Pack To The Future

pack to the future 3 header

By Phil Hecken

Late yesterday afternoon, the Green Bay Packers, they of steeped tradition, unveiled a (gasp) third jersey (also known as an “alternate”) during their annual Packer Fan Fest. Basically, what they have created, at least in theory, is a “throwback” to the 1929-30 uniform (the year they won their first NFL Championship). You see, the Packers didn’t just unveil a new jersey, but a whole new uniform. Again, this is supposedly based on their 1929 uni set. But is it?

Let’s take a closer look. In 1929, the front numbers were about one and one half inches high. It’s hard to tell in black and white, but the jersey was blue — just what shade of blue depends upon the artist’s rendering or the colorizing skills of the photoshopper.

If you look at those color prints closely, you’ll see that both players either wore or held a helmet. Now, helmets of the day were leather, but it’s hard to tell if those were painted gold or if that was just the artist’s impression. For the sake of argment, we’ll assume they were brown leather.

You will also note that the players wore white oversock on top of their (one assumes) blue stirrups. As was the style at the time, the sleeves are full length. The best approximation of what they wore probably comes from this model (which Larry Bodnovich graciously provided to me), showing a brown helmet, blue shirt and socks, and khaki pants, with white, rolled up socks.

This was the look the 2010 Packers were trying to recreate for their first ever “alternate” jersey (aside from special games like those played on Thanksgiving and the 1994 75th Anniversary games). So, how did they do?

Well, if the jersey on the left is any guide…not so well. First of all, due to NFL regulations, they couldn’t keep the numbers at an inch and a half high in the front — so, they made them big…like, REALLY big. While that’s in order to conform with uniform regulations, my first impression was “jeez, that looks really stupid. Unfortunately, first impressions are often lasting. I mean seriously, do these two even remotely look similar?

Yes, I know they’re not going to make a modern jersey with full length sleeves. And I know they can’t use the tiny bullseye with the even smaller numbers, but this isn’t a “throwback,” it’s approaching a “fauxback.” And with all the great uniforms in the Packer history, this is the one they chose? Yes, I realize they wore the jersey on the left for their first championship, so it makes sense, but damn…I’m just not liking the execution here.

OK, so the jersey is a little lacking, but what about the rest of the uniform — did that come close to the 1929 version? Well, they went with a brown helmet and tan pants. Those fairly well replicate the 1929 uniform. Unfortunately, the helmet appears to have a glossy finish, when they could have made it matte, but it does have a gray facemask…and a giant warning label. I know they’re required (right?) to have that, but they couldn’t have removed it for the presser? And, obviously facemasks weren’t worn in 1929, so we’ll just accept that the gray is the color of choice. I have no problem with that. They could have made it blue…or worse, black.

Finally, the socks are solid blue. Whether or not this will be how they take the field remains to be seen, but tradition dictates that they should be wearing short white socks over the blue leggings. Another anachronism.

I’ll leave the “is it good or stupid” test to Paul, but based strictly on how this uniform looks, I have to give this a grade “C”. First of all, the giant yellow circle on the front looks stupid. A brown helmet, with a blue jersey and tan pants? Um, no.

But this is a fauxback, and I’ll give them an “A” for effort. This is an absolutely welcome change in a day and age when third jerseys are becoming either alternate colors (or exact replicas otherwise) of the team’s home jersey, or some godawful neon snot thing. It’s refreshingly simple (if not downright gorgeous) at least when viewed from behind. Even the Reebok vector isn’t too annoying. And if they only wear it once or twice a season, I think I can grow to like it for what it is: a harkback to the past.

The official Packer’s website offers their own spin on the new uniform. They explain all the “problems” I alluded to above, and after reading it, I completely understand the effort that went into this. It’s a great effort. It’s just that strictly as a uniform, I’m going to have to learn to love it. It certainly blows away a lot of third uniforms out there. The local TV station, Fox 11 (from which those stills were taken) had a poll at the end of the segment. The poll asks the viewer their opinion on the new uniforms. If I were “voting,” I think I’d go with “I’ll have to see them in action.”

In case you missed it, Paul was interviewed by the ESPN radio station in Wisconsin, and you can listen to that segment (zip ahead to the 27:00 mark). In that, he discusses the new Packer unis. Also, there is about a five minute or so video segment showing the full uniforms as they were unveiled at the Fan Fest. Definitely worth a look-see.

Now, I think I will come around to really liking this uniform, but for now, I’m a bit disappointed. If they had wanted a third jersey so badly, they could have considered this. That’s Ricko’s creation, by the way, and while he didn’t enter it into the “design an jersey” contest, it might have done very well. Here’s how Rick describes it: “Worn once a season (first day game after Autumnal Equinox, to celebrate long history of Packer football in the fall in Wisconsin). Huston-era inspired, but not a true throwback. Vintage sleeve logo. Yoke high enough in back so NOB is white letters on forest. TVs white to not visually break up the yoke too much.” But that’s for another time — maybe in five years, when the blue jersey with yellow bullseye runs its course.

Back to the new uniform: What say you, Uni Watchers? How do you feel about the new uniforms? Did they score a six, or did they fumble? Or somewhere in between. Let’s hear your thoughts.

UPDATE: Here’s the best view yet of the unis on the players.

~~~~~~~~~~

stirrup header

Back to the Future, Part 2

By Phil & Rick Pearson

Last weekend, it all started. We got to talking about the return of the striped sock (but not a stirrup) for the Giants, as seen on one Barry Zito. One thing led to another, and I played around with how the Giants might look if they added a teensy stirrup and lowered the stripes. Then, how might that look if I raised the stirrup and lowered the stripes a bit more. Looks great, right? Like a real baseball stirrup should!

Rick Pearson, ever the resident baseball historian, privately remaked to me that “That’s how stirrups used to look” and how that look wasn’t new at all, but rather, a throwback to the 1947-48 stirrups worn by the New York Giants. Then, on Tuesday, Paul posted a ticker item showing that, indeed, Giants Minor Leaguers are actually being outfitted with those very stirrups. A new hope.

Now, the foremost expert on stirrups is, of course, Paul. But Ricko’s a pretty close second. What follows, then, is a very important history lesson on how we’ve almost come full circle on the stirrup. What was once good and glorious can and will be again — provided styles continue to evolve. What’s old is new again.

So, without further ado, I give you Ricko, and a brief history of the stirrup, as we go Back To The Future again. Here’s Rick:

~~~

Let’s begin with an as-brief-as-possible look at the whole origin of stirrup socks.

Starting back more than a hundred years ago, dark color full socks just plain weren’t worn. Dyes were not colorfast and players had to protect against blisters and athlete’s foot and all manner of things getting infected. So they wore white “sanitary socks” under colored socks with a “stirrup” that extended under the arch (football and basketball were the opposite: White crews worn OVER stirrup socks). White had no dye in it, so either way the idea was the same.

In the early years, then, stirrups were ultra low and pants ultra high, like knickers. So stripes originally were quite often positioned really high.

Then as the game moved into the ‘30s and ‘40s, stirrups got slightly higher, probably more to do with socks stretching from use than for “style” purposes. But, players DID begin blousing their pants a bit—or a lot–lower. That meant the pants covered some of any sock striping there was, and left a lot of solid (void) space between the stripes and the stirrups. In the case teams like the Red Sox, for example, the navy above the stripes didn’t show at all.

So manufacturers moved the stripes down a bit, but through and after the World War II era, players came right back by pulling the stirrups even a bit higher.

About that time, manufactures figured out it was best to position the stripes always the same place relative to the stirrups. The idea was to have (hopefully) roughly equal amounts of the base color showing between the stripes and the front stirrup and the stripes and the bottom of the bloused pants.

That created arrived at the look shown on Johnny Mize in 1947 here at UW yesterday, a look that continued through the 50s and most of the ‘60s.

(Also about that time, manufacturers separated stirrup sock designs into two camps, and they stayed that way until the the mid-’70s), when one-piece striped white socks showed up in football, basketball…and on the White Sox.) The ‘50s also marked at the beginning of the “Common Visual Era” (meaning TV), during which far more people than ever before actually got to see unis live and in use.Some see that as the glory days of stirrups simply BECAUSE so many people actually saw them. Others point to the 20 and 30s as the best, holding up Ruth and Gehrig and others in their shorter pants and lower stirrups as the “Golden Age”. Maybe, but other than in still photos, that look was seen by comparatively few fans.

I prefer the “balanced” stripe position of the ‘50s — with not such a huge area of solid above the front stirrup and some of the base color showing above the stripes — because it was the result of a refining process, and has at least a HINT of symmetry, something missing entirely from earlier incarnations (ever see any early sketches on Darth Vader?) Not even CLOSE to as menacing and magnificent as Luke’s old man looked by the time filming began).

I also see it as great because as the ‘60s were winding down was when it started to get weird.

Frank Robinson hiked his stirrups way up, showing lots of sani, even combining two pair of socks into one. Hawk Harrelson did the same, as did others. Even Willie Mays was part of “pull ‘em up; way way up” group. Vida Blue went nuts with it, both with the A’s and, later, the Giants.

Some socks even allowed for that, with the stirrups actually interrupting the stripes.

Before long, there was nothing but ribbon for some.

Then there were the ghastly “knit-in” vertical stripes. Bill Buckner introduced high tops, but they didn’t look so good with that ribbon business. With Eric Davis’ high tops, the low Reds stirrups just looked like solid stirrup-less socks so that became a “look”.

Barry Bonds (and others), though, just wore their pants right down to the shoes.

Guess what THAT evolved (devolved?) into? And now the new Giants are bringing back striped socks stirrups, apparently both as strirrups and black full socks. First exposure, not so good. What Barry Zito’s wearing in this photo is a soccer sock. Plus, pants bloused that high is a look that we have to go back at least 80 years to find. It IS, however, understandable. Doubleknit doesn’t blouse worth a damn. Certainly not as nicely as flannel or cotton blends did.

Okay, so we’ll accept the high pants, not anything hinting at biker shorts football high, but high. Can’t fight city hall, or fabric-dictated difficulties. But let’s add a bit of stirrup, move the socks down to a sensible position (from a design standpoint if nothing else; let alone that MILLIONS saw that look when TV first allowed them to view live action baseball) position with some balanced space above and below the stripes. And recent photos indicate many of the Giants who show socks are choosing that version.

Well, there ya go. Them are some good-lookin’ socks. BASEBALL socks.

~~~~~~~~~~

moosemilitaryThe President of the Hockey Wing, Teebz checks in (pun firmly intended) with this little nugget about his hometown Manitoba Moose, who’ll be wearing a very special jersey this evening. I’ll let the Chancellor of Canuckistan explain:

~~~

The Manitoba Moose welcome the Rockford IceHogs to MTS Centre tonight, but they won’t be wearing their normal home whites. And Mathieu Schneider won’t be there either. Instead, the Moose will be holding their annual Salute to the Military, and they will have military-inspired jerseys on. The front of the jersey has the Canadian Military Services logo on it in silver as a tribute to the three branches of the Canadian military. The brown on the sleeve stripes and hem stripe has been replaced with silver.

The back of the jersey has the standard military-esque font for the name and numbers, but there is an additional logo just underneath the numbers. That logo is the 100th Anniversary logo for the Canadian Navy and Marines. 2010 is the 100th year since their formation, and the Moose will be helping that group of brave men and women celebrate the Navy’s 100th anniversary. The yellow ribbon on the hem is there to signify the hope of the safe return of all the Canadian troops serving abroad which, to me, is a very classy move.

Honestly, I’m always happy to see teams honour the men and women who provide us our freedoms that we seemingly take for granted day in and day out, so I applaud the Moose for their efforts. I’ll be at that game tonight, so I’ll try to get a few pictures of the military jerseys, and maybe even try to get my hands on one! Go Moose Go!

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Another guest scoreboard today, and it’s brought to us from reader Chris Mayberry. It’s extremely difficult, but two obvious clues are the teams and the location. One more clue: Tugboat. If you’re unable to guess, I may drop in another clue to two as the day progresses. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

benchies headerWell, it is baseball season, so the Boys of Benchies are back at it. Here’s Rick Pearson with a two-fer:

So you went to Florida, watched some Spring Training. Know what happens then, if you’re even remotely human? You start…thinking.

And with that, here is a double shot of Benchies for this fine Saturday.

~~~~~~~~~~

uni template 2Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Lots of different sports being represented today, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

Kicking off the show today is Matt Sajna, who has tweaks for two sports, MLB and the NFL:

The first set is a redesign of the San Diego Padres. I kept the current script but tweaked it slightly and changed the colors to navy and orange. I also changed the road script to match the home, and added a navy blue alternate with an alternate cap.

The second set is a redesign of the Washington Redskins. I darkened the burgendy on both the jersey and the helmet. I changed the helmet logo to add the “R” in the middle instead of the redskin head. I also added the spear on the side shoulders of the jerseys as well as adding yellow pants.

Hope you enjoy them, I’ve got more I’ve been working on too that I’ll send along soon.

-Matt Sajna

~~~

Next up is Jeff Shirley, who also has some multi-sport tweaks:

Phil,

Thanks for including me in your NFL jersey contest (even though I don’t have a prayer of winning). Here are some other uniforms I’ve been working on, usually when I should have been doing work around the house or something ‘more productive’ as my wife would say. My first submission is a tweak of the Bucks’ green jersey of the late 90’s. I wondered what red would look like as an accent to the green, and liked how it looked, although it’s much too 90’s for today’s NBA. My next tweak came from Nate Robinson’s video you posted where he said he wished the Knicks would incorporate the NYK logo onto their uniforms, so I created a home, alt, and road uniform using that logo, while ELIMINATING the black (if only the Mets would do as well). The next tweak is for the Atlanta Hawks, who have never looked good in blue and gray, along with that awful brown on their court, so I replaced their colors with a more tradiitonal red, black, and yellow from the 80’s and 90’s. My next submission is for the Memphis Grizzlies, who’s numbers on their light blue jersey are impossible to see on t.v., so I altered them a little bit, along with their home uniforms to match the same template.

In addition to the NBA designs, I included an altered Cowboys jersey that is similar to the one I included in the NFL contest, only with a royal shade of blue for a road uniform, along with white pants and a white helmet just for fun.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

Sincerely,

Jeff Shirley

~~~

And our last set of concepts today comes from The Jeff, who has a few NFL redesigns Ricko is sure to love:

I’ve been working on my vision of the league and all 32 teams… I thought I’d send in a few of the more noticeable changes I’ve come up with.

Jets — basically I tried to merge the mid 90’s uniform with the current one. Lighter green, added black. I’ve been pondering the idea of home & away helmets so I’ve got both a green and a white helmet. I think it works either way.

Ravens — 4 words: black and purple gradient.

Bills — got rid of the extra colors and things that bug me about their current uniforms, but tried to keep a modern look. Again I’ve got both a red and a white helmet in use.. it’s all mix-n-matchable.

Patriots — sorta revisted the 1993 uniforms only with their current color scheme, and used a silver jersey instead of white, because I really don’t like white jerseys that much.

~~~

Thus concludes the tweak show for today. Back with more next time.

~~~~~~~~~~

One last thing: Don’t forget, you can still vote in the Uni Watch Design A Uni Poll, which will remain open until next Friday, after which time, the winner will be announced. If you’ve already voted, sorry — one man, one vote — but if you haven’t, be sure to check out the 11 finalists and pick your choice for the best contestant.

~~~

That’ll wrap it up for today. Have a great Saturday.

The most rewarding things you can do in life are often the ones that look like they cannot be done. — Arnold Palmer

 

122 comments to Pack To The Future

  • The Jeff | March 13, 2010 at 7:38 am |

    I’m going to give the Packers a big thumbs down. I suppose they did about as good a job of replicating the original as they could, but it really doesn’t work for me. The big circle looks goofy, and regardless of historical accuracy, brown and blue are not a good color combination.

    If it was a one game throwback to celebrate an anniversary or something, it might work, but as a potential 2-game-a-year alternate uniform for the next however many seasons, it’s just not cool.

  • Harry | March 13, 2010 at 7:47 am |

    I have to see them in action. If they win while wearing them, they’ll look great. And the Moose jersey’s aces. I hope they sell a boatload of them and donate a substantial portion to a worthwhile charity.

  • not Osama | March 13, 2010 at 8:01 am |

    I agree at first sight the Packers throwback jersey is stupid looking but it is a little better as a full uni. (I understand the NFL”s new rules of number size, etc. but compared to the original it is ridiculous.) However, the brown helmet is definitely stupid no question about it. I agree that a matte finish would be an improvement but the color brown is too dark. If anything the leather helmets were more of a lighter, rust tinted, brown NOT a chocolate. Even if they tried to match the helmet to the pants a little more it would have been better. Finally I like the navy socks (and the overall navy and gold combo but you know few if any will wear the short whites with them. It was a tough task to reproduce the true throwback from that era (and thank god they went with the grey mask instead of blue, black, etc, as well as tan pants but overall not so great.

  • subway | March 13, 2010 at 8:50 am |

    Like comment#2, i’d wait to see them in action. Some unis have looked better in pictures than on the field of play (the current Capitals jersey comes to mind) and vice versa. First impression is I like the jersey, but not the pants or helmet.

  • Teebz | March 13, 2010 at 9:16 am |

    [quote comment=”381584″]I have to see them in action. If they win while wearing them, they’ll look great. And the Moose jersey’s aces. I hope they sell a boatload of them and donate a substantial portion to a worthwhile charity.[/quote]

    Money will be going to Moose-endorsed charities. The Moose have always been a great corporate citizen in Winnipeg, and sales of these jerseys will undoubtedly follow this trend. :o)

  • Terry Proctor | March 13, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    Major League Baseball should have their own version of the NFL’s “Uniform Police.” It would be the responsibility of one of the umpires to make sure that ALL personnel in uniform be properly attired- meaning shirts tucked in, buttoned completely and not looking like they could be used as the “Big Top” for Ringling Brothers. Pants should extend no further than just slightly above mid-calf so that the stirrup socks (and they WILL WEAR STIRRUPS!)are visible. About 4″ of sanitary sock must be shown. And what is more classic than the great sock striping patterns of yesteryear? The Cardinals multi-striped pattern, the Red Sox red stirrup area, the Pirates old gold triple-stripes and the Braves two-color Northwestern stripes to name a few. Memo to teams with striped socks- “If you’ve got ‘em, show ‘em!”
    I’m tired of ballplayers looking like they just got up and threw on anything that was on the floor. The sloppy way most athletes dress today (both on and off the field) reflects itself in our society. When we played back in the 1950s and 60s we watched what the pros wore (on and off the field) and wanted to emulate the look. When I was in high school LIFE magazine ran a feature on the Los Angeles Angels on a road trip. There was a photo of pitcher Dean Chance wearing a buttoned-to-the-neck Ban-Lon golf shirt, slacks and shined loafers. The look was a bit preppy but man, did it look sharp-and professional. I talked my Mother into buying me a couple of Ban-Lon golf shirts for my junior year of high school. I felt I was a Major Leaguer when I wore that outfit.
    Ballplayers still have more influence on kids than they realize.

  • Squiddie | March 13, 2010 at 9:30 am |

    Anyone hear if Ricko survived the four OT Minnetonka v Hill-Murray game?

  • Carl | March 13, 2010 at 9:39 am |

    Interesting to see a team ‘try’ to follow tradition but shoehorning the design to modern requirements. Personally, I would have required the long sleeves as more blue might give the giant yellow Frisbee a chance to appear just a bit smaller.

    And for the record- it’s yellow. Not gold. This is closer to gold, but it just might be the lighting.

  • Alec | March 13, 2010 at 10:14 am |

    The Moose sweater is better than 70% of the jerseys in the NHL.

  • Kenny Jacobson | March 13, 2010 at 10:18 am |

    Ugh… please… no black in the Jets’ unis ever again. I already lived through that nightmare once…

  • Kenny Jacobson | March 13, 2010 at 10:21 am |

    Bills tweak, however, is awesome.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”381589″]Anyone hear if Ricko survived the four OT Minnetonka v Hill-Murray game?[/quote]

    well…i was still writing the packer portion of this post at 2 AM my time (finished at 3 AMish)…and he IMed me to tell me Tonka won…

    so…he survived the game…the aftermath? who knows

  • Dank | March 13, 2010 at 10:31 am |

    Packer’s Fauxbacks – Helemt is HIDEOUS. If you are going for the average color of poop across America, it’s an A+.

    I get the idea behind the jersey, but the HUGE number and circle looks just, wierd. I do like the tan pants though. Of course, I also kinda dig the Padres khacki road unis.

  • Kyle | March 13, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    I like what the Pack are trying to accomplish. As a Steelers fan, I am horrified by any tweaks to our jerseys, but if it represents an important era in their history, I don’t mind. Glossy helmets need to go by the wayside for the Pack.

    Whe I played Little League, we were only issued the ribbon stirrups.

  • Rick | March 13, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    I actually like the look of the Packers shirt… but then again, what do I know about football shirts? :)

    The white sanitaries will probably be replaced by loads of sports tape for some players… but at least it’ll look accurate.

  • Johnny O | March 13, 2010 at 10:47 am |

    It sucks that with NFL regulations, the Pack couldn’t be more accurate with their Fauxbacks. I REALLY wish the helmet was a matte finish, and the circle on the front was SLIGHTLY smaller. I am not going to get all worried about the colors, because those were accurate of the time. Why did the Pack choose this era to throwback to? I wish they gave a specific reason rather than it was their first championship. In a world of conformity, I am happy for this trip down memory lane and something different.

    As a History major, I love the idea of giving the fans knowledge of the past. You would be surprised on how many Packer fans don’t know they history of the Pack. Maybe now they will head to the Hall of Fame in Lambeau Field and brush up on their favorite team’s past.

    In conclusion, I will have to see these in action to make a final verdict. I want to see what players do with their socks mostly. If I were to give them a grade right now? Hmmm. I love the simplicity. Gotta give props for doing something different. I do love the color of the uni, and how the yellow pops on it. I am gonna have to say a B- right now.

  • SlimAndSlam | March 13, 2010 at 10:48 am |

    Re “Guess the game”:

    I’ve narrowed it down to one of two consecutive dates, but I can’t figure out between them. “Tugboat” is no help to me. I’ll note that the game took place a few years before the Seattle Mariners tried this:

    http://sea-fever.org...

  • Mike | March 13, 2010 at 10:58 am |

    Im from Pittsburgh, where wearing a jersey of a team not from Pittsburgh is a capital offense. But damn those packers jerseys are sweet, and I plan on buying one as soon as they hit stores. Helmets need a little work though.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 11:02 am |

    [quote comment=”381599″]Re “Guess the game”:

    I’ve narrowed it down to one of two consecutive dates, but I can’t figure out between them. “Tugboat” is no help to me. I’ll note that the game took place a few years before the Seattle Mariners tried this:

    http://sea-fever.org...

    heh…no…tugboat doesn’t refer to that

    this is probably too much of a clue, but it’s a clue

  • Michael Emody | March 13, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    Re: toady’s scoreboard. Well, it’s painted in the Packer’s throwback colors! I’ve been looking closely at alot pic’s of the Comiskey scoreboard lately, and though I’ll leave the discovering of the actual game to someone else, I can tell you it’s from the late 70’s “leisure suit” era. The scoreboard was painted all navy by then, and the pinwheels had made their appearance. I like the walkway below, and the ladder, kept to the left during games. I’ve always figured the curtain rod thing hanging above the blue area was kind of a track for the ladder to slide along.
    Does anyone know what the round, protruding things are? They look like giant round magnets. There’s one just to the left of the “Kan Cy” sign, a bunch in the center “Ball/Strike” area, and even some on the advertising at the top. Were they vents? Or, um, giant magnets?

  • SlimAndSlam | March 13, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    Ah. This game:

    http://www.retroshee...

    You know, I was a huge Yankee fan at the time, and I never, but never, heard anyone call him Tugboat.

    He played first base in that game, BTW, and was removed in the third inning. I hadn’t known that.

  • Peter | March 13, 2010 at 11:31 am |

    The Packers’ throwbacks kind of remind me of some of the Warriors’ old uniforms (either “The City” uniforms or the ones with the map of California on the front).

  • Carl | March 13, 2010 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”381594″][quote comment=”381589″]Anyone hear if Ricko survived the four OT Minnetonka v Hill-Murray game?[/quote]

    well…i was still writing the packer portion of this post at 2 AM my time (finished at 3 AMish)…and he IMed me to tell me Tonka won…

    so…he survived the game…the aftermath? who knows[/quote]

    well, it’s now 10:30AM Minnesota time and no Ricko yet. Must have been a good one.

  • Juke Early | March 13, 2010 at 11:36 am |

    Regarding the “Common Viewing Era” – most broadcasts weren’t 100% available in color until 1965 or so. And households owning TVs didn’t boom until a few years later.
    So most people watching TV in the 50’s & much of the 60’s were seeing unis in black & white and shades of gray. I know because I was there.

  • matt in cleveland | March 13, 2010 at 11:38 am |

    overall like the pacs jerseys the circle is big but overall think that was the smallest number allowed by the league. it is alot smaller then other jerseys out there overall though to do thid is very nice and i like the circle in the fron. dig the pants get an a from me the khaki gold pant is cool. also think the khaki pant would look awsome with a white jersey! kinda like the carnals 75 year throwbacks. (sorry could find a pic) helmet should have went flat color or matched it with the pant color. one thing does worry me is how stupid an oblong circle is gonna look with those stupid weebok stretchy jerseys!!!!

  • Squiddie | March 13, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”381605″][quote comment=”381594″][quote comment=”381589″]Anyone hear if Ricko survived the four OT Minnetonka v Hill-Murray game?[/quote]

    well…i was still writing the packer portion of this post at 2 AM my time (finished at 3 AMish)…and he IMed me to tell me Tonka won…

    so…he survived the game…the aftermath? who knows[/quote]

    well, it’s now 10:30AM Minnesota time and no Ricko yet. Must have been a good one.[/quote]

    I’d have to say the Mahtomedi v Hermantown may have been a better game (except the wrong team won!) but the OTs of the Minnetonka v Hill-Murray game were the things of tournament legend. Plus the officials didn’t bother with penalties last night.

    The only thing marring the experience was the HM black sweaters. They used to wear a much better green sweater. The black with green accent just doesn’t cut it.

  • flebus | March 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

    “Now, the foremost expert on stirrups is, of course, Paul.”

    surly you jest, so i will start calling you shirley.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

    just updated the main article with a new photo

    best look yet at the unis on the players

  • Oakville Endive | March 13, 2010 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”381604″]The Packers’ throwbacks kind of remind me of some of the Warriors’ old uniforms (either “The City” uniforms or the ones with the map of California on the front).[/quote]

    Yeah you’re right

    But in my mind , this thing is a disaster – and will quickly disappear, there’s just too many moronic elements – the brown helmet is about as bad as what the Texas Rangers subjected ourselves to, about the same time last year – and that sort of never saw the light of day (the very hard to achieve: less than one and done)

  • interlockingtc | March 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    I clicked on the Packer jersey last night and commented that it is a great looking jersey. I still think so.

    I didn’t know it was a throwback or fauxback at the time, just a third jersey. Now, with the original as a reference, I see its failures from a historical perspective.

    But it looks cool. Is the big circle weird? Yeah, but that’s part of the appeal. The design is so simple and unique that it stands out among all the crap we see today. It’s endearingly anachronistic.

    The helmet and pants are another story. They look too sleek and modern. But, what are you gonna do?

  • Goatboy | March 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

    Good job, Manitoba, way to make a military tribute jersey that isn’t ass-hideous and splattered in camouflage.

  • interlockingtc | March 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”381610″]just updated the main article with a new photo

    best look yet at the unis on the players[/quote]

    Actually, those pants look pretty good.

  • Andy | March 13, 2010 at 12:25 pm |

    The original circle was 4-5 inches in diameter, which puts the numerals at about 2.5 inches or so. That looks about right according to the photos, because 1.5 inches is extremely small. Wish they could have made an exception, though, and allowed them at that size.

    There are plenty of helmets from that era that were dark brown and slightly shiny. Plus color and style were not standard as most, if not all players wore plain leather helmets of different styles, that is, if they even wore one at all.

    Thus, I find the chocolate brown appropriate and I don’t find the shine too offensive either from an aesthetic point of view. More importantly, the ‘shine’ of a football helmet is integral to its function as it reduces the surface friction of the shell, allowing the helmet to more efficiently deflect the impact of a hard hit. A flat finish would run the risk of the helmet absorbing (instead of deflecting) a larger portion of the force of the hit, which would then be transferred to the players head and neck, resulting in fatigue or potential injury.

    Overall, this is great when placed in the context of the restrictions and parameters to which a uniform must comply. It’s as accurate as it’s allowed to be, but it could be better with an accurately sized front numeral. I think the parts of the uniform combine to give it a genuinely classic look even though it’s using all modern pieces to create that look.

    Carl
    PANTONE Yellow is not anywhere close to that swatch you posted. It is a very bright, pure canary yellow. The gold they are wearing is the same gold that’s used on their current uniforms. I also doubt they’re wearing reflex blue, as the NFL likes to standardize its color palette. The only two colors it might be are the deep obsidian color the Bears and Texans wear, or the dark navy color the Chargers and Cowboys wear.

    Dank
    Brown, in addition to being the average color of most excrement, is also the color of many mammals’ fur, many bids’ feathers, many trees’ bark and a large portion of the earth’s crust. They even make men’s suits in brown. I’ll never understand why people like you have to be children about it and continually denounce brown solely because it’s the color of poop. It’s a great, strong color with a rich history and it is vastly underused.

  • ted | March 13, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    I actually really like the new Packer uniform. I LOVE that they went real retro with it, instead of doing something nasty like a all yellow jersey. I love the colors they used, and that blue is fantastic. I’m looking forward to seeing them in action, that will be the true test. Either way, i’m glad they did it. I wish my Bears would dump the nasty orange jersey they wear now…..

  • Marc from Brooklyn | March 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    I think I am with Johnny O (Comment #16) on the Packers’ alt. A smaller circle and a matte helmet would help. It’s a nice effort, given the constraints of modern uniform design and standard. I’m with Phil about the beauty of the simple jersey back.

    I tend to apply a Yankees standard to throwbacks from another era, the fauxbacks that are more than inspired by the past but not exact replicas. For me, they are more in the line of “what if” uniforms. What if the Packer never changed their general uniform design and just updated it as materials, equipment, and standards changed? As much as I hate the Yankees, they have managed to update their uniforms over the years without changing the look. They don’t wear baggy wool uniforms with unstructured caps. But, their look, and the look of a number of other classic uniforms like the Tigers, the Dodgers, and the Celtics, has remained consistent. That’s how I judge the Packers’ stab at the past.

  • farside268 | March 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    One would hope someone from Canada would have a better grasp of the French language when talking about the 100th anniversary logo for the Navy. The logo has nothing to do with the Canadian “Marines,” it’s simply bilingual, like everything else having to do with the federal government up here.

  • Flip | March 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm |

    Meh on the Packers’ fauxbacks. One of these days people will realize that uniforms mean uniform.

    Staying in Wisconsin, love the Bucks concept. http://farm5.static.... Always liked that jersey. The Hawks concept is good, too. But leave Memphis alone. The Griz have the one really good, but overlooked, look in the NBA.

    Interesting idea on the purple-black gradient. Would look just like a raven. I’d like to see it tried out. Fearful of a Jag-like helmet, though.

    As aways, good work.

  • Phat | March 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm |

    Normally gradients on any uniform look tacky as hell. But that Ravens uniform is ungodly sexy…

  • M.Princip | March 13, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

    The Packers should have gone with a flat brown helmet. Maybe, even a soft coat to give it a leathery look. The fact that they made the front circle number so BIG is absolutely stupid! The No Fun League(Goodell era) uniform regulations strikes again.

    Just another reason to really appreciate those 94 throwbacks. Obviously, they didn’t have a problem with small numbers at the front of the jersey.

    http://cdn.faniq.com...

  • LarryB | March 13, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    Great stuff today Phil. Last night I read through the comments and was looking at Chance Michael’s site. That is a fantastic site with a lot to enjoy looking at.

    I like the idea of what the Packers are doing with the throwback.

  • The Jeff | March 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”381621″]The Packers should have gone with a flat brown helmet. Maybe, even a soft coat to give it a leathery look. The fact that they made the front circle number so BIG is absolutely stupid! The No Fun League(Goodell era) uniform regulations strikes again.

    Just another reason to really appreciate those 94 throwbacks. Obviously, they didn’t have a problem with small numbers at the front of the jersey.

    http://cdn.faniq.com...

    I don’t know man… I think if you cut those numbers out and move them down to the front middle and stick a circle around them, they aren’t that much smaller than what the Packers are using.

  • Marcus Hall from Baltimore | March 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    Packers Throw…I mean Fauxbacks – decent. Helmet – wouldn’t mint it being not as shiny. don’t like the color.

    Ravens gradient uni?? I would love to see it live — interesting concept (maybe not NFL worthy, but I still would love to see it)

  • The Jeff | March 13, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”381623″][quote comment=”381621″]The Packers should have gone with a flat brown helmet. Maybe, even a soft coat to give it a leathery look. The fact that they made the front circle number so BIG is absolutely stupid! The No Fun League(Goodell era) uniform regulations strikes again.

    Just another reason to really appreciate those 94 throwbacks. Obviously, they didn’t have a problem with small numbers at the front of the jersey.

    http://cdn.faniq.com...

    I don’t know man… I think if you cut those numbers out and move them down to the front middle and stick a circle around them, they aren’t that much smaller than what the Packers are using.[/quote]

    Compare this:http://img69.imagesh... (embarrassingly Q&D)

    to this:
    http://farm3.static....

  • The Jeff | March 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

    …damn not linking right

    This:
    http://img69.imagesh...

    to this:

    http://farm3.static....

  • Skycat | March 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    I really wanted to like the new Packers’ alternates because of the simplicity of design, but now I’m not so sure I can embrace them. The original concept of a number inside of a circle was fine as long as it wasn’t too large. In the new incarnation, the immenseness of the circle is just way too obtrusive and distracting.

    I also can’t help but envision an opening kickoff and see Packers’ players running down the field as if the field was a pool table and the players were billiards balls.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

    twins/phils on MLB channel

    damn…twins BP unis look almost black…guy at bat now (orlando hudson) has one blue undersleeve (left arm) that is definitely a dark blue…and is lighter than the jersey/helmet

  • Paul Bauman | March 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm |

    Back in 1994, when the NFL first introduced the throwback uniform, at least two teams (Chicago and Pittsburgh) wore jerseys where the front number was much smaller than today’s required dimensions. This was done because the jerseys selected by those clubs didn’t even include numbers in their original form. Also, to require a front number by today’s standards, would have ruined the integrity of the throwback design. Now, I’m just wondering, if the exception was made in 1994, regarding number size and location, why not this time around for GB? Did GB even make the argument? That oversized circle and numeral looks ridiculous.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm |

    A thought on the Packers’ brown helmets.

    Matte finish would make ‘em look like Milk Duds with legs.

    Leather helmets did not have a matte finish. Looks like it in old photos, I know, but leather actually had a distinct sheen to it because it can be (and was) polished.

    The real issue probably is more the SHADE of the brown. Too chocolate. Too original Broncos. Just too standard-issue uni brown. Not the color of a old leather helmet, not even close. A more saddle brown would have done a better job of evoking the leatherhead era.

    As far as the size of the disc and the numbers…what were they supposed to do. League regs, TV and the game itself have changed unis. Facemasks and NOB, to note a couple obvious differences. The best anyone can do is interpret an historic uni in the context of today’s game.

    As to whether they’re good-looking or not, they aren’t necessarily supposed to be. It’s just giving us a look at an old, old uni and color scheme, warts (by today’s standards) and all.

    Asked this many times. Does anyone really think the Eagles wore the powder & golds because they thought it was such a handsome uniform? Same question for the Canadiens’ barber pole jerseys. Likewise regarding the Broncos’ brown & golds.

    Yup, they’re ugly. That’s kinda the point with some of (many of?) these throwbacks.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm |

    Need to mention…
    HATE gradients on unis.

    HOWEVER, considering what an actual raven looks like, The Jeff’s gradient jersey for the Ravens is absolutely brilliant. They could wear that sucker right now with their exising uni (either the white or black pants) and it would become one of the most distinctive jerseys in the NFL.

    Realistically, not much can do to make the concept work on the whites, but so what. Helluvan idea.

    Great design and creativity doesn’t have to be monstrous in scope. Just insightful. And viable.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”381628″]twins/phils on MLB channel

    damn…twins BP unis look almost black…guy at bat now (orlando hudson) has one blue undersleeve (left arm) that is definitely a dark blue…and is lighter than the jersey/helmet[/quote]

    Odd. Unis look clearly navy on my TV (Fox Sports North).

    —Ricko

  • matt in cleveland | March 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    i had forgotten about the eagles unis http://static.nfl.co... imo those awsome

  • matt in cleveland | March 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    i had forgotten about the eagles doing the dif color all together http://static.nfl.co... imo these are great!

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”381632″][quote comment=”381628″]twins/phils on MLB channel

    damn…twins BP unis look almost black…guy at bat now (orlando hudson) has one blue undersleeve (left arm) that is definitely a dark blue…and is lighter than the jersey/helmet[/quote]

    Odd. Unis look clearly navy on my TV (Fox Sports North).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    philly feed (for me)

    and francisco just left the building

  • Teebz | March 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”381618″]One would hope someone from Canada would have a better grasp of the French language when talking about the 100th anniversary logo for the Navy. The logo has nothing to do with the Canadian “Marines,” it’s simply bilingual, like everything else having to do with the federal government up here.[/quote]

    I’m completely aware of the French translation.

    Are the Marines not part of the Navy?

    Knowing several retired Marines, they appreciate the recognition for the effort they put in. They’re not just “sailors on some boat or sub”, they are highly-trained specialists.

    Just because they fall under that jurisdiction doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the recognition for the job they do.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    which, btw…has tom mccarthy (used to do the mets radio) and sarge matthews…

    not so keen on sarge, but mccarthy is top notch … so much better than wayne hagin

  • rpm | March 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”381631″]Need to mention…
    HATE gradients on unis.

    HOWEVER, considering what an actual raven looks like, The Jeff’s gradient jersey for the Ravens is absolutely brilliant. They could wear that sucker right now with their exising uni (either the white or black pants) and it would become one of the most distinctive jerseys in the NFL.

    Realistically, not much can do to make the concept work on the whites, but so what. Helluvan idea.

    Great design and creativity doesn’t have to be monstrous in scope. Just insightful. And viable.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    when did the corn mother start making crows with gradiant feathers? more accurately to emulate a raven the uniform should be black, unless the light hits it just right, where it would appear somewhat purply opalescent. and they should have a helmet like the jags use, is it black, is it purple. that should be their colour scheme is it purple~black and white

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”381638″][quote comment=”381631″]Need to mention…
    HATE gradients on unis.

    HOWEVER, considering what an actual raven looks like, The Jeff’s gradient jersey for the Ravens is absolutely brilliant. They could wear that sucker right now with their exising uni (either the white or black pants) and it would become one of the most distinctive jerseys in the NFL.

    Realistically, not much can do to make the concept work on the whites, but so what. Helluvan idea.

    Great design and creativity doesn’t have to be monstrous in scope. Just insightful. And viable.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    when did the corn mother start making crows with gradiant feathers? more accurately to emulate a raven the uniform should be black, unless the light hits it just right, where it would appear somewhat purply opalescent. and they should have a helmet like the jags use, is it black, is it purple. that should be their colour scheme is it purple~black and white[/quote]

    Okay, let me put it this way. If anyone could get away with a gradient, it would be the Ravens. There’s at least a pseudo- or quasi-real world justification. May not be exactly how a Raven looks, but it’s how most likely THINK one looks.

    Sorta like in acting. There’s a real Spanish accent and there’s a stage Spanish accent.

    Or sound effects. Very often what something actually sounds like is nothing like how people think it should sound.

    —Ricko

  • dgm | March 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

    is it good or is it stupid? the answer to the packers alternate uni is it’s good. the answer to you uni-snobs who think that unless it’s exactly like the original it’s pointless is you’re stupid.

    the uniforms look good. not one-more-bumpersticker-y, clean design, gets the main elements of the original uniform, just tweaks them because of certain regulations.

    you bitch about the size of the circle on the front and the fact it isn’t full-length sleeves. well why don’t you also bitch about the fact that they’re wearing polyester and not wool?

    as for the shiny helmet – leather helmets were relatively shiny back then, certainly not matte, so having a shiny plastic helmet makes more sense than having a matte one.

    and it looks like, from that one team picture you linked to, some players wore white socks underneath and some didn’t. you certainly can’t say, from that one picture, that they ALL wore white.

    i suppose this just reiterates what ricko said earlier, but it deserves to be repeated – if you bitch about the falcons’ uniforms (a justifiable bitch) you can’t ALSO bitch about the packers’ throwbacks.

  • Jim BC | March 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

    Not sure if there’s been discussion about this, but good news/bad news from Calgary as they are sticking with their awesome throwbacks for next season.

    Bad news… and I’m mean really bad news… is that they will be Edge jerseys. I wondered how they were able to avoid the Edge crap this year.

    http://flames.nhl.co...

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

    BULLETIN…

    You can buy a Twins’ Elmer Fudd home hat in the Pro Shop at Target Field.

    Also some nice soft warm navy gloves with the “TC” logo on the back of the hand…you know, where the Marlboro man’s tattoo was.

    Twins players are wandering along the warning track during the game. Hard to woof about “BP” jerseys in a game that laid back.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | March 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

    fair enough ricko

  • mike 2 | March 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”381641″]Not sure if there’s been discussion about this, but good news/bad news from Calgary as they are sticking with their awesome throwbacks for next season.

    Bad news… and I’m mean really bad news… is that they will be Edge jerseys. I wondered how they were able to avoid the Edge crap this year.

    http://flames.nhl.co...

    I’m not sure what that means – this years jerseys sure looked and felt like Edge to me.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 3:08 pm |

    Some serious stripage on Minnetonka’s hockey team.
    Although, after going into a fourth OT last night, it seems likely they might get clobbered in tonight’s final. Against one of their arch rivals in Edina, too, the team that gave them their lone loss this season.
    http://www.startribu...

    —Ricko

  • TSwan | March 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm |

    If this was the uniform the Packers would wear all year I would be offended, too much of a change, for one game, its fine especially if it was vs. the Bears, Dallas, or Lions. I am no a big fan of the helmets, maybe could have gone with a plain yellow because that brown just rubs the wrong way. I do like the fact that they went with a throwback uniform though rather any other green, gold, white color combination, because so many fans think they were only Green and Gold, so as a history lesson it helps. (Though Ricko’s design is great) Just hope in 6 years from now if they consider to change the uniforms again they do another era. Also, why aren’t their any TV numbers?

  • Randy | March 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm |

    I usually agree with the uni critiques supplied by the ownership of this blog, however, today’s thrashing of the Packers throwback is something I simply don’t agree with. Let me first say, I have no affiliation with the Packers, I’m a Colts fan, but I applaud the Pack for doing something is daring. Under the uniform rules of the NFL, doing an EXACT replica of that 90 year old uniform was impossible. So you then have 2 choices, 1. Don’t do it, and forget honoring those who came before and won a championship, or 2. Create a modern interpretation of said uniform. This is what they have done. Uniwatch was also quick to slam the so called “glossy” brown helmet. First, the picture was too horrible to judge something on, and 2. Even with a matte like finish, a curved plastic shell, photographed with flashes under those lights, well, good luck making it look dull! Now, do I like the uniforms? Not really, but whoever put it together appears to have made a modern intrepretation that captures the spirit of the original. And besides, it’s an alternate, GET OVER IT.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”381646″]If this was the uniform the Packers would wear all year I would be offended, too much of a change, for one game, its fine especially if it was vs. the Bears, Dallas, or Lions. I am no a big fan of the helmets, maybe could have gone with a plain yellow because that brown just rubs the wrong way. I do like the fact that they went with a throwback uniform though rather any other green, gold, white color combination, because so many fans think they were only Green and Gold, so as a history lesson it helps. (Though Ricko’s design is great) Just hope in 6 years from now if they consider to change the uniforms again they do another era. Also, why aren’t their any TV numbers?[/quote]

    NFL waives that TV numbers edict on a “throwback”, doesn’t it. Or seems to, anyway.

    —Ricko

  • Oakville Endive | March 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

    There’s a real lack of numbers with the Packers alternative -not on the sides – not on top? It almost looks like a t-shirt in some ways. I hear what Rcko says about nostalgic unis aren’t suppose to necessarily be good looking – but we’re talking the Packers here.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm |

    to dgm and randy miller:

    you, like me, are entitled to your opinions

    but i would ask that both of you read what i wrote again … i don’t think i trashed the new uniforms in any way … i said, based on the UNIFORM alone, it was a “c” … and gave them an “a” for effort…within the constraints of what they are permitted to do, i think they did as good a job as they could

    i think i’d have caught more shit if i said “WOW…I LOVE THEM, THEY’RE PERFECT” because they’re not…and if there were no historical precedent, you cannot argue that a shiny brown helmet with a blue jersey and big yellow circle, with blue socks and tan pants…looks good

    they attempted to recreate an uniform, which i said i think “i could grow to love”

    and yet somehow, because i didn’t rate them A+++, im trashing them?

    maybe the criticism of the shiny helmet was misplaced, but then, they could have come up with a better representation (color-wise) than that tootsie roll…but even then, all i did was to say i’d have preferred the finish to be matte…perhaps what i meant was the color should better have approximated leather…not what the broncos wore this year

    you guys are certainly entitled to your opinions, including critiquing mine, but to say that i trashed those new unis is patently not true…or fair

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm |

    Honestly, I was hoping they’d come out with
    ACME
    PACKERS
    on the front.

    THAT would have been absolutely unbelievable.
    And SO much fun.
    For exactly the reason Oakville Endive said: it’s the Packers, and you can’t get much historic than that would have been.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm |

    Oh, I know some here pay attention to such things.

    On Twins telecast today they noted that Jim Thome gave Alexi Casilla a Rolex in exchange for his #25. Casilla is now wearing #27.

    —Ricko

  • RC3657 | March 13, 2010 at 3:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”381647″]I usually agree with the uni critiques supplied by the ownership of this blog, however, today’s thrashing of the Packers throwback is something I simply don’t agree with. Let me first say, I have no affiliation with the Packers, I’m a Colts fan, but I applaud the Pack for doing something is daring. Under the uniform rules of the NFL, doing an EXACT replica of that 90 year old uniform was impossible. So you then have 2 choices, 1. Don’t do it, and forget honoring those who came before and won a championship, or 2. Create a modern interpretation of said uniform. This is what they have done. Uniwatch was also quick to slam the so called “glossy” brown helmet. First, the picture was too horrible to judge something on, and 2. Even with a matte like finish, a curved plastic shell, photographed with flashes under those lights, well, good luck making it look dull! Now, do I like the uniforms? Not really, but whoever put it together appears to have made a modern intrepretation that captures the spirit of the original. And besides, it’s an alternate, GET OVER IT.[/quote]

    I agree with this %100. I’m a Jets fan but I love the effort by the Packers. It honors the past teams while using a new “interpretation” of the old jerseys.

  • dgm | March 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”381650″]to dgm and randy miller:

    you guys are certainly entitled to your opinions, including critiquing mine, but to say that i trashed those new unis is patently not true…or fair[/quote]
    and, in turn, i must defend myself and point out that i never said you trashed them. i simply said you shoudn’t bitch about things that, ultimately, the packers have no control over. i’m sure they would have loved to put little circles on the front, but the NFL won’t let them, so they work around it as best they can.

    your grading system is wrong – in and of itself, the uniform isn’t great – the circle IS too big, the helmet does look weird and would look better if it were leather and had no facemask, etc. but working within the constraints imposed on them the uniforms are better than a grade C.

  • dgm | March 13, 2010 at 4:07 pm |

    ps: anyone know why the flyers went with white-at-home today against the blackhawks?

  • Kurt Allen | March 13, 2010 at 4:10 pm |

    Where the Packers third outfit might start to look bad is when Jermichael Finley and Nick Barnett wear the ‘stretch’ version of the jerseys…

    I really needed to take a picture of the guy when I was there, but there’s a fan trolling around at Lambeau, he dresses in a blue jersey with ‘Acme Packers’ and canvas pants, the entire uniform except I don’t think he had the leather helmet – in any event, best dressed fan for sure.

  • ab | March 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm |

    I like these new Packer alt-backs. I felt they did the best they could considering they had to work with the modern-day NFL uniform and uniform regulations.

    I just noticed, though… change the helmet and belt, remove the yellow circle… you have this.

    Just an observation.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 4:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”381657″]I like these new Packer alt-backs. I felt they did the best they could considering they had to work with the modern-day NFL uniform and uniform regulations.

    I just noticed, though… change the helmet and belt, remove the yellow circle… you have this.

    Just an observation.[/quote]

    You’re right. Looks just like UC Davis when Ken O’Brien was their QB in the early ’80s.

    Or if you leave the numbers gold, it’s Navy of the same era.

  • M.Princip | March 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”381623″][quote comment=”381621″]The Packers should have gone with a flat brown helmet. Maybe, even a soft coat to give it a leathery look. The fact that they made the front circle number so BIG is absolutely stupid! The No Fun League(Goodell era) uniform regulations strikes again.

    Just another reason to really appreciate those 94 throwbacks. Obviously, they didn’t have a problem with small numbers at the front of the jersey.

    http://cdn.faniq.com...

    I don’t know man… I think if you cut those numbers out and move them down to the front middle and stick a circle around them, they aren’t that much smaller than what the Packers are using.[/quote]

    Put a tight circle around this Bears 94 throwback, that would be quite slick.

    http://i21.photobuck...

  • Glenn | March 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm |

    All you hayseeds whining about the Packer unis are just jealous because your team doesn’t have the history that GB does. Keep your teals and brick reds and neon colors. We’ll go with tradition.

    “Jealousy, day and night you torture me…”

    Bunch of rubes on here…

  • Jim BC | March 13, 2010 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”381644″][quote comment=”381641″]Not sure if there’s been discussion about this, but good news/bad news from Calgary as they are sticking with their awesome throwbacks for next season.

    Bad news… and I’m mean really bad news… is that they will be Edge jerseys. I wondered how they were able to avoid the Edge crap this year.

    http://flames.nhl.co...

    I’m not sure what that means – this years jerseys sure looked and felt like Edge to me.[/quote]
    The Flames throwbacks this year are definitely made by Reebok but they don’t have that awful bib-like hemline at the bottom – here’s a pic of the game the other night against the Sens. Notice how crappy the Sens uni looks and how perfect the Flames is. If the Flames had the same style, they would look stupid like the Canucks, Habs and Blackhawks look. So… I’m assuming that the Edge system will be duplicated for the Flames next year.

  • Jim BC | March 13, 2010 at 5:29 pm |

    Oops – here’s the pic:

    http://scores.espn.g...

  • Andy | March 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm |

    Again, say what you will about the gloss of the helmet, but helmets are waxed for safety reasons in addition to the aesthetic ones.

    Also, number on this uniform are the same size as the numbers on Pittsburgh’s and Chicago’s ’94 throwbacks. The circle makes them look larger, obviously, and the bears skinny little round numerals have less visual weight than full block ones.

  • Andy | March 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm |

    And as for the color of the helmet, it depended on the type. Some were chocolate in color, some more saddle-orange in color, and some were sandy tan in color. I\’ve seen examples of dozens of leather lids at the HOF, all different in color and most of them shiny (though not glossy) and you can\’t pinpoint one specific model or color of helmet worn in 1929. It was all over the map.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 6:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”381664″]And as for the color of the helmet, it depended on the type. Some were chocolate in color, some more saddle-orange in color, and some were sandy tan in color. I\’ve seen examples of dozens of leather lids at the HOF, all different in color and most of them shiny (though not glossy) and you can\’t pinpoint one specific model or color of helmet worn in 1929. It was all over the map.[/quote]

    You’re right, guess a few were pretty dark, but don’t believe they were anyting like the most common model. Don’t recall any old Packer photos that would indicate they ever opted for that one. Looked more the saddle or sandy variety. Of course, later theirs were painted a very light tan, almost a butter yellow, if I remember correctly (Hutson era). Chance Micheals or TimmyB definitely would know better than I.

    —Ricko

    —Ricko

  • farside268 | March 13, 2010 at 6:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”381636″]

    I’m completely aware of the French translation.

    Are the Marines not part of the Navy?

    Knowing several retired Marines, they appreciate the recognition for the effort they put in. They’re not just “sailors on some boat or sub”, they are highly-trained specialists.

    Just because they fall under that jurisdiction doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the recognition for the job they do.[/quote]

    Fair enough, and I was probably a a bit curt in my original response.

    I was raising the point because it reminded me of an incident with my wife’s step-dad (a U.S. Navy vet) a few years ago. A CF ship had been on a great lakes tour and stopped in Windsor. We took the tour, and the crew had set up a table giving away stickers, posters, etc. Being Windsor, all of the English stickers were gone, but there was a sizable stack of French ones, so we got one for her dad. When we finally gave it to him, it resulted in a lengthy discussion explaining that I understood the difference between the Navy and Marines in the US, but that the sticker was actually from the Canadian Navy.

  • not Osama | March 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm |

    After reading the comments I will agree that the leather helmets color varied from light tan/gold to dark brown but then why not go with the light tan /gold color to better match the pants?
    (Also, as far as a matte finish paint causing neck and spinal injuries I not too sure of the science behind that comment. Considering that the Riddell Revolution and Speed helmets as well as the Schutt Ion helmet, all have significant ridges, grooves, etc. which are a lot more likely to catch or snag and cause injury during a collision than a matte finish paint job?!? I am quite sure you can put a less shiny paint job on the helmet, (it’s not a Corvette) and not increase the chances for neck or spinal injuries.
    Again the overall uniform is not bad but they could have made it a lot better by matching the helmet and pants. Then it is only a matter of the ridiculously, sized gold circle on the jersey that really stands out of place. I still say the the number in the circle is stupid looking especially when comparing it to the original but I do agree that it is not really a fair comparison considering the limitations in place of today’s NFL so I can live with it.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”381615″]Brown, in addition to being the average color of most excrement, is also the color of many mammals’ fur, many bids’ feathers, many trees’ bark and a large portion of the earth’s crust. They even make men’s suits in brown. I’ll never understand why people like you have to be children about it and continually denounce brown solely because it’s the color of poop. It’s a great, strong color with a rich history and it is vastly underused.[/quote]

    YES! Well put. Think I’ll go put on my brown socks now in a show of solidarity.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”381629″]Back in 1994, when the NFL first introduced the throwback uniform, at least two teams (Chicago and Pittsburgh) wore jerseys where the front number was much smaller than today’s required dimensions. This was done because the jerseys selected by those clubs didn’t even include numbers in their original form. Also, to require a front number by today’s standards, would have ruined the integrity of the throwback design.

    Now, I’m just wondering, if the exception was made in 1994, regarding number size and location, why not this time around for GB? Did GB even make the argument? That oversized circle and numeral looks ridiculous.[/quote]

    Good point.

    Actually, I’m like Ricko in this case – I’d rather see ACME PACKERS on the front of the jerseys.

    The only reason I don’t like the throwback is because I don’t like the original. I think they did the best they could and I’ll give them an A for effort.

  • mike 2 | March 13, 2010 at 7:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”381661″][quote comment=”381644″][quote comment=”381641″]Not sure if there’s been discussion about this, but good news/bad news from Calgary as they are sticking with their awesome throwbacks for next season.

    Bad news… and I’m mean really bad news… is that they will be Edge jerseys. I wondered how they were able to avoid the Edge crap this year.

    http://flames.nhl.co...

    I’m not sure what that means – this years jerseys sure looked and felt like Edge to me.[/quote]
    The Flames throwbacks this year are definitely made by Reebok but they don’t have that awful bib-like hemline at the bottom – here’s a pic of the game the other night against the Sens. Notice how crappy the Sens uni looks and how perfect the Flames is. If the Flames had the same style, they would look stupid like the Canucks, Habs and Blackhawks look. So… I’m assuming that the Edge system will be duplicated for the Flames next year.[/quote]

    The authentic jerseys I’ve seen have actually been made of Edge fabric and stitching pattern (i.e. the different panels of different material) but not had the goofy hem, which is why I say they’re Edge.

    Last game I was at before the All Star Break, a girl was sitting in front of me wearing her brand new Dion Phaneuf jersey, $300 with customization, she picked it up about six hours before he was traded to the Leafs.

  • KevinW | March 13, 2010 at 7:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”381669″][quote comment=”381629″]Back in 1994, when the NFL first introduced the throwback uniform, at least two teams (Chicago and Pittsburgh) wore jerseys where the front number was much smaller than today’s required dimensions. This was done because the jerseys selected by those clubs didn’t even include numbers in their original form. Also, to require a front number by today’s standards, would have ruined the integrity of the throwback design.

    Now, I’m just wondering, if the exception was made in 1994, regarding number size and location, why not this time around for GB? Did GB even make the argument? That oversized circle and numeral looks ridiculous.[/quote]

    Good point.

    Actually, I’m like Ricko in this case – I’d rather see ACME PACKERS on the front of the jerseys.

    The only reason I don’t like the throwback is because I don’t like the original. I think they did the best they could and I’ll give them an A for effort.[/quote]

    Sounds like a really good idea for a DIY.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”381631″]HOWEVER, considering what an actual raven looks like, The Jeff’s gradient jersey for the Ravens is absolutely brilliant. They could wear that sucker right now with their exising uni (either the white or black pants) and it would become one of the most distinctive jerseys in the NFL.[/quote]

    Black pants.

    Just as the Ravens can pull off the all-black look, I think they can pull off the gradient look as well. And only the Ravens. If other teams tried it, it would be GFGS.

    Also, even with the black trim, I kinda like The Jeff’s Jets.

    As for the Jeff named Mr. Shirley, I like your stuff as well. Hate the NYK logo, but you didn’t design that so I’m not blaming you. Your Knicks unis are deserving of a better logo.

    Matt, very solid tweaks. Wonder what your Padres would look like in brown and yellow…

    Thanks guys.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm |

    Good Benchies, Rick.

    Ski jumping with a snow shovel? Is that a personal experience?

    Finally gives me an excuse to post one of the best ski jumping videos I’ve ever seen. It would be perfect if there was snow on the ground, but oh well.
    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Terry D. | March 13, 2010 at 8:21 pm |

    First off, the Packers uni to me is a good third jersey, but not a great third jersey, simply because of NFL regulations and lack of creative expansion (minus the bumper stickers we see nowadays). Secondly, are there any Uni Watchers out there who are around my age? I just turned 19 yesterday. Third, does anyone out there think that the NBA should go for a Nike contract so that all NBA players have to wear the System of Dress uniforms?

  • Dwayne | March 13, 2010 at 8:22 pm |

    I don’t care if it is the Packers…

    That uniform is a complete failure.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 8:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”381674″]does anyone out there think that the NBA should go for a Nike contract so that all NBA players have to wear the System of Dress uniforms?[/quote]

    No no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no no
    no no no no no no no no no No.

    A hundred times no.

    Unless they take the SoD out of college basketball in return. The only reason I still watch the NBA is because they don’t do the SoD. If they switched I would strictly be a college hoops fan.

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 8:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”381675″]I don’t care if it is the Packers…

    That uniform is a complete failure.[/quote]

    Because?

    Usually there’s a “why” or two around here.

  • rpm | March 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm |

    anybody know where i can find some 1974 10 cent beer night riot video? i have been looking, but so far fail on vids, just pixtures.

  • Jim BC | March 13, 2010 at 8:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”381670″][quote comment=”381661″][quote comment=”381644″][quote comment=”381641″]Not sure if there’s been discussion about this, but good news/bad news from Calgary as they are sticking with their awesome throwbacks for next season.

    Bad news… and I’m mean really bad news… is that they will be Edge jerseys. I wondered how they were able to avoid the Edge crap this year.

    http://flames.nhl.co...

    I’m not sure what that means – this years jerseys sure looked and felt like Edge to me.[/quote]
    The Flames throwbacks this year are definitely made by Reebok but they don’t have that awful bib-like hemline at the bottom – here’s a pic of the game the other night against the Sens. Notice how crappy the Sens uni looks and how perfect the Flames is. If the Flames had the same style, they would look stupid like the Canucks, Habs and Blackhawks look. So… I’m assuming that the Edge system will be duplicated for the Flames next year.[/quote]

    The authentic jerseys I’ve seen have actually been made of Edge fabric and stitching pattern (i.e. the different panels of different material) but not had the goofy hem, which is why I say they’re Edge.

    Last game I was at before the All Star Break, a girl was sitting in front of me wearing her brand new Dion Phaneuf jersey, $300 with customization, she picked it up about six hours before he was traded to the Leafs.[/quote]
    OK – understood. Whenever I think “Edge”, I think of the look of the jerseys as opposed to the material and feel. So… maybe they will stay the same lookwise? Who knows? Bummer about the Phaneuf jersey. Maybe she can return it and see if they can put “Mayers” on the back??

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    Matt Stairs needs to become a Uni Watch member. He’s certainly worn more than his fair share of unis:
    http://sports.yahoo....

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 9:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”381678″]anybody know where i can find some 1974 10 cent beer night riot video? i have been looking, but so far fail on vids, just pixtures.[/quote]

    i shudder to think why you seek this

  • Ricko | March 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm |

    JimV19 said…

    “Just as the Ravens can pull off the all-black look, I think they can pull off the gradient look as well. And only the Ravens. If other teams tried it, it would be GFGS.”

    Right there is a really good argument that it should have been Ravens who introduced the Honda gas tank helmets to the NFL, rather than the Jaguars.

    Cuz that “Rockies’ batting helmet look” kinda would have worked for a team called the Ravens.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | March 13, 2010 at 9:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”381681″][quote comment=”381678″]anybody know where i can find some 1974 10 cent beer night riot video? i have been looking, but so far fail on vids, just pixtures.[/quote]

    i shudder to think why you seek this[/quote]

    let’s just say it’s part of a pączki project. but this is cool, no?

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 9:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”381683″]
    let’s just say it’s part of a pączki project.[/quote]

    of course, now it all makes sense

  • LarryB | March 13, 2010 at 9:53 pm |

    Good point by Michael P about the flat brown helmet. And since they can now do those camo helmets or ones like TCU speckled, how easy or hard would it be to make a leather helmet design. If anybody understands what I mean.

    Paint the helmet somehow so it looks more like leather with faux holes and lines for the stitching.

  • Mike Engle | March 13, 2010 at 10:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”381685″]Good point by Michael P about the flat brown helmet. And since they can now do those camo helmets or ones like TCU speckled, how easy or hard would it be to make a leather helmet design. If anybody understands what I mean.

    Paint the helmet somehow so it looks more like leather with faux holes and lines for the stitching.[/quote]
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?

  • Oakville Endive | March 13, 2010 at 10:13 pm |

    Wow, judging by the intrigue for the Ravens design, maybe it should allow it to be a late entry to the uni contest?

    Interesting – but the Vancouver Canucks tried a similar look – it really didn’t take – does purple/black work better than navy and burgundy – hmmmmm?

  • traxel | March 13, 2010 at 10:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”381684″][quote comment=”381683″]
    let’s just say it’s part of a pączki project.[/quote]

    of course, now it all makes sense[/quote]
    I think it needs a re-enactment. Send date and location. I’m in.

  • traxel | March 13, 2010 at 10:32 pm |

    Packers alt. I like the dot. I’m more of a if it’s different, even ugly, I like it person. I hate the colors. Brown was the color of the old helmet because the “corn mother” hadn’t invented color yet. Now we have it. Use it. Make the jersey green with a yellow dot. Yellow pants. Yellow helmet. Done. Maybe I like the jersey because it was that of a former Wildcat.

  • Mike Engle | March 13, 2010 at 10:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”381687″]Wow, judging by the intrigue for the Ravens design, maybe it should allow it to be a late entry to the uni contest?

    Interesting – but the Vancouver Canucks tried a similar look – it really didn’t take – does purple/black work better than navy and burgundy – hmmmmm?[/quote]
    Don’t forget, the Atlanta Hawks had this piece of crap. Not in my house!
    Back to football though, about nine years ago, just before Reebok’s exclusivity in the NFL, Puma had a color gradient sideline cap for each team. They were mostly terrible.
    PS: While looking for Mutombo pictures, I found this. Reminded me of a conversation we had about unretired numbers, the most recent example being Luis Aparicio’s #11 for Omar Vizquel. Now I’ve remembered that Allen Iverson wore #6 in an All-Star Game. I forget which year this was. Iverson said he was just wearing a tribute to Julius Erving, but if it coincided with the release of the “A-6″ (as in, the new Reebok Iverson signature shoe), I’m sure some Uni Watcher would have cried foul by now.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 10:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”381686″]
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?[/quote]

    like this?

  • Mike Engle | March 13, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”381691″][quote comment=”381686″]
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?[/quote]

    like this?[/quote]
    Yes. Exactly. (Or dark on light, to reverse your light on dark. I don’t care.) Isn’t that a trillion times better than the plain solid brown domes? It’s got a bit of artwork, but it’s still “plain” enough to be leather-inspired.

  • Michael Emody | March 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

    I was thinking that the 1929 Packer helmets were, essentially, off the shelf. So, doing some faux-back tweaking is fair game, since in 29, they seemed to be considered more “equipment” than “uniform.” So, here’s today’s time-waister:
    Packer throwback tweak.
    And I put some stripes in the socks.

  • LI Phil | March 13, 2010 at 10:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”381692″][quote comment=”381691″][quote comment=”381686″]
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?[/quote]

    like this?[/quote]
    Yes. Exactly. (Or dark on light, to reverse your light on dark. I don’t care.) Isn’t that a trillion times better than the plain solid brown domes? It’s got a bit of artwork, but it’s still “plain” enough to be leather-inspired.[/quote]

    better?

  • Oakville Endive | March 13, 2010 at 11:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”381690″][quote comment=”381687″]Wow, judging by the intrigue for the Ravens design, maybe it should allow it to be a late entry to the uni contest?

    Interesting – but the Vancouver Canucks tried a similar look – it really didn’t take – does purple/black work better than navy and burgundy – hmmmmm?[/quote]
    Don’t forget, the Atlanta Hawks had this piece of crap. Not in my house!
    Back to football though, about nine years ago, just before Reebok’s exclusivity in the NFL, Puma had a color gradient sideline cap for each team. .[/quote]

    A truly ugly Hawks uni -didn’t they have chartreuse at one time, off course after watching the Olympics- I’m quite happy never to see chartreuse again.

    I was thinking – if a NHL team adopted the same thinking Green Bay has – then a team wearing a vintage sweater, would have to adopt the first eve hair helmet – fake hair covering up the real helmet – to get that authentic pre-1970’s look. Stupid….yes – but that’s the problem with the Packers,,,, the Packers doing this – while the uni-intelligensa – may be debating – the average Joe fan I think is going to see a brown helmet and go uggh!!

  • Mike Engle | March 13, 2010 at 11:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”381694″][quote comment=”381692″][quote comment=”381691″][quote comment=”381686″]
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?[/quote]

    like this?[/quote]
    Yes. Exactly. (Or dark on light, to reverse your light on dark. I don’t care.) Isn’t that a trillion times better than the plain solid brown domes? It’s got a bit of artwork, but it’s still “plain” enough to be leather-inspired.[/quote]

    better?[/quote]
    Actually, it makes no difference. They’re both equally good, as long as everybody on the team has the same style. But both are CLEARLY better than the purely solids as originally planned by the Pack.

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”381686″][quote comment=”381685″]Good point by Michael P about the flat brown helmet. And since they can now do those camo helmets or ones like TCU speckled, how easy or hard would it be to make a leather helmet design. If anybody understands what I mean.

    Paint the helmet somehow so it looks more like leather with faux holes and lines for the stitching.[/quote]

    To be more accurate, you’d need to make the helmet look like this:
    http://farm5.static....
    Hmmm…anybody care to Photoshop/MS Paint doctor a Michigan/Princeton/Delaware/”that winged style” helmet, using two tones of brown instead of team colors?[/quote]

  • JimV19 | March 13, 2010 at 11:17 pm |

    Lemme try that again:
    http://farm5.static....

    Might be more accurate to photoshop that helmet.

  • rpm | March 13, 2010 at 11:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”381688″][quote comment=”381684″][quote comment=”381683″]
    let’s just say it’s part of a pączki project.[/quote]

    of course, now it all makes sense[/quote]
    I think it needs a re-enactment. Send date and location. I’m in.[/quote]

    pączkis tatums crabs and 10 cent beer night brawls

  • Josh | March 14, 2010 at 12:53 am |

    Re: Giants socks
    I am the PA Announcer at Scottsdale Stadium, and from what I’ve seen there are just a couple of Giants players wearing the pant legs high with the stripes showing. Zito is the most prominent.
    Today, Nate Schierholtz even wore high pants with solid black socks.
    There are no players in the major league camp wearing the stirrups as pictured in this post. That picture is from the minor league camp, where it seems that those stirrpus are common (I haven’t been over there to seem them in person though).

  • Defo Maitland | March 14, 2010 at 1:12 am |

    Funny how some people (like everyone here for instance) pay such close intention to uni detail and others, even those who are around the game every day, are so clueless about the sartorial side of things.

    During Saturday afternoon’s telecast on PIX, Mets announcers Keith Hernandez and Gary Cohen’s fill-in (Kevin Burkhardt perhaps?) commented on the Tigers’ caps. Detroit was wearing the one-style-fits-all BP caps with the funky stripes and the broadcast crew bemoaned the changes to the Tigers’ classic chapeau. They openly wondered if this was strictly a spring training thing or whether the change would carry over into the season.

  • Defo Maitland | March 14, 2010 at 1:14 am |

    [quote comment=”381701″]Funny how some people (like everyone here for instance) pay such close intention to uni detail …[/quote]

    Wish I’d pay more ATTENTION to my typing

  • TK | March 14, 2010 at 1:32 am |

    You can only do so much when the NFL has all these different guidelines. Already my favorite 3rd jersey in the NFL by far.

  • Hibbsy | March 14, 2010 at 3:03 am |

    I have been requesting brown helmets since the Lions first threw back with the gorgeous Honolulu blues and silvers. Thank you Packers for validating me. How anyone can remotely bitch about the “finish” is beyond me. I just wish they used clear plastic for the face masks, instead of gray.

    Once again, I appreciate peoples’ effort on these “tweaks”, but where is the stripe consistency? SFSS- Stripes For Stripes Sake is a bad idea. Any thing for any sake, is stupid.

    Gradients are wack. Big time.
    Looking more grackel than raven.