Monday Morning Uni Watch

MMUW hed

By Phil Hecken

Week Three of the 2011 NFL season didn’t yield a tremendous amount of uni-notoriety, but we did have a throwback, an alt that serves as a throwback, and an alt. Let’s start with those.

• The New Orleans Saints threw back to 1967, wearing the black jersey over gold pants look.

• Shockingly, their golds didn’t match, although it looks like they wore their current helmets. Still, it was a great look.

• Back when the Saints were in the Super Bowl, I did a column with Ricko and Timmy B., and there is a pretty good look at the Saints uni history there, should you want to check it out.

• As far as throwbacks go, the Saints came pretty close to the original, except for the sleeve stripes (or lack thereof on most players) and the width of the white outline on the numbers. The Saints, no matter who was their uniform supplier, have actually fairly well replicated those 1967 originals. Nice job.

• The Minnesota Vikings wore their alternate uniforms, which are also throwbacks. We know they do it on purpose, but even under the new Metrodome roof lights, the mismatched purples on helmet and jersey is noticeable. Still, they looked great, and really should return to this look fulltime — Nike, are you listening?

Da Bears wore their orange alternate tops, and despite orange being an awesome color, they just don’t look quite right. Maybe it’s the blue helmets and blue socks? Plus, they played the Pack. You tell me, which looks more like a Packers vs. Bears game?

• In that Packers/Bears game, Johnny Knox was styling with two sets of colored socks.

• The Rams returned to their senses and wore their gold pants, just as God intended. You can also see how thin the ram horn logo now appears on their helmets.

• The Jets and Raiders hooked up on a dirt infield, in a game Jim Vilk would have loved. The Jets white uniform is one of the best in the league. Unfortunately for the Jets, there was no showing of Heidi yesterday.

• Speaking of games Movi would love, the Jags & Panthers played most of their game with a sloppy track. And man, those super-stretchy jerseys are really super-stretchy.

• The contrast between good and bad uniforms was readily apparent in the Niners/Bengals game. Of course, no games look good when the players decide to wear bicycle shorts.

• The Browns wore white at home again, (also, as God intended), and Josh Cribbs continued the practice of wearing leg warmers on his forearms.

• In yet another tip of the cap to the uniform gods, the Bills remain undefeated in their gorgeous new duds. Nice socks on both teams too. And, I have to admit, I’m starting to come around on the Bills tapered helmet stripe. Still don’t love it, but it’s growing on me.

• Most teams don’t look real good in the super-stretchies. But when you wear stripes on your “sleeves” and pants, they can look just awful. Here’s another good look at the reinforced shoulders on Mike Vick’s jersey.

• The Titans wore white at home yesterday, so the Broncos wore their blue jerseys. I thought their orange jersey was going to be their primary this year. Does this count as one of the two times they can wear their alt? Anyone? I’m so confused about the new rules.

• Also wearing white at home were the Buccaneers, which meant the Falcons wore their red jerseys, which aren’t often seen in natural light. I’m not a fan of that entire jersey/pants set, but it’s really just a couple tweaks away from looking good. And it looks pretty good in the sunshine.

• The Chargers’ Antonio Garay continues with interesting facial/hair looks. Anyone know if that is just a random pattern or if it has some meaning?

• I think we’ve covered this before, but Pierre Garçon’s NOB has a cédille. Is he the only player with this particular accent mark?

• Anyone else think the Colts should have white cleats and the Stillers should have black ones, instead of the other way around? Come to think of it, so too should the Jets and Raiders.

Ugh. Just ugh.

That’s about it — if I missed anything, post it below.

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderBenchies

by Rick Pearson

~~~

Special MMUW edition of Benchies today, kiddies!

Wow, what are the odds?

9-26-11 m-space junk

And of course, your full-size.

~~~~~~~~~~

Vilk 5 & 15 & 1 — The Pro Edition

It’s not often Jim gets to do a 5 & 1 for the pros, but it’s not often I get to handle the MMUW duties.

Now, Jim’s not much for the league where they pay for play, but he’s a trooper. So lets see if he applies the same arbitrary and capricious rules to his uniform selections as he does to the college game.

Here’s Jim:

~~~

Honorable Mention to Texans/Saints – I love throwbacks and mismatched golds.

5. Jets/Raiders – I love a multipurpose stadium with dirt, too.

4. Steelers/Colts – If only those “shoulder stripes” were a little bigger…

3. Dolphins/Browns – Well, at least the Browns can beat the Steelers in *something*.

2. Chiefs/Chargers – Contrast, baby…contrast!

1. Packers/Bears – The color palette special of the day.

And the baddie: Cardinals/Seahawks – Oh, Seattle…that blue just makes me want to sing.

~~~~~~~~~~

Uni Watch News Ticker: The Nets are set to make some sort of announcement this morning in Brooklyn. Team name? Logo? We shall see. … Recent finds on Etsy: baseball-themed cufflinks, a set of Chuck Taylor-esque charm beads, and — the real prize — an Expos letter opener. … Looks like Tommy Lasorda was wearing real stirrups when he suited up last Thursday. … New basketball court for Ole Miss (from Michael Martin). … Here are USF’s Wounded Warrior Project helmet and shoes, which the Bulls will wear on Nov. 19 against Miami. My understanding had been that the full uni unveiling wouldn’t happen until late October, but maybe that will change now that helmet is out there already. … Willie Gabel was watching the Belichick documentary on the NFL Network. “One segment shows an AFL Heritage game during the 2009 season — a Patriots/Broncos tilt,” he says. “Belichick is talking to some officials before the game. The refs are lamenting wearing the AFL officials’ uniforms, and they all chuckle at the Broncos’ throwbacks. Then Belichick quips, ‘You shoulda seen the shit they tried to dress me up in.'” … I’m still calling it the Superdome (and so is Christopher Falvey). … Mark Arnold notes that Bills QB Ryan Fitzpatrick wears his wedding band on the field. … Did you know the Cowboys have a merchandising operation that produces licensed college football apparel? I didn’t, until I read this article about how they’re being accused of using sweatshop labor. … John Schandler wonders if the claim of “over 20 moving parts” in this Steelers figurine was intended to include the head. … Michael Vick is wearing special Kevlar padding (from Dave Rakowski). … Kenn Tomasch found this photo and cap which ran in newspapers around the country on 11/8/1986. Kinda uni-related, based on the caption. … Chris Fernandez saw this interesting hand brace/protection on Jemile Weeks from The Oakland A’s on Friday night. … A reader who sent in this shot says, “San Diego State uses different sizes of helmet decals for various helmet styles.” If you took that cam-phone shot, please, take a bow. … Several readers noticed TJ Jones from Notre Dame had what looked like a backwards ND on his right sleeve (thanks to Joseph Lombardo, Richard Hill, and Jeff Ford, respectively, for the screen grabs, as well as Jimmy Atkinson & Todd Herzog). … Jeff Poole says, “I usually like Adam McCalvy’s work as a Brewers beat writer, but this article and its tenuous links to uniform numbers is absolutely horrible. They’re all good reasons for the Brewers winning the division this year, but trying to link each item to a Brewers uniform number fails pretty badly.” … Christ, is it that time already Fortunately, hockey starts soon, so John Muir found this pretty cool NHL color scale, which includes links to Green/Purple/Natural and Orange/Silver/Gold scales. … Don Schafer grabbed this shot of multiple players for LSU wearing #38. According to Don, “Kirk Herbstreet mentioned that this was a great shot and complimented Brent on keeping all the 38’s straight.” … Check out the Pistol Pete nose bumpers on the new gray Oklahoma State helmets (with thanks to Arin Mitchell). … Teebz had to rewrite the article from Monday on HBIC. Why? “The new Leafs alternate uniform that honours the 1967 team? It’s already been worn before by the Leafs. I recognized it the moment I saw it, and I knew it had been worn before, but I had to nail it down. So I did. December 19, 2009 saw the Leafs warm up in the very alternate jersey they are wearing this year.” … Rich Cocchiara noticed the stitching pattern on Michael Vick’s jersey and asks, “I’m sure you’re getting a lot of this, but what is up with Vicks shoulder?” … Chad Hensley found “some random things I found while looking for garden supplies for a family member.” What did he find? NFL Throwback Mini Garden Gnomes, NFL Team Santa Claus Statues, and NFL Food Containers. Good thing he wasn’t shopping in the local Adult Novelty store. … Ricko found some good vids on the new Gray and Purple field that UCA is breaking out: Coach admits “it will help with recruiting.” A look at the field. Looks like the field gets its “big time” home debut Saturday night. … “Went to the first game of the season for the defending National Champion Wisconsin Badgers women’s hockey team. They were playing Lindenwood,” says Nicole Haase. “The Lady Lions (ugh) were wearing these socks that didn’t quite make it all the way around the calf. They were black with gold hoops, but when the girls turned around, there was a white strip of fabric going down the back. Cannot fathom what the purpose of that is.” … In a football game only the Mothervilker could love, between FAMU & Southern, Prentice James notes this FCS color on color and says Southern University wore SAME gold jerseys from 2006 Bayou Classic. “Don’t believe me,” he says. “Check this article about 1/4 way down. Even better, I attended the 2006 Bayou Classic, bought the same SU jersey type, and recently sold it on eBay.” … Colour on colour yesterday in professional football — but it was in Canada, eh. … Seth Moorman was not sure if Coco Crisp missed a button or just got his jersey all twisted up Sunday in Anaheim. … Very cool *sculpture* found by Jim Lonetti in Fraconia Sculpture Park, Taylors Falls, MN. … Good spot by Jeff Spry, who noticed during the Steelers/Colts game that Big Ben’s #7 is a bit off center. Just a few mms in one direction and it would be perfectly centered. Instead, there is some yellow visible on the left and the white point overlaps onto the black. … Here’s one for Paul: Timothy Cassady found this link about a kid in Cincinnati that likes to explore abandoned buildings and photograph what he sees. … What would happen if the Dodgers changed their logo and no one noticed? (thanks, Brinke).

~~~~~~~~~~

And with that, I’ll hand the tiller back over to Captain Lukas. If you didn’t see the weekend’s offerings, make sure you check out the 10 finalists in the UW Seahawks Redesign Contest AND be sure to cast your vote for your favorite(s). Everyone have a great Monday, and I’ll see you next weekend.

~~~

Vikes in their throwbacks AKA “What they should be wearing every week”. — Johnny Okray

 

211 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • NolaShaun | September 26, 2011 at 7:10 am |

    Quick note on the Saints helmets. They definitely weren’t the current helmets, but they weren’t the 67 helmets either. They looked like the helmets they wore during the Dome Patrol years…late 80s and 90s. The fleur-de-lis on the current helmet is significantly smaller.

    Love the site!

    • John in KY | September 26, 2011 at 10:47 am |

      I’m pretty sure they just replaced the modern fleur-de-lis on the current helmets with a replica of the original fleur-de-lis. I’m not sure when the Saints changed to the lighter gold on their helmets – I thought that happened sometime in the mid/late 70s but it could have been later. Of course this was the helmet (lighter gold, original fleur-de-lis) they wore in the 80s and 90s until changing to the current version in 2000 or so.

      • Richard Hill | September 26, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

        As a lifelong Saints fan, I prefer this helmet set-up. The “newer” fleur de lis that the team has worn in the past few seasons looks too small on the helmet, in my opinion.

        • Michael M | September 26, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

          Totally agree! The helmet yesterday looked light years better than the modern logo.

        • NickV | September 26, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

          I’m a Saints lifer also – I like the older logo better. I associate that new triple-outlined smaller Fleur de Lis with the Haslett/ Aaron Brooks era – when it debuted, The larger, simpler logo is better, more visable, and should return.

          Any of the four shades of Gold used Sunday would be a helluva lot beter than the current “Vegas Gold”. Pick one and roll with it.

          Who Dat!!!

        • SoCalDrew | September 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

          “As a lifelong Saints fan, I prefer this helmet set-up. The “newer” fleur de lis that the team has worn in the past few seasons looks too small on the helmet, in my opinion.”

          150% agreed

  • Ryan | September 26, 2011 at 7:24 am |

    Broncos can’t switch to orange until 2012. This is the last year of blue being the primary.

  • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 7:26 am |

    Will Lovie Smith ever learn? When the Packers are in town, WEAR BLUE JERSEYS AND WHITE PANTS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

    Let’s see what happens when you deviate from the script.

    2002: solid blue – loss (OK, that was Dick Jauron, but it set the precedent)
    2006: solid blue – loss
    2010: throwbacks (blue over white) – win
    2011: orange jerseys – loss

    Seriously, I like the orange jerseys once a season, but not against the Packers. And there’s plenty of orange on those throwbacks. Make them the permanent alt.

  • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 7:28 am |

    If the Saints could match the golds, that uniform would be competing with the Packers & Raiders for best in the league. But with the horrible mismatch, they look like shit. I’m sorry, but the color is just so far off it looks like they’re wearing another team’s pants or something. It’s even worse than the old navy helmet/royal jersey issue that used to plague the Rams & Giants.

    • DenverGregg | September 26, 2011 at 7:49 am |

      . . . the one other thing, they need to reduce the size of (or even eliminate) the white outline around the numbers, but yeah. Mostly terrific uni but for the glaring mismatches. If all the golds were normalized to the gold on the numbers, ganz gut.

    • Casey Hart | September 26, 2011 at 11:43 am |

      Yay to matching helmet and pants stripes.

    • NickV | September 26, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

      The Saints aren’t able to match their Golds with the current regular uniform using the “Vegas Gold”( weak Cat Piss )shade either.

      Nonetheless, the St. Louis Rams have been able to match their Golds after returning to that shade 35 years after the Saints were formed. Go figure ….

  • Jim | September 26, 2011 at 7:56 am |

    I have officially “unliked” a certain “official” FB page for an NFL team I will not refer to by name because I am disappointed that their “Code Blue” promotion yielded less than I expected. I really thought they were going to use “Code Blue” on both the jersey and pants–not just on the pants. I also wish that this team would revert back either to its original uniform kit it introduced when they finally changed their nickname in 1999, or to something that resembles the uniforms of their former “nickname.” The look they have had for about 3 years featuring more of the lighter blue and less of the darker blue has got to go!!!!!!!!!!!

    • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 8:15 am |

      I always thought that their current road uniform with the lighter pants sorta *does* resemble what they wore with their former name.

      • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

        We’re talking about the Steelers, right?

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

          No, no we’re not. I think everyone has gotten over the name change from Pirates by now.

  • Dumb guy | September 26, 2011 at 7:58 am |

    The Notre Dame ND isn’t backwards, it’s upside-down.

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:32 am |

      Technically, it’s spun 180 degrees, not flipped either way. Flipped front-to-back, both letters would be backwards; flipped top-to-bottom, the D would be normal and the N would be backwards. The N is normal and the D is backwards, so it’s spun around.

      • Dumb guy | September 26, 2011 at 10:56 am |

        Correct. My apolgies for being less than exact in my comment.

      • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 11:48 am |

        If you see a car on the side of the road with its wheels in the air, do you tell the person on the phone “and the car is spun 180 degrees!”???

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 11:56 am |

          No, because I don’t talk on the phone while I’m driving, you freak. Put your damn phone down and pay attention to the road.

          /kidding

        • D. Copperfield. | September 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

          No, I say “Hey, I just saw a levitating car!!”

        • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

          No, but while it’s pretty unlikely that a car would somehow become perfectly mirrored, it’s a lot more likely that it would happen to a patch that can be sewn on in any of those three positions.

  • Teebz | September 26, 2011 at 8:06 am |

    @Nicole Haase: the back of the Lindenwoods’ socks is a ventilation panel. It helps in releasing the heat built up by the hockey player. It’s more or less an air conditioning vent.

    The stretchy material also helps players with large calf muscles gain a bit of extra room, but I’m not sure how many ladies at Lindenwoods have tree trunks for legs.

    • Ry Co 40 | September 26, 2011 at 9:26 am |

      my first thought when seeing the pic was that it is a “special” material that helps prevent getting sliced with a skate blade.

      • Teebz | September 26, 2011 at 9:40 am |

        Some of the socks have that feature built into it, but you really only need the kevlar protection lower down to prevent a snapped Achilles’ tendon. The panel near the back of the knee? Not necessary in any way for protection.

        Good call on that, though, RyCo.

    • CCH | September 26, 2011 at 11:40 am |

      I’d rather have less air flow and not look like crap.

  • Keith | September 26, 2011 at 8:11 am |

    The Colts wear black shoes as a throwback to Unitas.

    • WFY | September 26, 2011 at 8:36 am |

      Which is stupid because Indy’s only relationship with Unitas was a corporate one. Unitas wanted nothing to do with the Irsays or Indy. Should have left the name in Baltimore.

      • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 8:45 am |

        They don’t wear them specifically as a Unitas thing, they wear them because they’re “retro” and apparently retro is “cool” right now.

        • -DW | September 26, 2011 at 8:58 am |

          …Along with bicycle shorts, pants with no padding, jerseys with no sleeves stretched to the snapping point, visors and motorcycle helmets that cost $600.00.

          There sure must be a lot of players, college and pros, with eyesight problems due to all the visors.

          Hogwash…..

        • Keith | September 26, 2011 at 10:13 am |

          Actually, it is based on Unitas, as the teams switch from white shoes to black followed Manning being denied a tribute to Johnny U.

          http://sportsillustr...

      • Ed Hughes | September 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

        I don’t usually (OK, ever) do this, but in reference to WFY’s comment “Should have left the name in Baltimore:” +19

        • KT | September 26, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

          Easy to say that now. But that just wasn’t done back then. In fact, there was a ton of precedent for taking the name with you.

          I was told once by a senior Colt official that they’d have “considered” giving them the name back IF Baltimore had been given an expansion team within a short amount of time (exactly how long wasn’t specified) after the move. But by a certain point, it wasn’t happening.

          Plus, if you know the history of the club, you know this much:
          1 – The person who would have, in the end, made that decision wasn’t ever really going to do it; and
          2 – That person was batshit crazy and is dead now, so there’s no use holding it against the organization.

        • BurghFan | September 27, 2011 at 4:44 am |

          The Baltimore Colts Marching Band continued to play after the team left. (They’d do halftime at Three Rivers about every other year.) I believe that when the Ravens came into existence, they remained the Colts band, and eventually agreed to change their name when the Ravens moved into their new stadium.

          Kenn is right about about how Mr. Mayflower was never going to sell the name back to a Baltimore team.

  • Aidan | September 26, 2011 at 8:13 am |

    Man I wish we would get some colorONcolor matchups in the NFL. Already have a perfect one for this year. Pats @ Eagles. Eagles wear their 60’s kelly gteen throwbacks from last year. and New England wears their “Pat patriot” reds. I think I’d cry if I saw that ha

  • Carl | September 26, 2011 at 8:27 am |

    …I think the Vikings mis-match of purples is actually spot on with what they used to actually wear. They didn’t match then, why should they match now?

    • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 8:29 am |

      THE…you wanna handle this one?

      • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 8:43 am |

        For a one game a year throwback, accuracy is fine, silly gray mask and mismatched colors included. If they were going to start wearing it full time again, it’s just… stupid to not make the colors match. Vikings purple is one specific color, not just any shade of purple under the sun. Team colors should mean *something* shouldn’t they? If it’s wrong for a red & gold team to wear black, then it should also be wrong for a royal blue team to wear navy or a (specific shade of) purple team to use multiple shades.

        • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:37 am |

          Spot on. Except for a team like the Cowboys, whose trademark is the mismatched silvers, teams should strive to match their colors as well as they can. Of course I say that while still liking the Saints’ mismatched pants that also didn’t match the originals.

        • Andy | September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am |

          The pant color was a heck of a lot closer to the stripes and numbers than the helmet color, though.

        • Casey Hart | September 26, 2011 at 11:46 am |

          Agreed on the matching. OK to mismatch for a week, not for the season. I don’t think the original intent was a mismatch. Matched or not, just about anything would be an improvement over Vikes’ current regular unis (except my Bungles’ black over black).

    • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 9:23 am |

      I don’t know that you guys are even disagreeing with each other, but if you are, I’m on Carl’s side. If the jersey colors match the uniforms they’re trying to replicateand the helmet colors match the uniforms they’re trying to replicate, they’ve done it right.

      If you try to “emulate the look” in going back to it FT, then you have to decide – are you planning to give the old uniform an exact match, or simply a nod to the past? Once that is determined, then you decide whether or not the colors should match each other.

      • RMB | September 26, 2011 at 10:59 am |

        Since the Vikings are probably relocating to LA in the offseason, any talk of those unis coming back full time is pretty redundant.

        • DenverGregg | September 26, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

          If that happens, do the Rams get bumped to the NFC north and the Lakers 2.0 move to NFC west? Or does the NFC north include SoCal? Also how long until the Raiders and Chargers move back to LA making it a 3 team market?

  • Pierre | September 26, 2011 at 8:31 am |

    Watching the Saints yesterday I was waiting to see Billy Kilmer and Doug Atkins making plays. While far from historically accurate the Saints throwbacks evoked memories of the Saints original (1967) uniforms. People here who love uniforms could appreciate hown visually powerful the Saints first uniforms were. Shimmering gold dominated the ornate uniforms and, compared to other teams, it looked like we were wearing tuxedos while everyone else was wearing khakis.

    But the original uniforms actually didn’t last long as the Saints soon began tinkering with small details that added up to a different look…sleeve stripes (the stripes became separted and not contiguous), pants stripes (varied in width and then the sequence reversed), numbers (changes in the the outline and then to solid numbers), socks (striped tube sox over black stirrups). The fabrics changed, as well, and soon numbers and stripes were made of rubber.

    There has been much discussion about the exact shade of gold of the Saints original uniform…and I doubt if anyone can recreate it exactly because I would not trust any photographic or video rendering of the color. The infamous Sports Illustrated cover shot is wrong…actually, BOTH versions of the SI cover shot are wrong. The “corrected” version is too light IMO…perhaps the photgrapher was using powerful lights for the shoot. The original gold was darker, which may be one reason why some people think the “copper” version is more accurate. (Last week I thought the “copper” version was more accurate, but after researching old Saints photos to refresh my memory I now think neither SI versions captures the correct shade.)

    Having seen the original uniforms on several occasions (and for many years that followed) I can tell you that the original gold was stunning…and the fabric of the pants and the jersey numbers shimmered. The Saints original uniforms were beautiful and, considering the fit and fabrics of modern uniforms, I doubt if they will ever wear anything as visually powerful.

    • Pierre | September 26, 2011 at 8:52 am |

      Saints…circa 1971.

      http://amog.com/wp-c...

      It didn’t take long for the Saints to change their original look…

    • Joseph Gerard | September 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

      The stripes would’ve been separated because at the time, on some teams the stripes n’at were being silk-screened on, like the Buccaneers throwbacks. I think it’s more noticeable on the Browns uniforms at the time.

      http://www.cleveland...

      Also, judging by this pic, it looks like Ben Roethlisberger and a few other players (I saw it on Lawrence Timmons last night) were making their best L.C. Greenwood impression. Check out Ben’s shoes.

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

  • Stirpey | September 26, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    “Teebz had to had to…” <— maybe want to get rid of one 'had to'? I'm not an english major but just sayin'…great entry today though! Monday Morning Uniwatch is my favorite for sure. Along with a Vilk 5 & 1? Pure Greatness…although still mad at Vilk for no Oregon/Arizona in CFB 5 & 1…I understand he doesn't like the Titan #s but I thought it was a shoe in for a new, "darker hue color palette of the week" award. It's okay though, still love seeing uni matchups that I missed.

    GO Bills!

    • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

      Oregon/Arizona was nice from a color standpoint, I agree…but only from a color standpoint. Glad you were pleased overall.

      And if you’re a Bills fan, congrats!

  • Adam W | September 26, 2011 at 8:45 am |

    Complete guess here; are the hockey socks that don’t go all the way around reinforced somehow/somewhere so the player knows which is side is front and which is back? I used to tape up mine so there was a little more support in the back…maybe somebody built into the sock?

  • billy v | September 26, 2011 at 8:51 am |

    Jemile Weeks = I’m Gumby Damnit

    http://www.aplacetos...

  • -DW | September 26, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    There was a weekend comment about the Kentucky-Florida matchup.

    The Wildcats looked a lot better with the white helmet, blue jersey and white pants than the “gazing ball” helmet that looks like the one in my grandmother’s backyard, and the monochrome blue.

  • Matt Beahan | September 26, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    Re. the decapitated Steelers figure – that seems like typical McFarlane Toys quality, to me. Most of their stuff’ll break if you so much as look at it funny…

    • Ry Co 40 | September 26, 2011 at 9:29 am |

      maybe the stupid “play makers” figures. but the regular figurines are pretty solid

      • R.S. Rogers | September 26, 2011 at 9:38 am |

        Solid because they have like one point of articulation, which makes them “sculptures,” not “action figures.” Which is perfect for me, since the only use I have for them is repainting them as sculptures.

        But the “playmakers” line really is dreadful. They hold up even worse than 1980s GI Joe dudes, which had great articulation but were held together mainly by wishful thinking.

      • Shane | September 26, 2011 at 11:20 am |

        Gotta say, the amount of filth and dirtstains on my Dustin Pedroia figure is fantastic. Scrappy little bastard.

  • Anthony | September 26, 2011 at 9:09 am |

    The shoulder striping on the Colts uniforms looked more like total crap last night than usual. And I think it generally looks stupid since it doesn’t go all the way around anymore.

    Compare this
    http://scores.espn.g...

    with these two

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

    Are those last tow even remotely close to each other?

    Or how about this?

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

    Are they even the same on the same jersey?

    And Dwight Freeny’s stripes come together differently than eveyone elses

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

    They need to get rid of that element if they can’t figure it out properly.

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:41 am |

      It’s a product of the super-stretchies. The construction templates Nike uses are much more friendly to traditional elements (see LSU’s PC uniform this year), so their UCLA stripes have a good chance to return to normalcy next year.

      • Andy | September 26, 2011 at 10:53 am |

        LSUs Pro Combat uniform is a custom variation of the standard Pro combat template, and the only reason it appears the stripes go all the way around is the colored armpit panel that continues the solid color under the arm and looks like garbage, even worse in my opinion. LSUs stripes are still truncated like the Colts, but they just have that purple panel under the arms. Take that away and you have basically what Vinatieri and the other standard-clad colts wear.

        • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

          Which is still miles ahead of the super-stretchies. I’ll take 300 degree UCLA stripes for everyone if it means no UCLA commas for a third of the team.

        • Andy | September 26, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

          Yes. The Pro Combat stripes are going to be no worse than the stripes on a standard Reebok jersey. They will indeed be light years better than the stripes on the stretch mesh jersey. Anything is. I’m just warning you that you’re probably not going to get full wraparound, because even LSU’s Pro Combat doesn’t feature that (it’s just another, uglier version of the truncated, faux-wraparound look), and that’s a modified Pro Combat template.

      • Rob S | September 26, 2011 at 10:59 am |

        Horrible striping and mismatched numbers compared to the “normal” jerseys… I know it’s been said more than a few times, and it’s still a scary thought, but Nike can’t come in soon enough.

      • KT | September 26, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

        But I believe the Colts’ “UCLA stripes” (weren’t they originally called that) haven’t gone as far around the shoulders as they once did for several years now, and that problem predates the super-stretchies, doesn’t it?

        The new jersies have exacerbated the problem, no question.

        • Rob S | September 26, 2011 at 9:11 pm |

          The gradual reduction of the sleeves to little more than caps for the shoulder pads (if that) has certainly helped foul them up…

          Another thing about Nike coming in… since 2011 is the fifth year with their current design, could we possibly see the Chargers use the PC design to move the shoulder bolts back to their over-the-shoulder position instead of their current (and ultra-lame) sleeve-stripe position? That’d be nice…

  • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 9:32 am |

    I’m shocked that the Dodgers logo changes are last ticker item material. I’m not a Dodger fan and I’m floored! Very few logos have lasted as long as this one without even one tweak, and now this one has AT LEAST FIVE!

    • R.S. Rogers | September 26, 2011 at 9:40 am |

      And it’s a great update. Easily the equal of what the Twins did to their primary script recently – subtle but huge improvement. Plus the Dodgers managed to produce such quality in the midst of maybe the worst front-office disaster in baseball history. (Making them like the antiMets.) I’m hoping there’s a UW lead interview by Paul about this in the near future. If the freakin’ Dodgers can get this so right right now, what excuse does any other team have for anything short of perfection?

      • interlockingtc | September 26, 2011 at 9:26 pm |

        There was nothing wrong with the Dodgers logo in the first place.

        Nothing.

        No tweak was needed.

        Why would they do that?

        TWFS

        • interlockingtc | September 26, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

          er…that should read: TWFTWS

  • Aaron | September 26, 2011 at 9:41 am |

    Are we allowed to still complain about football officials wearing black wind pants? It still really bothers me, like they are just officiating intramural football matches.

    • Flip | September 26, 2011 at 10:16 am |

      Yes, and you’re right.

  • Connie | September 26, 2011 at 9:42 am |

    “… Very cool *sculpture* found by Jim Lonetti in Fraconia Sculpture Park, Taylors Falls, MN. …”

    Absolutely very cool.

    Also agree w Phil that Bills success is a direct result of propitiation of Football Gods through new Buffalo unis. Not crazy about the wide-in-the-back helmet stripe that Phil is beginning to like, but the other stripe zones look very good, and overall the Bills are looking sharp.

  • Danya | September 26, 2011 at 9:46 am |

    Is this the new Nets logo??

    http://www.vibe.com/...

    The article itself says nothing (it’s about how Jay-Z will open the arena with a concert or something), but this picture certainly seems to show their logo and imply they will be called Brooklyn Nets.

    • Stirpey | September 26, 2011 at 9:48 am |

      Correction: the Brooklyn Netis? Print N, cursive ET, print S…looks nice but looks like an i in between the T and the S…

    • John | September 26, 2011 at 9:59 am |

      Clearly, the NJN felt that the reincarnated WinniJets were hogging all the awkward script spotlight. Kudos for them for asserting themselves.

    • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 10:04 am |

      Oy. Yeah the T & S are really funky looking. Bad logo. Even ignoring how silly it is to name a team after a piece of sports equipment (seriously there’s no Chicago Pucks or Seattle Goalposts…wtf kind of name is Nets?)… if they’re the Nets, shouldn’t there be a net in the logo?

      • R.S. Rogers | September 26, 2011 at 10:10 am |

        And here I was about to comment that the one thing I really like about the logo is how effectively the net itself is implied without having to be literally depicted. That’s good art, baby. OK, one of the two things I like about the logo: I also love how the N is integrated into the lines of the ball. Everything else is pretty darn “meh,” but the implied net and the N are spot on.

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 10:25 am |

          What implied net? It’s a cirle with text in a ring. Change the text and you’ve got a new logo for the Sci-Fi Channel or NASA.

        • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 10:33 am |

          That’s the SyFy channel … sheesh … so 2009 …

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 10:40 am |

          What the heck is a SyFy? That name means nothing to me.

          /and it’s a shame they never made a sequel to The Matrix

        • Rob S | September 26, 2011 at 11:13 am |

          Stupid decision to market beyond their core niche…

          It’s hilarious that so many cable channels that were created as niche channels have, in recent years, felt the need to diversify their programming beyond their original niche, only to get mixed results at best, especially as there are more and more channels out there. And all in the name of an increasingly outdated and inherently flawed ratings system.

        • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 11:26 am |

          Come on, The Jeff. You can’t see the implied net? I bet you couldn’t see the emperor’s implied clothes, either, you uncultured rube.

      • Lloyd Davis | September 26, 2011 at 11:24 am |

        “seriously there’s no Chicago Pucks or Seattle Goalposts…wtf kind of name is Nets?”

        No teams called the Pucks, but how about Blades? Try Los Angeles in the old Western Hockey League, Kansas City in the IHL and Saskatoon in the current (major junior) Western Hockey League.

        The WHA had the New York *Golden* Blades in 1973-74 (before they moved, as only a WHA team could, to Cherry Hill, NJ), and then in 1974-75 the Michigan Stags moved to Baltimore in midseason and became the … Baltimore Blades. Which was the name of a club in the old Eastern league in the ’40s.

        When the Colorado Rockies moved to New Jersey, Blades was one of the names on the ballot. Devils won out. When San Jose got its expansion franchise, Blades was a leading contender.

        A junior team in Vernon, BC, was called the Blades in the ’60s. There’s currently a junior team in Oakville called the Blades — with a logo ripped off from the NY Rangers.

        http://oakvilleblade...

        I might’ve missed a few (dozen), and chose to overlook exammples like the Florida Everblades or Kentucky Thoroughblades, which were probably shortened to ‘Blades by headline writers.

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 11:29 am |

          Well…. blades can also refer to a sword/knife… so I guess it depends on the logo as to whether or not those are lame.

        • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 11:41 am |

          You have to look at it in the context of the NY sports scene. They started out as the New York Nets, which rhymes with Jets and Mets. Pure genius – all the second-tier NY teams in the 60s had names that rhymed. Even their old World Team Tennis franchise was called the Sets.

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

          all the second-tier NY teams in the 60s had names that rhymed

          Yeah, what a brilliant idea, declaring yourself to be a second tier team like that…

        • Lloyd Davis | September 26, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

          The Jeff: “Well…. blades can also refer to a sword/knife… so I guess it depends on the logo as to whether or not those are lame.”

          Oh, sure … and the New York Nets took their name from the fishing nets that so many Long Islanders used to pursue their livelihood.

    • Danya | September 26, 2011 at 10:07 am |

      Also, if the colors are to be trusted, that means we’re getting another yet another red/blue team whose apparent bid for distinctiveness is having multiple shades of blue. Hooray, not

    • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 10:08 am |

      that looks like a tennis ball…an orange, one, sure, but a tennis ball…

      • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:12 am |

        Yep.

        • walter | September 26, 2011 at 11:39 am |

          Aw, tennis ball has a sad.

    • John | September 26, 2011 at 10:13 am |

      That’s a strange orb they put in this logo. The sphere seems to fade red to orange, going north to south. Also, the sporting projectile seems to be descending through a hoop of some kind, much like a supposed basketball passes through a ring with netting, for a goal/unit/basket/point metric.

      Ambiguity, THAT’S what makes a successful logo.

    • Chance Michaels | September 26, 2011 at 10:17 am |

      That’s not the new Nets logo – that’s a fan concept.

      FWIW, although the Nets have used equipment on every logo (save one) since 1967, the logo has never featured a net.

      • Danya | September 26, 2011 at 10:39 am |

        Seriously? How did it end up painted on the wall at (what I assume must be?) the Barclays Center with Jay-Z standing next to it then?

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 10:49 am |

          It ain’t that hard to photoshop a logo onto a blank white wall….

      • Danya | September 26, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        Oh. The guy shopped it on there. That’s pretty lame. My bad.

    • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 10:22 am |

      Brooklyn above makes me think of OKC Thunder. Ball makes me think of tennis. Script makes me think of Winnepeg (though I don’t get the upstroke after the t and before the s). The ring makes me think of Saturn.

      Side note on the question about the Nets name. When I was young and just getting into watching pro sports, I had an easy early identifier for New York teams. (I thought) they all ended in ETS! Totally accurate? No, but how many other cities have at least three rhyming team names?

      • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 10:29 am |

        Duh … I forgot to mention that Laverne DeFazio completely and totally endorses this logo.

      • Teebz | September 26, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

        One “e”, Jim. Just one. WinniJets got it’s name here on UW because it’s Winnipeg. ;o)

        • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

          I thought all things in Caneda had an extra e or two!?!?!?

        • Teebz | September 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

          No, we honour most of the British versions of words. Most organisations will accept both of Anglicised versions of words, but the Commonwealth still holds true in Canada.

          New doot aboot it, eh? ;o)

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am |

      Are you sure they’re not the Brooklyn Vets? Or maybe the Yetis?

      • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

        Pro sports team the Yetis??? I’d be an instant fan!

        • walter | September 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

          Wasn’t a yeti the mascot for the Quebec Rafales?

        • Teebz | September 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

          The term “Rafales” means a “gust of wind”, so I don’t know if a Yeti is what they had in mind despite the logo showing some sort of snowman-ish creature on it.

    • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 11:05 am |

      I’m still trying to figure out why the Cavs had two logos with a net, but the Nets have yet to have one.

      The only Nets logo I ever liked was the 80s Helvetica font logo. The current one has the feel of a rotating gas station/restaurant logo.

      I feel a tweak coming on…

      • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 11:06 am |

        rotating gas station/restaurant sign

    • Rob S | September 26, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      I think we’ve managed to debunk this above – fan concept logo, cheap ‘shop job (it’s not even angled to match the Barclays sign).

      • JDrive | September 26, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
        • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

          Is that the replacement team holding up the jerseys?

          If JimWa thought that fake logo reminded him of the OKC Thunder, those jerseys surely will, too.

          Actually, it looks like a Clippers/Thunder mashup. Which isn’t too bad, but…

        • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

          I was hoping for script jerseys, like these:
          http://netsarescorch...
          http://graphics8.nyt...

    • Anthony M Verna | September 26, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

      The Nets logo is underwhelming.

      Also, did anyone else notice how big “Barclays Center” was as compared to the team itself?

      I am surprised that the “Nets” team name remains. I would have thought there’d be something more relative to Brooklyn itself.

      (At the moment, though, I can’t think of anything except “ex-girlfriends.”)

      • Patrick_in_MI | September 26, 2011 at 7:25 pm |

        The Brooklyn Hipsters?

  • Linowidge | September 26, 2011 at 10:01 am |

    The Broncos jerseys are listed as the following:
    Home-Navy
    Road-White
    Alt-Orange

    I guess they are going to have Nike fix the uniforms they created years ago or that since the idea of switching the home and alt was conceived during the lockout the league had more important things to care about (other uni changes, like the Bills for example, were announced pre-lockout).
    Anyone know any more on how accurate this could be?

    • Joseph Gerard | September 26, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

      The switch to orange jerseys for next season is a John Elway-directed decision. He wanted to do it this year, but by the time he rejoined the Broncos in their front office in January it was too late to inform the NFL of any uniform changes (Usually, right around now is the deadline to inform the NFL of any uniform changes for the next season.), so they have to wait until next season.

      The same thing happened to the Rams. After Georgia Frontiere died in January 2008 the Rams wanted to wear their 1973-1999 uniforms in honor of her in 2008 but it was too late to say anything to the NFL, and unlike the 49ers with Bill Walsh in 2007 their throwbacks wasn’t an official part of their uniforms at the time so they had to wait until the 2009 season–almost TWO YEARS after she died–before they could wear them in honor of her. (It could be worse. Six years later the WWE still makes a big deal about Eddie Guerrero’s sudden death.) The Rams ended up making them their third uniform.

      From what I’ve gathered, they’re just designating their orange jersey as their primary jersey and the blue is getting demoted to third jersey, similar to what the Falcons and Titans have done in recent years. No other changes.

      I would like to the see the link below become the Broncos third uniform once the orange jerseys become the primary uniform.

      http://extras.mngint...

  • walter | September 26, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    I just returned from a week+ vacation which featured total hibernation from the internet, so I’d like to say “Yo, wassup, my homies” to Memal, Oakville Endive, and Denver Gregg for their kind words about my uni tweaks. Also, I kind of get the flaring stripe on the Bills’ helmet because it matches the speed stripe issuing from the buffalo’s horn.

    • Matt | September 26, 2011 at 10:27 am |

      That’s exactly why I like it too.

  • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:15 am |

    Here are the correct shoe colors for all NFL teams.

    Black
    ~~~~~
    – Bears
    – Browns
    – Bucs
    – Chiefs
    – Eagles
    – Giants
    – Packers
    – Raiders
    – Ravens
    – Steelers

    White
    ~~~~~
    – 49ers
    – Bills
    – Broncos
    – Chargers
    – Dolphins
    – Jets
    – Patriots
    – Redskins
    – Titans

    Orange
    ~~~~~~
    – Bengals

    Who cares?
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    – Jags
    – Panthers
    – Seahawks
    – Any team that plays in a dome

    • Flip | September 26, 2011 at 10:19 am |

      I always liked the Chiefs in red at home and white on the road.

    • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 10:22 am |

      …and why the hell should the Packers, Giants or Bears use black shoes? There’s no black on their uniforms.

      You know what teams should wear black shoes? The ones with black jerseys or black helmets. Everyone else should be wearing either team colored (Bengals in orange like you listed) or white with team colored trim.

      • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:28 am |

        …and why the hell should the Packers, Giants or Bears use black shoes?
        Because I said so.

      • Andy | September 26, 2011 at 10:57 am |

        Because there shouldn’t BE any color of athletic shoe except black.

  • Flip | September 26, 2011 at 10:18 am |

    “Anyone else think the Colts should have white cleats and the Stillers should have black ones, instead of the other way around? Come to think of it, so too should the Jets and Raiders.”

    Agreed.

    • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      Wrong. Lucas Oil Stadium is a dome. See above.

      • JimWa | September 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

        Well, a roofed stadium, anyway …

      • AnthonyTX | September 26, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

        JTH–why, exactly, do dome teams not matter? Is there a specific reason that their footwear matters less than teams that play in outdoor stadia? Dome teams aren’t as important, I suppose? Tell that to all the Cowboys, Saints, Colts, Vikings, and Texans fans out there.
        Also, maybe be a little less aggressively opinionated in these comments. You’re kinda being off-putting.

        • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

          You forgot the Falcons, Rams, Cardinals and Lions. Probably because deep down, you know I’m right.

    • Kek | September 26, 2011 at 10:34 am |

      I forget the exact season, but it was around the change from the block numbers to the current font but the Steelers went with black shoes. The season was a disaster and they went back to white the next year.

      Seems like a lot of players are the team are going with footwear heavily accented in yellow this season.

      • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:52 am |

        1998 — they went 7-9. Not a great season, but hardly what I’d call a “disaster.” They didn’t exactly tear it up the next couple seasons after switching back to white shoes.

        • Dave Mac | September 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

          The game featured in that particular 1998 photo WAS a disaster.

      • George | September 26, 2011 at 11:11 am |

        1998 according to the Gridiron Uniform Database. They wore black cleats that season and went 7-9. Switched back to white cleats in 1999 and went… 6-10.

  • Kek | September 26, 2011 at 10:35 am |

    David Carr wore his wedding band, and I’m pretty sure that’s what Ben has bandaged and taped up.

    • John | September 26, 2011 at 10:58 am |

      is the tape replacing the ring, or is the tape holding the ring in place?

      • AnthonyTX | September 26, 2011 at 5:17 pm |

        Not sure about Big Ben, but Carr wore tape over his wedding ring to secure it in place. I have a friend who does that when we play pickup soccer games, too.

  • TD | September 26, 2011 at 10:40 am |

    i was okay with the Saints ‘backs, even with mismatched colors (since unis in that era often had blatant mismatches like that), but the modern NOB font with rounded corners looked kinda strange and moved it closer to Alt territory for me.

  • Dudam | September 26, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    Jay-Z announcement= useless

    “the Nets will have new colors, but we’re not ready to announce that yet.”

    Read more: http://www.myfoxny.c...

  • BrianC | September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    “Anyone know if that is just a random pattern of if it has some meaning?”

    It means “I’m an idiot”?

  • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:48 am |

    Nice shot of Vick heading into the tunnel. You can see the nasty swelling puffing up on his right hand there too, just below the knuckles. It looks like a bad break from there.

  • =bg= | September 26, 2011 at 11:14 am |

    FWIW RE that site with the abandoned buildings–

    I clicked on an archive link in it, and Chrome gave me a big old YOU SURE YOU WANNA CLICK ON THAT LINK, IT’S A MALWARE SITE or something.

    Proceed @ your discretion.

  • Dan in Houston | September 26, 2011 at 11:40 am |

    In the article above it mentions the Browns wearing white at home “as God intended”. I actually like the Browns’ brown jerseys, so I was trying to remember which has been traditionally predominant. I seem to remember a lot of Bernie Kosar in white, but for some reason everytime I think of Greg or Mike Pruit I think of the brown jerseys.

    So my basic question is this –what is the traditional Browns’ home jersey combo?

    • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 11:49 am |

      Browns began with white at home in AAFC, and it continued after they joined the NFL. Mandated white roads made it go away for awhile, but it returned with “home team choice” in early ’60s.

      Brown at home became pretty much standard during the Sipe-Pruitt orange pants era, but white returned for Kosar and stayed until the franchise left town.

      Reborn Browns went to brown at home. Not sure if went back and forth since then, but now are back to white at home.

      In totality, probably far more white at home than brown.

      (I’m not saying I’m precise on every bit of that, but it’s a decent overall look).

      • Dan in Houston | September 26, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

        Thanks!

        Not sure where I fall on this. I like tradition, but I also like the brown jerseys. Shame they won’t be seen more this year.

      • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

        Should have mentioned original helmets were all white…
        http://assets.sbnati...

        Always wondered if they used brown because, well, it just made sense, but then decided to keep it a trim color as much as possible so it didn’t appear the team’s nickname was taken from it.

        Actually, that makes a lot of sense. The all white made them relatively unique in the late ’40s and pushed white to the forefront for the fans in the stands, instead of brown. As much as possible let brown reference the man who was running things.

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

          I don’t think they keep the Browns nickname if they don’t wear the color. The duality of the name, being both a last name and a color is the only reason it worked. If Paul Brown outfits his team in blue & silver, they ain’t gonna be called the Browns, and there’s just no way that you’d see the Cleveland Smiths or Cleveland Johnsons taken seriously. The Browns fell into a really unique naming scenario.

        • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm |

          Zactly. An odd naming situation that may explain much of what they did when creating their uni image, and why white at home was almost a necessity for keeping things straight.

          In the sense that it was like, “Well, we really gotta have brown…but not TOO MUCH brown.”

          Also, beyond the fact orange was just plain more colorful at a time when the in-person experience mattered most, that might have a lot to do with why it was chosen instead of brown when the helmet changed from white. Didn’t want to appear to be basing things on the COLOR.

          Combine that with the nickname remaining in Cleveland and the Browns are must one big anomaly. A template not easily–or appropriately—set down on any other team as some kind of standard.

        • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

          Actually, I wonder if they really had a choice on the helmets. The NFL actually banned white helmets for night games during those couple seasons in the 50’s with the white football, I wonder if a brown helmet would have even been permitted. The Browns might have been sorta forced into the orange helmet just because it was the only other color they had.

        • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

          By comparison to today, lighting was pretty crappy back then, too, and orange helmets almost certainly made it a whole lot easier for fans in the stands and teammates to spot players than brown would have. If, y’know, white is off the table.

        • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

          there’s just no way that you’d see the Cleveland Smiths or Cleveland Johnsons taken seriously.

          ~~~

          yeah, but how awesome would the “cleveland johnsons” have been?

        • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

          Maybe just keep changing based on the coach?

          Cleveland Colliers.
          Cleveland Rutiglianos.
          Cleveland Schottenheimers would have been really special.
          Not to mention Cleveland Romeos.

          Could hired Marv Levy.
          Gotta love to sound of Cleveland Levys.

        • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

          yeah…until the levy breaks

    • The Jeff | September 26, 2011 at 11:52 am |

      Unfortunately, the all-white at home is the traditional Browns uniform. They’ve worn white at home quite a bit throughout their history.

      http://www.gridironu...

      • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 9:17 pm |

        Unfortunately, the all-white at home is the traditional Browns uniform.

        (fixed)

    • Giancarlo | September 26, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

      Here’s the whole story of the Browns home jerseys in a little more detail:

      1946-1956 white
      1957-1963 brown
      1964-1977 white, except for 1975 (brown)
      1978-1983 50/50 white & brown
      1984 brown
      1985-1988 white
      1989-1990 50/50 white & brown
      1991-1994 brown
      1995 white
      1999 brown
      2000 mostly brown
      2001 mostly white
      2002-2008 brown with one or two yearly exceptions
      2009-2010 brown

      The “White at Home” page is good for questions like this…
      http://www.uni-watch...

      • Flip | September 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

        One of my earliest memories of watching NFL football in color (TV or Sports Illustrated) was in the mid-’60s with Frank Ryan, Jim Brown and Paul Warfield wearing white at home and away. Twasn’t until they played the Cowboys in Dallas that I saw their brown jerseys and socks. It was a good look, but even back then I thought the Browns in white was the way to go.

        Never did care for the orange pant look of the Brian Sipe era and was glad Shottenheimer returned to the white pants and white home look.

        Shottenheimer must have had a thing about white pants. The Chiefs ditched their red britches when he was coach. That white-white-on white (socks) look was cool, but I wasn’t unhappy when KC returned to red pants.

        • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

          The Chiefs’ red road pants are one of the reasons they have the best unis in the league.

          Which leads one to believe I’d want the Browns to bring back orange pants. I liked the look, but I’d rather see it on Virginia Tech and Syracuse. And Clemson.

        • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

          Hmm, so I guess when I get my custom Ryan 13 Browns jersey it should be the white then.

  • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

    Irsay says Manning out for the year…
    http://msn.foxsports...

  • Greg V. | September 26, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

    Xavier Basketball will be wearing Cincinnati Royals jerseys for Musketeer Madness to kick off the season. The Royals used to be Cincinnati’s NBA team. Apparently since this is not a real game the NCAA rules do not apply. I wonder what else Nike has planned for other schools.

    http://cincinnati.co...

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 3:44 pm |

      I assume they’ve already gotten permission from the Kings to use the jerseys?

    • Dante | September 26, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

      How is this a Nike thing? Far be it beyond the realm of possibility that maybe just maybe Xavier’s marketing department thought of this themselves. Of course Nike would say yes to making the jerseys for them.

      • Greg V. | September 27, 2011 at 10:01 am |

        I assumed (probably correctly) that Nike was using the XU basketball players as billboards for their new Royals throwback jerseys. Just thought there may be more ideas like this out there. If you were in Xavier’s marketing department would you want to promote Xavier, or a defunct NBA franchise that nobody knows or cares about in Cincinnati? This town could not care less about the NBA.

  • the rob | September 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

    The NFL has so many rules on attire why can they not add a new one: All pants must extend below the knee. Simple, and a huge improvement. NCAA should follow suit.

    • Andy | September 26, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

      I thought that WAS a rule. I know ‘the knee must be covered’ is a rule. Maybe people used to assume that it meant the pants must extend below, but then someone got cute and said, ‘Yeah, they’re above the knee, but look, my socks are over my knees, so they’re not uncovered.’

      • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

        If a player making millions thinks something is more comfortable and wants to play that way, a $5,000 a game tax deduction is worth it to him.

        Fines go to NFL Charities, and the player can take the deduction on his individual tax return, both federal and, where applicable, state.

        We do know players have to file state tax returns in most every state they play a game, not just the state where their team is based, right?

        • R.S. Rogers | September 26, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

          Right, but the visiting-state tax return is based only on money earned on the game(s) played in that state. (How that’s calculated is another matter!) Heck, I’ve wound up having to file in states I don’t live on on account of having spent one too many days on business trips to a given state.

          The only way to have effective uniform & equipment rules is to put enforcement in the hands of the referees, and make the penalty an inability to enter the field of play. Say what you will about the ridiculous rulings we sometimes see in high school sports from overzealous uni-rules martinets, but that system works. If the rule is that you wear the uni right or you “pay” a meaningless fine, you wear the uni however you darn well please. If the rule is that you wear the uni right or you don’t play, you darn well wear the uni right.

        • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

          “Right, but the visiting-state tax return is based only on money earned on the game(s) played in that state.”

          Did I say it wasn’t? :)

    • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 5:52 pm |

      NCAA should follow suit.

      ~~~

      they do

      only it’s a sport played with a round ball and the pants extend to the mid calf

  • =bg= | September 26, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

    I still don’t see why they don’t have home and road helmets. think of the revenue stream. which the NFL needs, obviously.

    • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

      Because they sell so many helmets?
      Price point’s a little high, isn’t it.

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

      To protect brand identities. The league considers it necessary to have a colored jersey and a white jersey for contrast’s sake, so it has rules for that. The league doesn’t consider a team’s pants or socks to be part of its brand identity, so it doesn’t enforce those rules. The league considers a team’s helmet to be its primary identifying mark, so it requires teams to have one helmet in order to prevent brand dilution. The only exception on helmets is for throwbacks, and that still goes back to the brand identity question.

  • Jim Vilk | September 26, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    Only one more Atlantic Ten basketball tournament at Atlantic City’s Boardwalk Hall.
    http://espn.go.com/m...
    Too bad…that’s a great-looking place for hoops.
    http://cache.daylife...
    http://cache.daylife...

  • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

    Brooklynettes?

    Is that a danceline or candy you throw at the screen in a movie theater?

    • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

      That’s in reference to this…
      http://www.latimes.c...

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

      Dried pieces of Brooklyn covered in chocolate? No thanks.

  • Brad | September 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

    That Packers-Bears game was the most hideous color matchup I have ever seen. Has this site ever delved into the bright orange that teams wear now? I remember teams like the Bengals and Bears wearing a really nice ‘regular’ orange color through the 90s. Now it looks like hunting gear to me. Why so bright!?

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

      If I’m wrong, I’ll defer to the experts, but my guess would be it’s the same shade of orange, but looks brighter when done in closed mesh and dazzle fabrics that uniforms mostly use now than it did in open mesh fabrics that tended to look more matte from the duller undershirt peeking through.

      • Mike Engle | September 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

        Terry Proctor, please?

    • DJ | September 26, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

      There was a discussion here some time ago about how, with single-suppliers for league’s uniforms, a lot of colors are slowly becoming standardized among teams. For example, I look at my authentic Wilson Chicago Bears 1986 Mike Singletary jersey, and note that the navy blue is a very dark, smoky, almost black color; the orange is almost a red. Look at a current Bear jersey, and the colors are more recognizable as blue and orange than before.

      • PC | September 26, 2011 at 5:42 pm |

        It may also have something to do with more and more of us watching broadcasts in HD. I have an HD and a non-HD TV at home, and bright colors tend to look brighter and sharper on the HD TV.

        At the same time, I used to have some old jerseys, too, and I remember the colors being darker and a little “off.” I wonder if it had more to do with a lack of quality control (based on less of a league effort to market “authentic” merchandise).

  • Mike Engle | September 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

    Remember our little weekend game, Guess the Game from the Scoreboard? Well, how about Guess The Game from the Lineup Card?
    http://t.co/1BzmWMqB

    • Mike 2 | September 26, 2011 at 5:33 pm |

      I’m going to go out on a limb and guess – using my amazing powers of deduction – July 10, 1994

      • Brendan Burke | September 26, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

        There’s definitely a “7 10″ written in the corner. Choose a better lineup card.

  • Brendan Burke | September 26, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

    How many times do I have to say that the Broncos’ blue jersey is their current home and the orange is the alt? Anyway, away games do count against the limit (last year’s Patriots come to mind.) Finally, I need to reassure you that the proposed rules on alternates (except for possibly the London/Toronto one) are not in use this year.

  • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 6:20 pm |

    Don’t know if this means unis or accessories:

    “@indystar_hutch Hoosiers will wear pink against Penn State in support Breast Cancer Awareness Month”

    • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

      It’s accessories.

      • Simply Moono | September 26, 2011 at 8:48 pm |

        “It’s accessories.”

        You sure they won’t be going full-Pink Panther with pink helmets, jerseys, pants, socks, and cleats?

        • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

          The way they’ve been doing uniforms under Wilson, who knows, maybe an all lightish red is in the works… http://s3.roostertee...

        • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm |

          everybody knows you never go full pink panther

  • Simply Moono | September 26, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

    Jammal Brown for the Redskins is wearing the striped sleeve section of the ‘Skins’ burgundy socks on his arms. Hard to tell unless you get a good look at him.

    • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm |

      what?

      • Tim E. O'B | September 26, 2011 at 9:48 pm |

        Josh Cribbs only it’s a guy on the Skins.

      • Simply Moono | September 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

        He wears #77 for Washington, BTW

  • Simply Moono | September 26, 2011 at 8:51 pm |

    From the Nike Football Facebook page:

    (http://www.facebook....)

    If Facebook won’t work for you for whatever reason, here’s the image URL:

    (http://a7.sphotos.ak...)

    • Ricko | September 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

      I knew there was a brown boot Army.

      Never heard of a brown boot NFL, though.

    • Rob H. | September 26, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

      I’m in the mood for a chocolate bar now.

    • jdreyfuss | September 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm |

      Isn’t that sweet? They bronzed the marketing department’s baby shoes.

    • JTH | September 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm |

      These limited-edition Nike TR 1.3 Max’s were created for the team at EA Sports to celebrate their HOF Madden edition, featuring Nike legend Marshall Faulk. We might just have one pair to spare. How far would you go to land these for your trophy case?

      I only remember him as a Ram and a Colt.

      • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 10:19 pm |

        i believe he played for walden in college

  • Eduardo | September 26, 2011 at 11:08 pm |

    This black versus white football shoe debate is something I have thought about quite a bit over the years. My observations:

    1. Only one player ever looked good in white football shoes: Joe Namath. No one else ever should have worn them. They were Broadway Joe’s trademark and made him unique.
    2. Black shoes are tough and traditional. Hence every NFC Central team now wears black. The Packers were late to the party in returning to black, but the year they did, they won the Super Bowl. Doubt they will ever go back to white.
    3. Nike and other manufacturers now have almost equal parts black AND white on the same shoe, so pure black or pure white is almost non-existant any more.
    4. White and other colors are making a comeback, sadly enough. It seems the back to black renaissance peaked about 1993 or 1994 and has faded a bit since then.

    • Simply Moono | September 27, 2011 at 12:20 am |

      “Only one player ever looked good in white football shoes: Joe Namath. No one else ever should have worn them.:

      Well, some teams’ uniforms will call for white cleats (see: Miami Dolphins, Dallas Cowboys, etc.) because they don’t look as out of place with the uni’s color scheme as black cleats would.

      “The Packers were late to the party in returning to black, but the year they did, they won the Super Bowl. Doubt they will ever go back to white.”

      While I love the fact that the Packers went back to black cleats (the way God intended), they didn’t return to black cleats the year they won the Super Bowl (which was last season), they returned to black cleats in 2008, when Brett Favre “retired”. Compare 2007 to 2008.

      “Nike and other manufacturers now have almost equal parts black AND white on the same shoe, so pure black or pure white is almost non-existant any more.”

      I’ve always HATED that look. The NFL needs to revise its “51% black” rule to say “Cleats for “black shoe” teams must be at least 90% black, with the option of the remaining 10% in either black or the primary (usually dark) team color, and the option of either white or team-colored laces. Manufacturer markings need not apply.” (see: Mark Sanchez and #90 of the Colts, both from Yesterday’s games). The “white shoe” teams can keep the “51% white, 49% team colors” look. Maybe it’s my white-canvas bias talking.

    • jdreyfuss | September 27, 2011 at 2:41 am |

      I’m pretty sure Billy “White Shoes” Johnson has a decent claim on wearing white shoes.

      #90 is Jamaal Anderson.

  • Phil Hecken | September 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm |

    jesus christ…could the MNF crew be more homers for the cowgirls?

    • Ricko | September 27, 2011 at 12:03 am |

      Well, they ARE America’s Team, after all.

    • jdreyfuss | September 27, 2011 at 2:43 am |

      You’ve never watched a fox broadcast for them have you? Aikman is a good color man but he seems lost when he’s not calling a Cowboys game. Buck is, as usual, a massive blowhard.

  • EddieAtari | September 27, 2011 at 10:15 am |

    I know I’m a day late with this one, but Da Bears orange jerseys could work better if they paired ‘em with matching socks and navy pants, like this: http://bit.ly/r3fAVt

  • Jim Vilk | September 27, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    Nice!

    • JTH | September 27, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

      Jim, if that “Nice!” is in response to Eddie Atari, you’re a sick man.

      One of the reasons the orange jerseys work for me is that they’ve thus far restrained themselves from pairing them with blue pants and/or orange socks. Orange socks would be good with orange helmets but keep the pants white.

      And I don’t want to see orange helmets.

  • Scott | September 27, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

    I don’t know how anyone in the Vikings organization can watch the team in their throwbacks and not realize how infinitely better these uniforms look. Just match the helmet color to the jersey, and they’d be perfect.

    Maybe next year with the switch to Nike they’ll change unis?

    Somebody start a petition!!

  • Dan | September 27, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

    Looks like TJ Jones’ “ND” was applied upside-down.