

    1) Brodeur wasn’t a pure butterfly goalie, the larger pads would actually have hurt his style of play, not everyone can play his style just like he wouldn’t have been as successful as a butterflier. Same thing with Hasek.

    2) In the end size will become a bigger advantage/disadvantage as skill sets of NHL goaltenders aren’t wildly out of whack. Given nearly identical skill sets of a 5’9″ goalie vs a 6’2″ goalie with the new rules, the 6’2″ goalie will win in every case. Size will play a part in the future. Especially if smaller goalies continue to trend toward the butterfly style.[/quote]

    1. Your Brodeur point is correct but it still goes to show that pad size isn’t everything, and just like everyone else smaller goalies will have to adjust, it’s just the game.

    2. To your zise argument, smaller NBA players have to play a different style then other players and while it might hurt a very small group of goalies, most will be able to adjust. These guys in the NHL are the best in the world and not just because of the size of their pads. They are more skilled and worked harder then anyone else. This change though has been coming for a few years so any goalie who will have to change his pads has know for a while and should have been trying to adjust his game if needed or at least get a feel for the new pads.

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

    Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

    Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

    Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]

    But then we’d never have these beauties:
    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://exhibits.base...

    Not saying I want every team in colorful pants, but I wouldn’t want every team in white or gray, either.

  • Skycat | October 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”353994″][quote comment=”353989″]Dark pants are to football the equivalent of what dark jerseys are to baseball.[/quote]
    How so? I really don’t see the parallel.[/quote]
    My point was that light football pants are regarded as the more classic look in football in the same way as white or gray jerseys are in baseball.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”354016″]Couple things I’d like to add to this goalie pad debate:

    1) Brodeur wasn’t a pure butterfly goalie, the larger pads would actually have hurt his style of play, not everyone can play his style just like he wouldn’t have been as successful as a butterflier. Same thing with Hasek.

    2) In the end size will become a bigger advantage/disadvantage as skill sets of NHL goaltenders aren’t wildly out of whack. Given nearly identical skill sets of a 5’9″ goalie vs a 6’2″ goalie with the new rules, the 6’2″ goalie will win in every case. Size will play a part in the future. Especially if smaller goalies continue to trend toward the butterfly style.[/quote]

    It’s not a disadvantage being short! Stop calling it that! You play the cards you were dealt, or you walk away. It’s that simple.

    If a 6’2″ goalie was the norm in the NHL, guys like Curtis Joseph (5’11”), Jose Theodore (5’11”), and John Vanbiesbrouck (5’8″) wouldn’t have stood a chance against guys like Sean Burke (6’4″) and Martin Biron (6’3″).

    The average height of today’s goaltenders is about 6’1″. There are shorter guys and there are taller guys. Changing the HEIGHT of their pads only makes them more honest in their trade. Instead of letting the taller pads do the work in covering the five-hole and the wider chest protectors cover the holes under the arms, they will have to adapt or they will lose their jobs. Short goalies will now have to earn their jobs purely through skill rather than a combination of ginormous padding and some skill.

    It’s not unfair that anyone is short. That’s genetics. If you want to complain, take it up with science.

    Pads are there to protect the goaltender, not make the save for the goaltender. That’s what this new rule change is about.

  • M.Princip | October 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”354015″][quote comment=”354011″]One More:
    http://i.cdn.turner....
    Hmmm…. I could have sworn I’ve seen those last two pics somewhere before.[/quote]

    Dan McGwire: http://www.darrenbac...

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

    so…none of these then?

    (except for the white over white)

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”354019″][quote comment=”353994″][quote comment=”353989″]Dark pants are to football the equivalent of what dark jerseys are to baseball.[/quote]
    How so? I really don’t see the parallel.[/quote]
    My point was that light football pants are regarded as the more classic look in football in the same way as white or gray jerseys are in baseball.[/quote]
    Classic? I guess it depends on the definition of the word.

    http://www.dotphoto....

    http://dsf.chesco.or...

    http://a.espncdn.com...

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”354022″][quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

    so…none of these then?

    (except for the white over white)[/quote]
    You could almost make a case for the red over yellow, with the appropriate socks.

    ALMOST.

  • JimV19 | October 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”354022″][quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

    so…none of these then?

    (except for the white over white)[/quote]

    What, no yellow jersey with red pants? ;)

    I really like the red over yellow. Not sure about the rest – probably because the Chiefs have one of my favorite unis. I wouldn’t want to mess with them too much.

  • David Hutchison | October 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

    The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
    inGoal Magazine

  • Chuck | October 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”354026″]I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

    The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
    inGoal Magazine[/quote]

    Pads are supposed to be there for protection only, the fact that they have become tools for stopping pucks is the problem. And to your argument the other way how is it fair that a shorter goalie should get pads that fit him much bigger then others. What the NHL is doing is making it fair and level. That your pads will fit your the way they should to protect you and nothing else. Why should a shorter goalies get a 5 inch thigh rise and a taller goalie only get a 1 inch thigh rise.

  • JohnnyO | October 13, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”354014″][quote comment=”354010″][quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

    Duh,

    http://www.movieeye....

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Forgot about Jim McMahan after he left the Bears, going to a dark visor, he wore it with the Chargers, too. Don’t remember him wearing a dark visor while in Chicago, clearly his peak years. Of course, you remember why you saw him with shades in those interviews, he had a childhood accident with a fork which injured one of his eyes, making that eye sensitive to light.[/quote]

    Here is a great article on Jimmy Mac wearing a Bear’s jersey when he went to visit the White House as part of the Super Bowl Champion Packers in 1997. Anyways… the picture in the article shows Jimmy Mac with a tinted visor with his stint with the Packers. How many other players have won a Championship with the Packers and Bears?

    http://bleacherrepor...

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”354026″]I can’t stand the proportional sizing rule for goalies. The pads are clearly there as tools for stopping the puck, not just protection. As such, why should one goalie get larger gear to wear simply because he is taller?

    The hockey News had a nice article explaining how the sizing would work, and I did a follow up on it for
    inGoal Magazine[/quote]

    So why doesn’t an NHL team simply sign a piece of plywood that stands 5′ tall and 6′ wide, and cut tiny slots in it to give the appearance that goals can be scored on it?

    Do larger people buy the same size clothing as smaller people? Do you think that Andre the Giant would shop at the same store as Charlie Chaplin?

    So why does Charlie Chaplin get to wear padding that only Andre the Giant could wear? Because he can?

    Just because a goalie can wear larger equipment doesn’t give him the right to.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm |

    Teebz, I think I got myself a bit off track. All I’m trying to convey is that a goalie currently wearing a 34+4 is hampered by this rule far more than a goalie wearing a 37+1. Right or wrong, fair or not, genetic or not, initially this is going to be a big disadvantage. So much in some cases that a goalie will have to completely alter his style of play to have a chance at success.

  • JohnnyO | October 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”354029″][quote comment=”354014″][quote comment=”354010″][quote comment=”354008″][quote comment=”354000″][quote comment=”353953″][quote comment=”353944″][quote comment=”353939″][quote comment=”353938″][quote comment=”353923″]
    Again IIRC, NFL players need a special prescription to wear tinted visors in a game. LaDainian Tomlinson has a light-sensitive condition, and that’s why he is allowed to wear one.[/quote]

    Forgetting about the injury issue for the sake of argument, doesn’t a tinted visor give a competitive advantage to a RB or QB?

    I mean, imagine you’re a defender and Tomlinson or Peterson is coming at you and you can’t see which way he’s looking, where his eyes are leading him? That seems like a huge advantage to the ball carrier.[/quote]

    You’re taught to follow the running back’s hips in football, not the eyes. The only players I know that watch eyes are defensive backs to try and get a read as to where the ball has been thrown.[/quote]

    Agreed on the hips – that’s certainly how we played in high school. I was thinking in the pros they’d be looking at more things and it’d be at least a small advantage.[/quote]

    If I’m a WR and I can come up to the line of scrimmage and look anywhere, or at anyone, I choose…and know it won’t tip off my route, that’s a HUGE advantage. Because any DB worth a damn is watching my eyes, at those moments anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall QB Dan McGwire at San Diego State with a dark visor, and a QB at Purdue in the early 1990s who wore dark visors, but think of anyone else at the moment.[/quote]

    Duh,

    http://www.movieeye....

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Forgot about Jim McMahan after he left the Bears, going to a dark visor, he wore it with the Chargers, too. Don’t remember him wearing a dark visor while in Chicago, clearly his peak years. Of course, you remember why you saw him with shades in those interviews, he had a childhood accident with a fork which injured one of his eyes, making that eye sensitive to light.[/quote]

    Here is a great article on Jimmy Mac wearing a Bear’s jersey when he went to visit the White House as part of the Super Bowl Champion Packers in 1997. Anyways… the picture in the article shows Jimmy Mac with a tinted visor with his stint with the Packers. How many other players have won a Championship with the Packers and Bears?

    http://bleacherrepor...

    Here is another link from Packers.com. You can clearly see Jimmy Mac wearing his dark visor at the top, but in the bottom banner pic., he is not wearing one.

    http://www.packers.c...

    Jimmy Mac in a Cards uni.. weird:
    http://www.geocities...

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”354031″]Teebz, I think I got myself a bit off track. All I’m trying to convey is that a goalie currently wearing a 34+4 is hampered by this rule far more than a goalie wearing a 37+1. Right or wrong, fair or not, genetic or not, initially this is going to be a big disadvantage. So much in some cases that a goalie will have to completely alter his style of play to have a chance at success.[/quote]

    I agree, Thomas. I’m not saying there won’t be adjustments.

    The problem you’re going to see is that goalies have become far too reliant on their equipment instead of their abilities. Those “short” goalies who have done that will suffer immensely.

    But they shouldn’t be relying on their pads to do the work for them. If you want to be lazy, the NHL isn’t for you.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 4:43 pm |

    Bah, I deleted the end of my post on accident. While I’ve grown up with nothing but oversized pads for the majority of my playing/coaching career I don’t notice as much as some people would. I can agree with those of you that are saying that the pads have become the tool of the save in some areas rather than the tool of safety.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 4:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”354022″][quote comment=”354001″]And I sure as hell don’t want to see the Chiefs wearing gold pants with their white jerseys.[/quote]

    so…none of these then?

    (except for the white over white)[/quote]

    I do like the red jersey/yellow pants combo, also would like to see one red arrowhead on each leg, in the hip area. Always thought KC under utilized their sharp logo.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 4:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”354031″]Teebz, I think I got myself a bit off track. All I’m trying to convey is that a goalie currently wearing a 34+4 is hampered by this rule far more than a goalie wearing a 37+1. Right or wrong, fair or not, genetic or not, initially this is going to be a big disadvantage. So much in some cases that a goalie will have to completely alter his style of play to have a chance at success.[/quote]

    This is why the NHL has given teams and goalies more then a years notice, the rule was supposed to be implemented last year but was pushed back one more season. So for the goalies who know their gear isn’t within the new rules they have had plenty of time to change and get used to their new gear and make any changes to their game that might need to be made.

  • Seth H | October 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm |

    “Teebz hit it just right, think about this argument for positions players, Martin St. Louis is 5′9″ and Zdeno Chara is 6′9″ so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.”

    I think you have the argument 180 degrees from what it should be. The point is that St. Louis and Chara have to use sticks that conform to standard NHL size rules. (Not sure if there are length rules. I know there are blade rules.) The league does not say: “Chara, you are tall, you get to use a stick this size. St. Louis, you are short, you don’t get to use the stick that Chara uses.” Each player is free to choose the stick that best suits his needs, so long as it meets the league standard. One standard for all players.

    Imagine if MLB had a rule that Freddy Patek could only use a 29″ bat while George Theodore or Dave Winfield could use one 36″ long. If the league had such a rule, we would laugh at them.

    There should be one set of rules for all players. This lets skill show through.

  • Chris | October 13, 2009 at 5:06 pm |

    I know its not uni related, but after the MNF game yesterday someone needs to catalog the different names teams have for the Wildcat.

    The Jets call it Seminole since Leon Washington went to FSU. The Broncos call it Wild Horses. Wild Hog, Wild Tide, Wild Turkey…there are a lot of them out there.

  • chance michaels | October 13, 2009 at 5:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”354038″]”Teebz hit it just right, think about this argument for positions players, Martin St. Louis is 5′9″ and Zdeno Chara is 6′9″ so should the NHL let St. Louis play with a 8 foot stick because he is shorter.”

    I think you have the argument 180 degrees from what it should be. The point is that St. Louis and Chara have to use sticks that conform to standard NHL size rules. (Not sure if there are length rules. I know there are blade rules.) The league does not say: “Chara, you are tall, you get to use a stick this size. St. Louis, you are short, you don’t get to use the stick that Chara uses.” Each player is free to choose the stick that best suits his needs, so long as it meets the league standard. One standard for all players.

    Imagine if MLB had a rule that Freddy Patek could only use a 29″ bat while George Theodore or Dave Winfield could use one 36″ long. If the league had such a rule, we would laugh at them.

    There should be one set of rules for all players. This lets skill show through.[/quote]

    The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

    It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

    The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.

  • Seth H | October 13, 2009 at 5:15 pm |

    “The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

    It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

    The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

    Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

    MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 5:17 pm |

    NHL stick size rule is 63″ from heel to top of shaft and 12 1/2″ from heel to toe. Chara (and 5 other players over 6’6″) have a 2″ extension waiver from the league.

  • Lane | October 13, 2009 at 5:19 pm |

    No screen shot, but in the pats-broncos game I saw a patriots player with sleeves on his arms that had stripes to match the red socks. I saw it on tv just before a commercial when a timeout was called with 13 min left in overtime. I’ve never seen this, has anyone else?

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | October 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”354018″][quote comment=”353999″]Great point about comparing dark football pants to dark baseball jerseys.

    Football pants should be white, silver, or gold.

    Baseball jerseys should be white or gray.

    Pretty simple analogy to me.[/quote]

    I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties. B-O-R-I-N-G.
    Do you eat the same thing for breakfast everyday. Wear the same charcoal grey suit to the office everyday?

  • chance michaels | October 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
    Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.

  • Jeff P(udlo) | October 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”354042″]”The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

    It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

    The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

    Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

    MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.[/quote]

    Okay, the one rule for everyone is that every goalie must wear pads that are fitted so as to only serve as protection as intended and not as an aid for stopping the puck.

    Got it? Pads are not supposed to be about stopping the puck. They’re supposed to be for protection.

  • JohnnyO | October 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm |

    Think Breast Cancer Awareness is overdone? Some people at Newsweek agree:

    http://blog.newsweek...

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm |

    Since we’re talking about hockey (for once!) I’ll take this opportunity to plug the team I coach for and look for your opinions on our Unis. I sent them to Paul a few days ago for his take and I nailed it on the head in regards to what he’d say (except I didn’t expect the word gewgaws).

    Northwood University Timberwolves located in Midland, MI.

    Home White and Rear View

    Road Blue and Rear View
    Columbia Alt and Rear View

    Couple of things of note. Our logos are reversed by design. The home has had the script and the road, the logo, since the program’s inception in the early 80’s. Also, the columbia’s were donated by one of the families because their kids always said we should have a columbia alt. As bad as they are with their extras the kids love em.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
    Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

    I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”354042″][quote comment=”354042″]”The example of bats and sticks is not a good one.

    It’s the same reason why MLB rolled back the protective gear on hitters. They weren’t afraid of getting hit, so they would stand in closer. Instead of earning the inside corner, they were taking it.

    The NHL is now doing the same thing. Instead of you taking the shutout, we want to see you earn it.”

    Whether or not you think the analogy works, you fail to refute my thesis that there should be one set of rules for everyone.

    MLB does not tell David Eckstein that his protective equipment has to be smaller than David Ortiz’s, simply because Papi is bigger. Everyone has to play by the same rules.[/quote]

    There is one rule for everyone. You wear pads that fit your body, or you don’t play. Short goalies abused the 38″ rule, so now they will wear what fits.

    Tall or small, everyone will play according to their inseam measurement.

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 5:54 pm |

    i miss the days when garth snow dressed like this

    stop making sense teebz

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 6:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”354053″]i miss the days when garth snow dressed like this

    stop making sense teebz[/quote]

    Garth Snow: below-average GM, average goalie, talented dresser.

  • Kerry P | October 13, 2009 at 6:05 pm |

    NEW LOGO for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details HERE. And the team’s OFFICIAL WEBSITE has already made the switch.

    In case you’re wondering, here are a few OLD LOGOS

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 6:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”354051″][quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
    Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

    I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.[/quote]

    The Chiefs-Cowboys discussion nothwithstanding I, too, would have excluded the Dolphins and Bengals. The plain truth is, they simply were not there at the beginning, and ostensibly that’s what this is all about.

    In fact, I’d have mandated that the original 8 wear their 1960 unis, no exceptions. They aren’t recognizing the entire 50 years, they’re recalling Year One.

    That way everyone finally could have seen the three-cornered-hat Patriots, loopless Titans, royal & silver Bills, correct Oilers (their Legacy roads have a couple pretty glaring mistakes), blue-bolt Chargers and black & gold Raiders, all of which—like the Broncos’ gold & brown until last Sunday—have never seen live in color on TV. And still haven’t been.

    That’s if they were more than half-assed serious about their own history, of course.

    —Ricko

  • Greg B. | October 13, 2009 at 6:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”353977″]Maple Syrup and Liquor? Sounds a lot like Sortilege – Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.
    [/quote]

    Here in Nova Scotia there is a maple dessert wine:

    http://www.jostwine....

    (scroll down a bit)

    It’s actually pretty good, as evidenced by comments here and elsewhere:

    http://winepost.blog...

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 6:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”354055″]NEW LOGO for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details HERE. And the team’s OFFICIAL WEBSITE has already made the switch.

    In case you’re wondering, here are a few OLD LOGOS[/quote]

    Those old Zephyrs looked more like Bephyrs.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 6:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”354056″][quote comment=”354051″][quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
    Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

    I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.[/quote]

    The Chiefs-Cowboys discussion nothwithstanding I, too, would have excluded the Dolphins and Bengals. The plain truth is, they simply were not there at the beginning, and ostensibly that’s what this is all about.

    In fact, I’d have mandated that the original 8 wear their 1960 unis, no exceptions. They aren’t recognizing the entire 50 years, they’re recalling Year One.

    That way everyone finally could have seen the three-cornered-hat Patriots, loopless Titans, royal & silver Bills, correct Oilers (their Legacy roads have a couple pretty glaring mistakes), blue-bolt Chargers and black & gold Raiders, all of which—like the Broncos’ gold & brown until last Sunday—have never seen live in color on TV. And still haven’t been.

    That’s if they were more than half-assed serious about their own history, of course.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 6:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”353980″][quote]Canadian Maple Whiskey. A delicious concoction popular in Quebec during the Winter months.[/quote]

    so, basically, year round then[/quote]
    They’ve got all three seasons in Quebec: July, August and winter.

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 6:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”354030″]So why does Charlie Chaplin get to wear padding that only Andre the Giant could wear? Because he can?[/quote]

    Is there no disadvantage to having a shorter goalie wear oversized padding?? Does it ever cut down on his agility, speed, etc?

    To answer my own question, apparently not: but I wanted to put it to the board.

  • DenverGregg | October 13, 2009 at 7:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”354055″]NEW LOGO for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details HERE. And the team’s OFFICIAL WEBSITE has already made the switch.

    In case you’re wondering, here are a few OLD LOGOS[/quote]
    I’m still surprised that they kept the Dikeou family’s chosen team name when they moved the Zs from Denver. Seventeen seasons in NO and still named after a Denver train.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”354061″][quote comment=”354030″]So why does Charlie Chaplin get to wear padding that only Andre the Giant could wear? Because he can?[/quote]

    Is there no disadvantage to having a shorter goalie wear oversized padding?? Does it ever cut down on his agility, speed, etc?

    To answer my own question, apparently not: but I wanted to put it to the board.[/quote]

    In one word? No.

    Why move to make a save if you’re short? Just let the pads do all the work.

    In all seriousness, it would make them slower to a degree, but that would be made up for in spades with the bigger pads. The larger pads would cover more of the holes they are forced to cover with smaller pads.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 7:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”354059″]
    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but here’s a good view of them. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.

  • Helmets Match Pants | October 13, 2009 at 7:24 pm |

    I’d like to be Manon Rheaume’s pads –
    Her maxi-pads!

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    [/quote]

    If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

    All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.

  • Gusto44 | October 13, 2009 at 7:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but here’s a good view of them. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

    Someone once described them as diapers, good thing they switched to blue.

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 7:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”354063″]
    In one word? No.

    Why move to make a save if you’re short? Just let the pads do all the work.

    In all seriousness, it would make them slower to a degree, but that would be made up for in spades with the bigger pads. The larger pads would cover more of the holes they are forced to cover with smaller pads.[/quote]
    Okay, so doesn’t this just lead to a war of pad height? Even the guy who’s 6-6 would want the tallest pads possible, wouldn’t he?

    If everyone is free to go up to their own personal limit of “dexterity” with the height of their pads then everyone will be equal I’d say.

  • Oakville Endive | October 13, 2009 at 7:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but here’s a good view of them. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

    I don’t think the white pants made it through their entire first season, I think they were given the boot after a few months. At one time, that site showed both pants for the initial season.

  • Jeff P(udlo) | October 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”354059″][quote comment=”354056″][quote comment=”354051″][quote comment=”354047″][quote comment=”354045″][quote comment=”354040″][quote comment=”354036″][quote comment=”354027″][quote comment=”353854″]all AFL throwbacks in one spot:
    http://sportsillustr...

    Do the Miami Dolphins have a throwback uni?[/quote]

    You are correct, sir. In 1994, Miami wore their 1972 era uniforms a couple of times.[/quote]

    But to answer the question, no. The throwback event is only for the eight original clubs. The Bengals aren’t in on the fun either.[/quote]

    When you stop and think about it, that doesn’t make sense, especially when other non-AFL clubs are wearing throwbacks this season. Old AFL clubs like Miami and Cincy should be wearing their AFL era uniforms in these AFL throwback games. The early 1970s era uniforms both clubs wore is basically the same they wore in the last year of the AFL.[/quote]
    Well, I don’t know that it doesn’t make sense. Only the charter members are celebrating the anniversary of the league’s inaugural season.[/quote]

    I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think including the Dolphins and Bengals would have detracted at all from the AFL’s 50th. I don’t have the Bengals schedule in front of me, but it would have been better for the Bengals and Chiefs to play in throwbacks instead of the Cowboys and Chiefs.[/quote]

    The Chiefs-Cowboys discussion nothwithstanding I, too, would have excluded the Dolphins and Bengals. The plain truth is, they simply were not there at the beginning, and ostensibly that’s what this is all about.

    In fact, I’d have mandated that the original 8 wear their 1960 unis, no exceptions. They aren’t recognizing the entire 50 years, they’re recalling Year One.

    That way everyone finally could have seen the three-cornered-hat Patriots, loopless Titans, royal & silver Bills, correct Oilers (their Legacy roads have a couple pretty glaring mistakes), blue-bolt Chargers and black & gold Raiders, all of which—like the Broncos’ gold & brown until last Sunday—have never seen live in color on TV. And still haven’t been.

    That’s if they were more than half-assed serious about their own history, of course.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    The red wings had a chance to wear white pants this winter classic, the unis they wore would have been matched with them.

    I want to see some NHL team bring that look back for a game. Perhaps the Canadians will drag them out for one of the throwback games this year- in the very early years of the NHL, they were the standard. Then they went to natural leather, then to colors.

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 7:58 pm |

    [quote comment=\”354068\”][quote comment=\”354063\”]
    In one word? No.

    Why move to make a save if you’re short? Just let the pads do all the work.

    In all seriousness, it would make them slower to a degree, but that would be made up for in spades with the bigger pads. The larger pads would cover more of the holes they are forced to cover with smaller pads.[/quote]
    Okay, so doesn’t this just lead to a war of pad height? Even the guy who’s 6-6 would want the tallest pads possible, wouldn’t he?

    If everyone is free to go up to their own personal limit of “dexterity” with the height of their pads then everyone will be equal I’d say.[/quote]

    That’s exactly what the rule is invented and why its perfect and fair. All goalies pads will fit them all the same way, no goalie will have wider pads then they should not goalie will have taller pads then they should, no goalie will have nay advantage over any other goalie when it’s comes to equipment.

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm |

    More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 8:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews

  • Oakville Endive | October 13, 2009 at 8:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”354069″][quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but here’s a good view of them. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

    I don’t think the white pants made it through their entire first season, I think they were given the boot after a few months. At one time, that site showed both pants for the initial season.[/quote]

    In fact what “nhluniforms.com” says is: As if the Caps’ horrible record wasn’t enough to make them the laughingstock of the NHL, they had to deal with the ridicule that came with wearing white pants, which they did with their red jerseys for a few games at the beginning of the season. The white pants were quickly retired

  • Robert in Dallas | October 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm |

    Here is a nifty DIY sweater that a Cornhusker fan created in the ’60s. Nicely done.

    http://i62.photobuck...

    http://i62.photobuck...

  • leon | October 13, 2009 at 8:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]

    thanks (although the 2nd play from scrimmage was a 60 yd td pass)

  • Robert Eden | October 13, 2009 at 8:18 pm |

    Dang it, my previous post should say Robert Eden (per the Glorious Leader’s preference) instead of Robert in Dallas.

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 13, 2009 at 8:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”354066″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    [/quote]

    If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

    All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.[/quote]
    My issue is not with green (or colored) pants in general. The Chiefs’ red pants look sharp as do (I think) the Bears’ navy ones. I just don’t think the Jets greens look good at all. ESPECIALLY when paired with the green jersey… they look like big sticks of deodorant.

  • Giancarlo | October 13, 2009 at 8:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”354039″]
    The Jets call it Seminole since Leon Washington went to FSU. The Broncos call it Wild Horses. Wild Hog, Wild Tide, Wild Turkey…there are a lot of them out there.[/quote]
    Wait, are we talking about football or bourbon now?

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 8:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”354064″]Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]
    It actually does, but only if you navigate to the 1974-75 season first and then choose the Caps’ unis. If you go directly to the Caps’ unis and then pick 74-75, the whites aren’t shown for some reason.

    The same is true of the Winter Classic unis. If you go by team first and then pick the specific season you don’t see them. However, if you go to 2009-10, then select the Bruins or Flyers, they are shown (same for the Hawks & Wings last year and the Pens & Sabres the year before).

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 9:07 pm |

    I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

    That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

    I could go on.

    So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

    (Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

    —Ricko

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 9:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”354078″][quote comment=”354066″][quote comment=”353962″][quote comment=”353959″][quote comment=”353957″]Obviously the Dolphins’ shout-out to Tropicana is going to get the lion’s share of the discussion today but I’d like to blame the Jets loss on those fugly green pants.[/quote]

    I like the green pants. They’ve got stripes and everything. They’re a hell of a step up from the various teams with black (or brown) un-striped pants.

    I know I know, the 60’s Jets never wore green pants. But this uniform is 3 or 4 shades darker, and has a differently shaped logo, so it’s NOT the same thing. Therefore, the green pants are fine.[/quote]

    not a fan of the jets pants…something just not quite right about them…maybe it’s cuz they don’t match the helmet

    [/quote]

    If the Bears and Browns can wear all-white, the Jets can use green pants.

    All 3 fail to follow the “pants must match helmet” rule and the other 2 are generally considered classics.[/quote]
    My issue is not with green (or colored) pants in general. The Chiefs’ red pants look sharp as do (I think) the Bears’ navy ones. I just don’t think the Jets greens look good at all. ESPECIALLY when paired with the green jersey… they look like big sticks of deodorant.[/quote]
    There are definitely some teams that I think look terrible wearing dark pants: Chargers, Bengals(orange would be a huge improvement), Patriots, Cardinals, Saints, Dolphins to name a few.

    There are also some teams that I like in dark pants: Bears, Redskins, Eagles, Chiefs, Texans. I’m even warming to the Titans’ powder blues and I don’t hate the Jets’ greens — in both cases, only when paired with the white jerseys.

  • Mark K | October 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”354050″]Since we’re talking about hockey (for once!) I’ll take this opportunity to plug the team I coach for and look for your opinions on our Unis. I sent them to Paul a few days ago for his take and I nailed it on the head in regards to what he’d say (except I didn’t expect the word gewgaws).

    Northwood University Timberwolves located in Midland, MI.

    Home White and Rear View

    Road Blue and Rear View
    Columbia Alt and Rear View

    Couple of things of note. Our logos are reversed by design. The home has had the script and the road, the logo, since the program’s inception in the early 80’s. Also, the columbia’s were donated by one of the families because their kids always said we should have a columbia alt. As bad as they are with their extras the kids love em.[/quote]
    Two very different 8s in that home rear shot.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 9:19 pm |

    Yeah, that’s a shot from the league All-Star game. Knapp is wearing the old style uni with a columbia underlay while Valentage is wearing the new style. Hadn’t noticed that before I posted it.

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”354081″]I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

    That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

    I could go on.

    So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

    (Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Obviously.

    You have to admit it’s not a bad guideline. Add in exceptions for teams that use the same off-color for both home & away (Steelers, Giants), and an exception to allow white helmeted teams to use pants that match their home jerseys (Jets, Titans, Dolphins) and it pretty much works.

    Not sure if I’d like the Bengals in orange pants or not, and Denver would fail badly because of the swooshes… but other than that it’s not too bad.

    Not that it needs to be a real rule or anything, but if it was, maybe there’d be less use of the SAME DAMN SHADE OF NAVY across the league. More color variety wouldn’t be a bad thing.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”354084″]Yeah, that’s a shot from the league All-Star game. Knapp is wearing the old style uni with a columbia underlay while Valentage is wearing the new style. Hadn’t noticed that before I posted it.[/quote]
    I gotta say that I like 5 of the 6 pictures. Everything but the front view of the alts looks really nice. But even the front of the alt isn’t that bad. They’re a bit jumbled, but not ridiculously so.

    Any reason for no NOB on the road blues whereas the other two have NOBs?

  • M.Princip | October 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]

    Wonderful stuff, including those awesome 1996 Ravens uniforms.

  • =bg= | October 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”354065″]I’d like to be Manon Rheaume’s pads –
    Her maxi-pads![/quote]

    Well, that’s classy.

  • Thomas Clark | October 13, 2009 at 9:40 pm |

    [quote comment=\”354086\”][quote comment=\”354084\”]Yeah, that\’s a shot from the league All-Star game. Knapp is wearing the old style uni with a columbia underlay while Valentage is wearing the new style. Hadn\’t noticed that before I posted it.[/quote]
    I gotta say that I like 5 of the 6 pictures. Everything but the front view of the alts looks really nice. But even the front of the alt isn\’t that bad. They\’re a bit jumbled, but not ridiculously so.

    Any reason for no NOB on the road blues whereas the other two have NOBs?[/quote]

    The blues are the only uniforms that the players haven\’t been able to keep in recent years. However, with the Riehl family no longer in the program we may remove the names from the Alts as well to save on costs.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”354088″][quote comment=”354065″]I’d like to be Manon Rheaume’s pads –
    Her maxi-pads![/quote]

    Well, that’s classy.[/quote]
    Is it any wonder more women don’t visit?

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”354090″]
    Is it any wonder more women don’t visit?[/quote]What was the stat from the survey ? Five percent female, and 7 points UNDECIDED?

    BTW, I think (I just caught the news highlights) that for the Hawks opening night, Hull went no name on back while Espo had his name on the jersey.

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”354093″][quote comment=”354090″]
    Is it any wonder more women don’t visit?[/quote]What was the stat from the survey ? Five percent female, and 7 points UNDECIDED?

    BTW, I think (I just caught the news highlights) that for the Hawks opening night, Hull went no name on back while Espo had his name on the jersey.[/quote]
    Hull, Mikita and Esposito all wore era-appropriate replica jerseys. For some reason, Savard wore an Edge.

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

    [quote comment=”354085″][quote comment=”354081″]I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

    That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

    I could go on.

    So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

    (Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Obviously.

    You have to admit it’s not a bad guideline. Add in exceptions for teams that use the same off-color for both home & away (Steelers, Giants), and an exception to allow white helmeted teams to use pants that match their home jerseys (Jets, Titans, Dolphins) and it pretty much works.

    Not sure if I’d like the Bengals in orange pants or not, and Denver would fail badly because of the swooshes… but other than that it’s not too bad.

    Not that it needs to be a real rule or anything, but if it was, maybe there’d be less use of the SAME DAMN SHADE OF NAVY across the league. More color variety wouldn’t be a bad thing.[/quote]

    i played around with the bengals a while back…(removing the bumperstickers)

    they could really have some fun with the combos:

    set 1

    (thought i had a second set, can’t find it now)

    but the browns provide another example of how to fuck up use three colors in unique ways:

    set one

    set two

    proving that you don’t need monochrome or leotards, and can still have plenty of variety

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 10:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”354085″][quote comment=”354081″]I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

    That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

    I could go on.

    So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

    (Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Obviously.

    You have to admit it’s not a bad guideline. Add in exceptions for teams that use the same off-color for both home & away (Steelers, Giants), and an exception to allow white helmeted teams to use pants that match their home jerseys (Jets, Titans, Dolphins) and it pretty much works.

    Not sure if I’d like the Bengals in orange pants or not, and Denver would fail badly because of the swooshes… but other than that it’s not too bad.

    Not that it needs to be a real rule or anything, but if it was, maybe there’d be less use of the SAME DAMN SHADE OF NAVY across the league. More color variety wouldn’t be a bad thing.[/quote]

    We’re talking about getting rid of white jerseys sometimes, but we’d require some teams (based on the design of their home uis) to have different road pants? We’re saying the “contrast” issue is vanishing, and there was—and still is—a practical reason for them. There’s no practical reason to require different road pants.

    Besides, how you gonna legislate “good taste”? And who’s the arbiter of said good taste?

    Like it or not, teams have a right to wear ugly unis. Or unis some of us find to be ugly.

    —Ricko

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”354094″]Hull, Mikita and Esposito all wore era-appropriate replica jerseys.[/quote]
    Interesting. I didn’t know that-but I didn’t see the game and I was kind of incommunicado after about noon Saturday. I just went to the Hawk’s site, and it’s sort of amazing to see how “flat” the Indian Head logo looks on Espo.

    Very hard to find a picture of Hull during his playing days showing the back of his jersey. Plenty of him showing #16, one from the back during a fight with Howe (judging from his hair, pretty early in Bobby’s career) but not a lot from that early 70’s era. Maybe I don’t remember when they went to names on back.

    I guess in the era of 12 teams, they didn’t need more than the number though. :-)

  • anotherguy | October 13, 2009 at 10:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”354096″]And who’s the arbiter of said good taste?[/quote]
    Raises hand, waves it madly: “OOH, PICK ME, PICK ME!”

  • Taxman | October 13, 2009 at 10:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]
    Watching it off the DVR. Locally we all know this story, but it’s freat to get the Barry Levinson treatment and national exposure.

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 10:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”354099″][quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]
    Watching it off the DVR. Locally we all know this story, but it’s freat to get the Barry Levinson treatment and national exposure.[/quote]

    was incredible…everyone who didn’t see it should find out when it’s on again (i think 11 eastern tonight, plus tomorrow and thursday)

    totally worth it!

  • Taxman | October 13, 2009 at 10:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”354099″][quote comment=”354073″][quote comment=”354072″]More monsoon than maroon at Mason in Monroe.[/quote]

    you should be watching 30 for 30

    “the band that wouldn’t die”

    /great old footage & pretty neat interviews[/quote]
    Watching it off the DVR. Locally we all know this story, but it’s freat to get the Barry Levinson treatment and national exposure.[/quote]

    Oops- Should say “great” not freat…

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 10:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”354097″][quote comment=”354094″]Hull, Mikita and Esposito all wore era-appropriate replica jerseys.[/quote]
    Interesting. I didn’t know that-but I didn’t see the game and I was kind of incommunicado after about noon Saturday. I just went to the Hawk’s site, and it’s sort of amazing to see how “flat” the Indian Head logo looks on Espo.

    Very hard to find a picture of Hull during his playing days showing the back of his jersey. Plenty of him showing #16, one from the back during a fight with Howe (judging from his hair, pretty early in Bobby’s career) but not a lot from that early 70’s era. Maybe I don’t remember when they went to names on back.

    I guess in the era of 12 teams, they didn’t need more than the number though. :-)[/quote]
    The crest’s flatness is due to the gold trim. It looks fantastic up close, but the black outline makes the modern version pop a little more.

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 10:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”354096″][quote comment=”354085″][quote comment=”354081″]I certainly hope those who are saying “pants should always match helmets” aren’t the same ones who accuse some of us of wanting “every team to look alike.” Cuz that would be kinda anithetical, wouldn’t it?

    That “must match” rule would let out the unis of the Browns (except Sipe era), the Giants’ Super Bowl teams (both Sims and Manning), the Chargers of the prime Hadl-to-Alworth years, all the Steelers’ Steel Curtain teams, the Rams’ “fastest show on turf”, the scoring-record Vikings’ “Three Deep” years…

    I could go on.

    So I don’t know that there are too may real “rules”. Kinda have to take it on a team-by-team, design-by-design basis, don’t we?

    (Well, except, of course, for the leotard look. And BFBS, including socks. Those suck. Period. LOL)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Obviously.

    You have to admit it’s not a bad guideline. Add in exceptions for teams that use the same off-color for both home & away (Steelers, Giants), and an exception to allow white helmeted teams to use pants that match their home jerseys (Jets, Titans, Dolphins) and it pretty much works.

    Not sure if I’d like the Bengals in orange pants or not, and Denver would fail badly because of the swooshes… but other than that it’s not too bad.

    Not that it needs to be a real rule or anything, but if it was, maybe there’d be less use of the SAME DAMN SHADE OF NAVY across the league. More color variety wouldn’t be a bad thing.[/quote]

    We’re talking about getting rid of white jerseys sometimes, but we’d require some teams (based on the design of their home uis) to have different road pants? We’re saying the “contrast” issue is vanishing, and there was—and still is—a practical reason for them. There’s no practical reason to require different road pants.

    Besides, how you gonna legislate “good taste”? And who’s the arbiter of said good taste?

    Like it or not, teams have a right to wear ugly unis. Or unis some of us find to be ugly.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I just like arguing about it, there’s good points on both sides.

    Like I said, it doesn’t need to be a real rule. But it does already fit most of the league.

    I think we’re talking about 2 separate beasts anyway. If white jerseys weren’t required, then road pants wouldn’t really be an issue either. If a team wears white pants with their blue jersey, they can wear white pants with their red jersey.

    Or alternatively, we can let every team be like the Titans and have 3 different jerseys and pants and mix & match at will. Not sure what color the Colts or Jets 3rds would be though.

  • Tyler Hull | October 13, 2009 at 10:42 pm |

    Hull didn’t wear an NOB in his time in Chicago.

    http://i256.photobuc...

    http://i256.photobuc...
    http://i256.photobuc...

  • LI Phil | October 13, 2009 at 11:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”354103″]Or alternatively, we can let every team be like the Titans and have 3 different jerseys and pants and mix & match at will. Not sure what color the Colts or Jets 3rds would be though.[/quote]

    haven’t gotten to the jets yet (been doing this off and on for a couple weeks)…

    but the colts can really only go gray or blue (both of which they’ve done in the past)…and neither of which is good

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 11:09 pm |

    Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
    http://farm3.static....

    Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | October 13, 2009 at 11:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”354106″]Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
    http://farm3.static....

    Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In my fantasy world of no white jerseys (except for white helmet teams), yes. Gold helmet, gold pants, black jersey for most games. Black helmet, black pants, gold jersey for an alternate. Yes. :)

  • JTH | October 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”354106″]Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
    http://farm3.static....

    Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That would be a great throwback for them.

  • Ricko | October 13, 2009 at 11:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”354108″][quote comment=”354106″]Danny Abramowicz in Saints’ black helmet.
    http://farm3.static....

    Good thing they didn’t keep it, would mean black would be the only acceptable with pants with their white jerseys, huh?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That would be a great throwback for them.[/quote]

    ‘cept they never wore it in regular season.

  • Teebz | October 13, 2009 at 11:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”354074″][quote comment=”354069″][quote comment=”354064″][quote comment=”354059″]
    Different sport, but I’d like to see the Washington Capitals wear their inaugural season uniforms, the ones with the white shorts.[/quote]

    They apparently were a sonuvabeech to keep clean, but here’s a good view of them. Strangely enough, NHL Uniforms doesn’t show them in white pants whatsoever, despite the Caps wearing them for the entire 1974-75 season.[/quote]

    I don’t think the white pants made it through their entire first season, I think they were given the boot after a few months. At one time, that site showed both pants for the initial season.[/quote]

    In fact what “nhluniforms.com” says is: As if the Caps’ horrible record wasn’t enough to make them the laughingstock of the NHL, they had to deal with the ridicule that came with wearing white pants, which they did with their red jerseys for a few games at the beginning of the season. The white pants were quickly retired[/quote]

    According to the Capitals’ site, they were replaced midway through the season.

  • JohnnyO | October 13, 2009 at 11:57 pm |

    The pink assault has made its way to historic Lambeau Field:

    http://www.packers.c...

  • mtjaws | October 14, 2009 at 12:03 am |

    I like that new New Orleans Zephyrs logo. Nice improvement over the beaver thing.

    Also, add “Wild Rebel” to the list of Wildcat clones. Ole Miss uses that one.

  • Kerry P | October 14, 2009 at 9:40 am |

    [quote comment=”354112″]I like that new New Orleans Zephyrs logo. Nice improvement over the beaver thing.[/quote]
    Not a beaver, it’s a Nutria.

  • Kerry P | October 14, 2009 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”354062″][quote comment=”354055″]NEW LOGO for the New Orleans Zephyrs AAA baseball team. The main logo is being dubbed the “Fleur de Z” Details HERE. And the team’s OFFICIAL WEBSITE has already made the switch.

    In case you’re wondering, here are a few OLD LOGOS[/quote]
    I’m still surprised that they kept the Dikeou family’s chosen team name when they moved the Zs from Denver. Seventeen seasons in NO and still named after a Denver train.[/quote]
    But I don’t think you realize that the “Zephyr” moniker is perfectly suitable for New Orleans because of nostalgia. An old amusement park called Pontchartrain Beach had a wooden coaster as its signature ride. It’s name? The Zephyr.