Photo

The Uniforms Thread


  • Please log in to reply
183 replies to this topic

#21 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,033 posts

Posted 09 October 2014 - 03:55 PM

 
The interesting thing--and part of why there are fewer throwback games recently--is that part of the NFL's concussion-prevention rules involve very, very specific rules on helmets. To the point where teams can neither use one-off helmets nor repaint their current helmets multiple times (other than basic touch-ups).
 
I guess that wouldn't affect Nike much, because they only do the actual jerseys and pants. But it's why you couldn't see real throwbacks under current rules.



You might be right, but how come they had the original AFL teams wear throw backs a few times a few year ago, with different helmets? Maybe the protocol is new?

Rules maybe different in college but if it was a big deal would they let Oregon have a different helmet every single game?

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you. If the NFL created a rule that says you can't make cosmetic changes to a helmet because of head injuries, then its a case of them appearing to do something without really doing anything....which i can totally see happening.
@BSLMikeRandall

#22 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:01 PM

When Nike signed with the NFL, the story was that the league wouldn't be a huge testing ground like Oregon is. Teams still dictated the terms of their uniform design, obviously. And like Nike's last contract with the NFL, they did a major redesign to one team (previously the Broncos, now the Seahawks) while leaving the rest alone. And the Jags and the Bucs, but who knows which mind those horrid uniforms came from.

 

This sounds like a way for the NFL to make everyone happy: Nike gets to try out new designs, the NFL gets people excited about shitty Thursday games, and fans get to see new stuff. And everyone gets more money! Except the fans, they give up more money.

 

But there is still the possibility that Nike-designed means "Nike-designed according to team specifications," which leaves the door open for throwbacks (YES PLEASE just get the same helmets with different paint) or third-and-fourth-color alternates. At the same time, I love Oregon's uniforms, especially the chrome helmets they wore a year or two ago, and Nike's groundbreaking NFL designs for Denver and Seattle now seem to fit pretty seamlessly.

 

My guess is that Nike has free reign, is required to field team input and teams get final say, but Nike doesn't go crazy anyway and just tries out FRESH TAKES on TRADITIONAL DESIGNS for teams like the Steelers and the Packers, while adding splotches of color to everyone else.


@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#23 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:02 PM

You might be right, but how come they had the original AFL teams wear throw backs a few times a few year ago, with different helmets? Maybe the protocol is new?

Rules maybe different in college but if it was a big deal would they let Oregon have a different helmet every single game?

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you. If the NFL created a rule that says you can't make cosmetic changes to a helmet because of head injuries, then its a case of them appearing to do something without really doing anything....which i can totally see happening.

The rule is new this year, IIRC. But yes, this is very much a case of doing a little while appearing to do a lot.


@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#24 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:20 PM

You might be right, but how come they had the original AFL teams wear throw backs a few times a few year ago, with different helmets? Maybe the protocol is new?

Rules maybe different in college but if it was a big deal would they let Oregon have a different helmet every single game?

Dont get me wrong, I agree with you. If the NFL created a rule that says you can't make cosmetic changes to a helmet because of head injuries, then its a case of them appearing to do something without really doing anything....which i can totally see happening.

 

That was before all of the concussion stuff really began coming in. The rule changed a couple years ago. I remember it being a big deal in Tampa because they weren't allowed to wear the Bucco Bruce helmets with the creamsicle unis, so they decided to not do any more throwbacks there.


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this
@DJ_McCann

#25 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,483 posts

Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:56 PM

What does "cosmetic changes to the helmets" have to do with head injuries?  I have no idea... does fresh paint somehow ruin the helmet's strength, or what?


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#26 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 09 October 2014 - 09:56 PM

What does "cosmetic changes to the helmets" have to do with head injuries?  I have no idea... does fresh paint somehow ruin the helmet's strength, or what?

 

I think it's one of those "We don't know for SURE so we're going to overreact," things, due to the pressure they were under at the time (and still are, to a certain extent.


@DJ_McCann

#27 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 10 October 2014 - 08:02 AM

I think it's one of those "We don't know for SURE so we're going to overreact," things, due to the pressure they were under at the time (and still are, to a certain extent.

I think the argument was that it's easier to make sure one helmet fits the right way than it is to hand over a bunch of helmets at different points throughout the season and trust the player to fit it properly. And/or a higher cost of safer helmets or something. But it is most definitely an overreaction.


@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#28 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,033 posts

Posted 10 October 2014 - 09:38 AM

I think the argument was that it's easier to make sure one helmet fits the right way than it is to hand over a bunch of helmets at different points throughout the season and trust the player to fit it properly. And/or a higher cost of safer helmets or something. But it is most definitely an overreaction.

But isn't it as simple as each player has the specifications that fit them, and they can repeat those over and over again? Like if you're a 52 jersey size, you get 16 size 52 jerseys. Make 16 identical helmets for Joe Flacco. 16 identical ones for C.J. Mosley and so on. 

 

On the flip side, We've seen guys like Ryan Clark and Wes Welker wear over sized helmets meant to reduce the risk of concussion. Why not make those helmets the standard? I get they maybe they are uncomfortable, fine. But I also saw Eddy Lacy, and maybe a couple others wearing new helmet this year that is also supposed to reduce the risk of concussion. It looks like a regular sized helmet, I assume the inner padding is better or something. 

 

If there is a helmet out there that reduces concussion risk, it should be mandatory for all players, no questions asked, and i don't think anyone could criticize the NFL for doing so. But I'd be willing to bet that this the NFL's loophole for never having to pay  a dime to ex-players in the future for brain conditions. If they have CTE or something and they try to blame the NFL, they can say, "well, there was this concussion reducing helmet that you had the opportunity to wear, and you chose not to. Sorry about your luck." Whereas if they made a helmet mandatory and the player comes down with CTE they can sue saying the NFL made me wear said helmet.

 

It's like in the fire department. As stupid as it sounds, they teach you how to lift heavy objects properly. So if you claim a back injury that's work related, the city isn't liable because they taught you to lift with your legs. Same thing if your hearing goes and you claim its work related from the loud sirens. They put earphones on the trucks, meaning if you don't wear them, it's your fault. 

 

It's all in the wording. If the NFL makes concussion "reducing" helmets mandatory, they are probably good. But if they call them concussing "preventing", and a player suffers one, they'd be in trouble. Like our fire gear, it's fire "resistant" not fire "proof". At some point, you will get burned if you're not careful. 


@BSLMikeRandall

#29 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 10 October 2014 - 09:46 AM

But isn't it as simple as each player has the specifications that fit them, and they can repeat those over and over again? Like if you're a 52 jersey size, you get 16 size 52 jerseys. Make 16 identical helmets for Joe Flacco. 16 identical ones for C.J. Mosley and so on. 

 

On the flip side, We've seen guys like Ryan Clark and Wes Welker wear over sized helmets meant to reduce the risk of concussion. Why not make those helmets the standard? I get they maybe they are uncomfortable, fine. But I also saw Eddy Lacy, and maybe a couple others wearing new helmet this year that is also supposed to reduce the risk of concussion. It looks like a regular sized helmet, I assume the inner padding is better or something. 

 

If there is a helmet out there that reduces concussion risk, it should be mandatory for all players, no questions asked, and i don't think anyone could criticize the NFL for doing so. But I'd be willing to bet that this the NFL's loophole for never having to pay  a dime to ex-players in the future for brain conditions. If they have CTE or something and they try to blame the NFL, they can say, "well, there was this concussion reducing helmet that you had the opportunity to wear, and you chose not to. Sorry about your luck." Whereas if they made a helmet mandatory and the player comes down with CTE they can sue saying the NFL made me wear said helmet.

 

It's like in the fire department. As stupid as it sounds, they teach you how to lift heavy objects properly. So if you claim a back injury that's work related, the city isn't liable because they taught you to lift with your legs. Same thing if your hearing goes and you claim its work related from the loud sirens. They put earphones on the trucks, meaning if you don't wear them, it's your fault. 

 

It's all in the wording. If the NFL makes concussion "reducing" helmets mandatory, they are probably good. But if they call them concussing "preventing", and a player suffers one, they'd be in trouble. Like our fire gear, it's fire "resistant" not fire "proof". At some point, you will get burned if you're not careful. 

 

Again, it's about overreaction. Or, to put a more precise point on something the league is very good at doing, it's about talking about doing things and looking like you are doing things without actually doing them.

 

16 helmets--the league would say--increases the chance that one of those helmets would have some kind of flaw. It's one thing if a jersey fails, but another thing entirely if a helmet fails. That also falls under liability, as you bring up.


@DJ_McCann

#30 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 10 October 2014 - 09:53 AM

But isn't it as simple as each player has the specifications that fit them, and they can repeat those over and over again? Like if you're a 52 jersey size, you get 16 size 52 jerseys. Make 16 identical helmets for Joe Flacco. 16 identical ones for C.J. Mosley and so on. 

 

On the flip side, We've seen guys like Ryan Clark and Wes Welker wear over sized helmets meant to reduce the risk of concussion. Why not make those helmets the standard? I get they maybe they are uncomfortable, fine. But I also saw Eddy Lacy, and maybe a couple others wearing new helmet this year that is also supposed to reduce the risk of concussion. It looks like a regular sized helmet, I assume the inner padding is better or something. 

 

If there is a helmet out there that reduces concussion risk, it should be mandatory for all players, no questions asked, and i don't think anyone could criticize the NFL for doing so. But I'd be willing to bet that this the NFL's loophole for never having to pay  a dime to ex-players in the future for brain conditions. If they have CTE or something and they try to blame the NFL, they can say, "well, there was this concussion reducing helmet that you had the opportunity to wear, and you chose not to. Sorry about your luck." Whereas if they made a helmet mandatory and the player comes down with CTE they can sue saying the NFL made me wear said helmet.

 

It's like in the fire department. As stupid as it sounds, they teach you how to lift heavy objects properly. So if you claim a back injury that's work related, the city isn't liable because they taught you to lift with your legs. Same thing if your hearing goes and you claim its work related from the loud sirens. They put earphones on the trucks, meaning if you don't wear them, it's your fault. 

 

It's all in the wording. If the NFL makes concussion "reducing" helmets mandatory, they are probably good. But if they call them concussing "preventing", and a player suffers one, they'd be in trouble. Like our fire gear, it's fire "resistant" not fire "proof". At some point, you will get burned if you're not careful. 

Yes, in theory, it's as easy as sizing multiple helmets for one player the same way over and over. It should and would require that player to sit for each helmet fitting to get it 100% right, but that shouldn't be a hurdle to safety and awesome helmet options.

 

Big helmets aren't standard because they don't look cool, AFAIK, or maybe some players say they affect vision or they're heavy or something. I agree that they should be mandatory, whether it's the Gazoo helmets or the new one that Lacy has.

 

IMO it wouldn't absolve the NFL of all responsibility for head injuries but it would help reduce their liability.

 

I agree completely with DJ MC: it's about looking like they're doing something more than actually doing something.


@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#31 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,033 posts

Posted 10 October 2014 - 11:02 AM

I agree with both of you guys. I think a lot of people see through the B.S. too.
@BSLMikeRandall

#32 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 21,232 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 14 October 2014 - 02:46 PM

Oregon this week

 

Screen-Shot-2014-10-14-at-1.09.47-PM.png


  • PatrickDougherty likes this

#33 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 14 October 2014 - 03:51 PM

Oregon this week

YESSSS THE DUCK


  • BSLZackKiesel likes this
@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#34 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 14 October 2014 - 08:14 PM

Oregon this week

 

Screen-Shot-2014-10-14-at-1.09.47-PM.png

 

What kind of ridiculous shit is this?


@DJ_McCann

#35 PatrickDougherty

PatrickDougherty

    MVP

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,204 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 09:20 AM

What kind of ridiculous shit is this?

It's like a color scheme/stylistic throwback that's been updated to 2014?


@pjd0014
I'm trying to be better about sharing code for reuse: Github

#36 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:12 AM

It's like a color scheme/stylistic throwback that's been updated to 2014?

 

I know what it is. I was making a joke in reference to the actual ridiculous stuff they wear every week. Thanks though :P


@DJ_McCann

#37 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 21,232 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 November 2014 - 11:56 AM

649_uniform_infographic.jpg



#38 BSLSeanJester

BSLSeanJester

    Restaurant / Travel Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,215 posts

Posted 10 November 2014 - 12:03 PM

Very meh.


I never had friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?


#39 DuffMan

DuffMan

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,713 posts
  • LocationLinthicum, MD

Posted 05 January 2015 - 11:45 AM

http://espn.go.com/c...nclude-no-green

 

Of course Oregon would wear something besides their school colors for the national championship game.



#40 BSLChrisBacon

BSLChrisBacon

    BSL Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 21,232 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 05 January 2015 - 12:07 PM

Oregons is awful.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners