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

Monday Morning Uni Watch

Click to enlarge

In August and September, as the Rams wore their white jerseys throughout the preseason and the first three weeks of the regular season, people said, “The little bits of gold trim on the jersey really clash with the white helmet horns and white facemask.” They were right, of course, but it wasn’t a huge clash. It seemed like something we could all live with until they get a full-scale makeover in 2019, when their new stadium opens.

Yesterday, though, they were playing in Dallas. The Cowboys, as usual, wore white at home, which left the Rams no choice but to wear their blue jerseys for the first time in 2017, and it was an utter fiasco. The gold numbers, gold collar, and gold shoulder stripes were a complete mismatch with the white-themed helmet. The white stripe on the pants didn’t help, either.

As several fans noted, the jerseys include a sleeve logo showing a ram with gold horns, which (a) doesn’t match the horns on the helmet, (b) doesn’t match the logo on the nose bumper, and (c) doesn’t match the team’s current primary logo!. It neatly captures everything wrong with this uniform:

Ugh, what a mess. Additional photos here.

In other news from around the league yesterday:

• In a surprise move (at least to me), the Jets, who normally wear green facemasks, wore white masks (click to enlarge; additional photos here):

We all know that teams can swap out their masks for throwback games or Thursday-night games (indeed, the Jets wore the white masks for a Thursday-night game last season), but many fans were understandably confused about the Jets doing this for a normal Sunday game. Is that allowed? I’ll try to find out. (At the very least, if the Jets can do this, then the Rams should shift to blue masks when they’re wearing their blue jerseys.)

• The Falcons wore 1990s throwbacks (additional photos here):

Embed from Getty Images

The Falcons also ran an amusing “Uniform Selection” video on Twitter:

• The Dolphins and Saints crossed everyone up by wearing “NFL London Games” jersey patches for their game at Wembley Stadium (click to enlarge):

This was surprising on two levels: First, the Jaguars and Ravens didn’t wear a jersey patch when they played in London a week earlier. Moreover, no NFL team playing in London has worn a commemorative patch since 2012. All London games have been patch-free for the past four seasons.

The patch worn yesterday was the third different design that the NFL has used for London games. Here are all three, along with the years they were used:

There are three more London games on this season’s schedule. It remains to be seen if the patch will be worn for any or all of those games, although my hunch is that it will be.

• The Ravens, playing at home against the Steelers, wore mono-black. Of all the monochromatic looks in the league, this is the one I’m the most okay with, because a raven is black, after all.

• I’ve noted before how several Bills offensive linemen have been wearing the old Nike template with the full collar striping. Yesterday marked the time this season that they wore their white jerseys, and those linemen were still wearing the old template, as seen here on Richie Incognito, Eric Wood, and John Miller. We’ve now established that this was neither a one-game thing nor a blue-jersey-only thing, so I’ll stop calling it out each week.

• Panthers wide receiver Kelvin Benjamin had some odd X-shaped stitching running through his sleeve logo. Never seen that before:

• Five teams wore white at home: the Bucs, Browns, Chargers, Jets, and, of course, the Cowboys.

• Here’s a list of players who engaged in protests during the national anthem. In addition, Raiders running back Marshawn Lynch arrived for yesterday’s game wearing an “Everybody vs. Trump” T-shirt:

And Colts staff members wore social justice T-shirts prior to last night’s game against the Seahawks:

(My thanks to Adam Galucki, Robert Hayes, Stephen Hayes, and Derek Trout for their contributions.)

• • • • •

Photo by Greg Fennll, Valley News; click to enlarge

Granite State oddity: The photo shown above looks like it’s from a mid-week practice, right? But it’s actually from a high school game that took place on Saturday between two New Hampshire high schools — Mascoma (in purple) and Newfound Regional (in green).

What’s with Newfound’s pinnies? According to this article, Newfound “showed up in all-green uniforms that the officials said were too close to Mascoma’s all-purple togs to easily differentiate. Newfound was ordered to play in practice pinnies over its shirts, making player identifications nearly impossible.”

The bizarre thing, as you can see in the photo, is that some Newfound players wore white pinnies and other wore orange. And it wasn’t just that one guy wearing white — here are some more:

Moreover, as you can see, the pinnies obscured the players’ numbers, so how were the officials supposed to differentiate between eligible and ineligible receivers? Bizarre.

Of course, the biggest mystery here is how the officials could think that the world’s best and world’s worst colors were “too close to differentiate.”

(My thanks to New Hampshire sports maven Tris Wykes for letting me know about this one.)

• • • • •

Help Wanted: I could use a bit of assistance with an admittedly boring clerical task involving college basketball. It should take a few hours, and there’s a free Uni Watch membership card in it for ya (along with an inside look at the clerical drudgery that my job sometimes entails).

If that sounds like you, get in touch and I’ll provide more details. Thanks. Thanks to those who’ve responded. I now have enough helpers, at least for the time being.

• • • • •

T-shirt reminders: In case you missed it on Friday, our latest limited-edition shirt from the Uni Watch Artist’s Series is by the great Sean Kane (shown at right; click to enlarge). It’s available here through next Monday, Oct. 9. Additional info here.

We also have a bunch of new Naming Wrongs designs. Check those out here.

• • • • •

Baseball News: The Twins wore batting practice caps for yesterday’s game season finale against the Tigers (from Sam Johnson).

NFL News: A Colin Kaepernick jersey has made it into an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art called “Is Fashion Modern?” In that picture, it’s between a New Zealand women’s national rugby team shirt and Pelé’s Brazil national team shirt circa the 1960s (from Paul Friedmann).

College/High School Football News: The GlenOak (Canton, Ohio-area) High School Eagles wear both Oregon-like wings and Georgia’s G on their helmets (from Tom Pachuta). … Reader Andrew Cosentino found a drawing of a Virginia Tech jersey with “Impeach 45” on the back at a restaurant in Roanoke, Va. … Christopher Hall found this combination Boise State/Florida shirt. … Virginia was off this week, but Uni Watch ACC tracker Rex Henry still sent in this picture of WR Andre Levrone that managed to capture the stripes on the helmet and both sides of the pants all at once in Boise last week.

Hockey News: Three junior hockey items out of the WHL from Wade Heidt: The Prince Albert Raiders wore Don Cherry-inspired jerseys on Saturday. Coach Marc Habscheid was also appropriately garbed in a tartan jacket. … The Tri-City Americans (based in Kennewick, Wash.) wore 30th-season throwbacks. … The Portland Winterhawks and Seattle Thunderbirds went color-vs.-color, which Wade notes is a growing tradition when the two teams meet. … The Panthers hosted an alumni game yesterday and used old Reebok and Bauer jerseys (from @VistFoundation).

NBA News: In Saturday’s preseason game, the Timberwolves wore white and the Lakers wore yellow. That’s a matchup that couldn’t have happened before this season but is now possible due to the elimination of home and road uni designations (from Austin Zelasko). … For an early example of “uni-tracking,” the Spurs’ broadcast team showed the team’s record sorted by Dennis Rodman’s hair color in 1994 (from @FortWaynePistons).

Soccer News: In England, Brighton and Hove Albion looked a bit like the throwback Padres in their second-choice kit yesterday (from Jeff Lyons). … Lots going on in Spain, where FC Barcelona played their game against UD Las Palmas behind closed doors as La Liga refused to postpone it due to the Catalan independence referendum. Las Palmas added the Spanish flag to their shirts, while Barcelona responded with their “pre-match shirts,” which just happen to be yellow with red stripes – i.e., the Catalan flag (from Ryan Maquiñana). … During the game itself, FCB striker Luis Suárez ripped his shirt in half after having missed a chance (from @True2Atlanta). … Additionally, the scoreboard displayed a ballot box and the word “Democràcia,” a reference to the Catalonia independence vote. … Later, there were contrasting visuals at Real Madrid’s game against RCD Espanyol: a giveaway of paper Spanish flags meant many could be seen in the stands in the 12th minute, while Espanyol, the “other team” from Barcelona, have a Catalan-flag captain’s armband. … Two observations left over from Saturday: Chelsea and Manchester City didn’t go blue-vs.-blue as they have done in the past, but Kilmarnock (at left) and Ross County did in Scotland. … Atlanta United goalie Brad Guzan was missing the team crest from his shirt (from @True2Atlanta).

Grab Bag: New shirts for Italian SuperLega (volleyball) team Modena Volley (from Jeremy Brahm). … Pinktober came to NASCAR this week in the form of Danica Patrick’s car and a pink hat on Jimmie Johnson’s crew chief, Chad Knaus.

100 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 8:47 am |

    That X-stitching reminds me of the stitching that attaches a fight strap to the back of a hockey jersey. Maybe this one has to do with something underneath that’s meant to keep the “sleeve” in place over the shoulder pads? That’s my guess, anyway.

    • Andrew Harrington | October 2, 2017 at 9:28 am |

      My guess is it’s either a strap that snaps to the shoulder pads, or a hook and loop pad (like Velcro) to achieve the same thing.

  • Mike Wissman | October 2, 2017 at 8:49 am |

    The Rams did look dreadful yesterday. Which leads me to a question. Why does the NFL have such draconian rules about changing jerseys? Teams in the EPL do it every year, MLS teams make changes every two years (rotating changes to primary and change kits every year). Even NBA teams tend to tweak from year to year. Makes no sense why the NFL can no longer do the same. And if the answer is the apparel companies don’t want to lose money doesn’t the NFL both control the content and have enough change laying around to buy out a bunch of last years jerseys if need be?

    • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:07 am |

      It has to do with the time it takes for a new design to get into the retail pipeline, how long it takes for the old design to be pushed out of it, and whether it’s economically viable to put a new design into the retail pipeline only to have it pushed out a year or two later. The manufacturers must have lost boatloads of money on the Islanders’ fisherman jersey; lord knows how many of those are floating around sub-Saharan Africa along with the Patriots’ 19-0 t-shirts and hats.

      • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 9:33 am |

        It also has to do with the NFL’s longstanding belief that teams shouldn’t be changing their designs/brands/etc willy-nilly. Part of the NFL’s corporate culture.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:44 am |

          The Jacksonville Jaguars notwithstanding. :)

          Four different looks in 20 years, each progressively worse than the last. Although, pair the current jersey with the original helmet and pants, and you might actually have something.

        • Brian | October 2, 2017 at 11:15 am |

          Generally, I believe the rule requiring teams to keep the same jerseys for several years is a good one. But if the Rams petitioned the league to make an exception (do we know if this happened?) based on a relocation to a city where they previously wore the blue/white color scheme, it seems ridiculous not to make an exception. It’s not as if there is a concern that other teams will abuse the exception by changing cities so that can change uniforms.
          If the Rams sought an exception and were denied, then shame on the Rams for going forward with the helmets two years early.

        • RS Rogers | October 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm |

          While the general rule is a virtue, “changing uniforms when the team moves to a different city” isn’t willy-nilly. Not disputing Paul’s account of the NFL’s reasoning, but if that general principle really did play into the Rams being unable to change their jerseys, then the NFL would be behaving stupidly, and in a way that does not actually uphold the general principle in question. To which an observer of the league might respond, “What? No! I’m shocked, shocked to find the NFL behaving like a foolish martinet.”

    • Rex | October 2, 2017 at 9:29 am |

      From a consumer standpoint, it gives the fan a longer period to wear the same jersey that the players do. Soccer gets blamed for having National teams wear a jersey only a handful of times and they come out with another version and expect you to pay for it. Maybe the NFL has their money and priorities tied up in watching the game.
      Bottom line: looking good, or at least matching, comes at a price.

    • Lou | October 2, 2017 at 9:33 am |

      Agreed. This has become the tail wagging the dog, the first priority should be that the team looks at least halfway decent,

    • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 9:51 am |

      This wouldn’t be a problem if they hadn’t been in such a hurry to de-gold everything else, and had just kept the gold horns.

      • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 9:55 am |

        Yup.

        Also, remember that the white facemask was chosen via a fan vote. (They could have chosen navy.)

        • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 10:27 am |

          Even the white mask wouldn’t necessarily be bad with gold horns. I did a quick recoloring of the horns and pants stripes from today’s lead photo, and it’s definitely an improvement even without changing the masks at all.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 12:52 pm |

          Thanks, Rob S, for doing that; apart from the blue unitard it looks fine. Could you try recoloring the facemask gold and leave the horns white, and see what that looks like?

        • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 2:09 pm |
        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 2:32 pm |

          Yes, thanks. Not as good a look as I’d hoped, but still an improvement. I think this (white horns/gold mask) might look good with the white jerseys….. ;)

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 2:34 pm |

          Maybe the problem is, the horns and mask shouldn’t be the same color.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 2:35 pm |
      • PaulS | October 2, 2017 at 10:02 am |

        Did I miss the previous comment, or has no one pointed out how NONE of the three shades of blue (helmet/jersey/pants) match? Stupid…

    • Lee | October 2, 2017 at 11:17 am |

      Let’s not forget here, NFL rules aside, the current situation is 100% on the Rams.
      There was absolutely no reasonable need for them to change helmets and pants, when it was clear they couldn’t yet change the jerseys.

      Maybe the ‘no change for 5 years’ rule is stupid or not, but in the meantime, the Rams made an actual CHOICE to dress up like clowns. No one made them.

      Lee

      • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 11:55 am |

        Exactly. The Rams are the ones who are in a rush to evoke the Fearsome Foursome era, and yet refuse to actually change their jerseys.

      • Hercules Rockefeller | October 2, 2017 at 3:21 pm |

        There is such an easy, obvious way to avoid the mismatched look and I’m surprised no one got fired for it (kidding, kind of) barring a grand handshake-worthy sense of stubbornness on the part of the Rams.

        Step 1) Don’t go mono-blue. Wear the white pants with the wide blue stripe. Mono-blue is stupid anyway.

        Step 2) Gold decals for the blue helmet for blue jersey games. So simple. Only real explanation is the Rams put their foot down and went all-in on the white-trimmed helmet, publicity be damned. If step 2 isn’t an option for some obscure rule, see step 1.

        • Eltee of Dee Cee | October 2, 2017 at 4:43 pm |

          HR,

          applause….

  • Brendon | October 2, 2017 at 8:52 am |

    Mascoma, not Macoma

    • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 8:59 am |

      Fixed.

  • RS Rogers | October 2, 2017 at 8:56 am |

    Watched “Battle of the Sexes” last night. Recommended! It had a few uni-notable nuggets. Early in the film, at a point where a typical sports movie might have a training montage (the movie has already established that the athletes in question are the best in the world), there’s a uni-designing and -fitting montage. And the movie closed with an extended commentary on the game-warping absurdity of advertising on uniforms. Good stuff!

    • Phil Hecken | October 2, 2017 at 9:11 am |

      Definitely on the list. Thanks for the positive review, Scotty!

  • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:04 am |

    The Jets’ white masks pissed me off when I first saw them but the look is really not so terrible as I let on yesterday. I’ve just about given up the ghost on the white socks even though I still wish they’d wear the green socks with the white pants. But the all-white look they sported yesterday is not that bad, certainly better than any all-green combo.

    As for whether they’re allowed to do that, they must be (or else they wouldn’t have), and it should be noted that the Jets don’t currently have a non-Color Cash alternate or throwback, so the league probably said, “Meh, OK, this counts as that.”

    I have in the past expressed my affinity for grey facemasks by analogizing them to brown baseball gloves; it’s more a piece of equipment than a fashion accessory. Baseball gloves, too, can be made in team colors, but most aren’t. So I don’t have a problem with gray facemasks, and for this reason maybe the NFL doesn’t care much about them either, or if a team’s facemask color changes mid-season.

    Accordingly, the Rams should definitely switch to blue (or gold) masks for the rest of the year, if that’s the most the NFL will allow to correct this glaring aesthetic mistake. The NFL also seems rather lax about pants (e.g., the Ravens’ mustard-gold pants, which no one liked but me), so maybe they can address that too and go back to last year’s pants, or better yet, the gold ones.

    Maybe next year they can switch to the 1979-99 throwbacks for the last year in the Coliseum; I know, wishful thinking.

    • Joseph Gerard | October 2, 2017 at 9:17 am |

      They have two more years in the Coliseum.

      • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:27 am |

        Has the new stadium opening been pushed back? My understanding is, and according to today’s Uni Watch, it opens in 2019. Is that not correct?

        • Joseph Gerard | October 2, 2017 at 9:42 am |

          Construction delays pushed it to 2020. Ironically, it was from heavier-than-normal rainfall (albeit much-needed for that part of the country) that pushed it back. Hence why the Rams will host a London game for two more years and the Chargers will host one the next two years too.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:45 am |

          Ahh, OK. I do remember reading or hearing that somewhere at some point. Thanks.

    • Wade Heidt | October 2, 2017 at 9:18 am |

      I heard that yesterday was known as the Jets Annual Whiteout game. Fans were encouraged to wear white and received white rally towels. Would appear to be the reason for the switch to the white facemask for the game.

      • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:28 am |

        The whole “Annual Whiteout game” thing is fine, if that’s a thing, but this is the first time it’s involved white facemasks.

      • John H. | October 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm |

        When I see the words Jets and whiteout in the same sentence, I’m ready for hockey season! Go Jets Go!

        • Wade Heidt | October 2, 2017 at 7:37 pm |

          Hopefully John, we will see this in the spring:

          http://www.hometownhockey.ca/images/photos/150420_jETS_XL.jpg

          Always was impressive to me back in the Winnipeg Arena days.

          Best wishes to the Canadian teams this year! I’ll cheer for you to all make the playoffs while my Canucks enjoy the basement suite for a couple of years :(.

  • Joseph Gerard | October 2, 2017 at 9:15 am |

    A couple of things:

    1. Jets wore white at home yesterday too.

    2. NBC had posted on their Facebook page of the Colts-Seahawks jerseys for the Sunday night matchup. The Colts jersey was their mid-1950s throwback style, of course they wore their regular white jerseys last night.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1700499183336367&id=112955302090771

    • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 9:34 am |

      Thanks for pointing out that I missed the Jets. Will add them to the list.

  • Phil Hecken | October 2, 2017 at 9:18 am |

    Was talking to someone last evening about the Rams gaddawful unis. I broached a topic on which she had no idea, but I do recall having taken place: the switch from alternate to primary. Recall when the Falcons, who have horrid unis, swapped their red (then alternate) tops for black (then primary); a couple years ago the Broncos swapped their then-primary blue jerseys for the current orange. Now, both of those changes were merely jerseys and those jerseys were basically color swaps.

    My question is: if the NFL allows the change from primary to alternates, why could not the Rams have petitioned the NFL to switch from their current royal/gold alternates to make them the primary uni, at least until they redesign for 2019? Could they? Or would there be some prohibition on this since the change would involve more than just the jersey (the royal/gold alts involve swapping jersey, pants & helmet decals)?

    The crap they wore yesterday, with the mis-matched helmet horns & facemasks looked…well, like crap.

    Anyone know if they could have designated the royal/gold as the primary (or if they could have)?

    The white set is bad. The mono-blue is…worse.

    • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:34 am |

      That’s what I’m hoping for, for next year, which [I think] is [supposed to be] their last year in the Coliseum before the new place opens.

      I was thinking the same thing, viz., re-designating primary as alternate and vice-versa shouldn’t be a big deal, as everything is already in the retail pipeline. One would think the NFL understands what a fustercluck the league’s return to L.A. has been so far, with the Rams looking like this and the Chargers unable to fill an ill-fitting rinky-dink soccer stadium (whilst losing every game they’ve played there so far). Something needs to be done; the league should get its priorities straight.

    • Rex | October 2, 2017 at 9:37 am |

      What’s worse for the NFL?

      Not being able to recognize a team because they trick you by changing their colors every week, not knowing who they are despite the scoreboard on the bottom of the screen during all live game play and commentary?

      Or making a conscious decision to look like the Rams’ Booster Club ran out of money after purchasing new pants and helmet decals?

      Let’s get some waivers [and sell some more hot dogs], people!

      • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:40 am |

        Weirdly, it’s the [new] helmets and pants that look cheap; more like the Booster Club sprung for fancy new jerseys but not helmets or pants.

    • Andrew Harrington | October 2, 2017 at 9:46 am |

      I don’t have any insight on whether the NFL would have allowed it, but I’m 100% sure it wouldn’t have looked any better. The issue is the hat and pants are a dark blue and white scheme while the jersey is a dark blue and gold look, with minimal white trim. To replace that with a blue and yellow jersey wouldn’t make the ensemble any better. It would probably be worse, considering it’s a royal blue jersey, which wouldn’t match the pants *or* helmet.

      Now, if they had adopted the entire throwback uniform as their home look, that might sound better in theory, but the NFL does not allow teams to wear different helmets for home and road games. As a result, the away set would still be ruined because they’d have to wear that blue and yellow helmet with the white, blue, and gold jersey and pants, which would look worse than the white-horned helmet does (which at least matches the main color of the jersey, though still looks jarringly out of place).

      All in all, though, while the Rams look fantastic in royal blue and yellow, the dark blue and white helmet and pants look stunningly bright and clean. Pair them with a set of Southern Cal-style jerseys in dark blue and white (and try to avoid monochrome), and that is a great look; basically the white uniform they wore from 1964-72, and a home counterpart that matches.

      Conversely, wear a yellow and blue set of these new pants with the throwback, and that is also a winner. The white in the throwback pants looks strangely out of place on the home uniform, as does the white name.

      • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 10:07 am |

        I don’t think anyone is suggesting mixing-and-matching the throwback jersey with the current helmet and pants. And the throwback helmet is the same helmet with yellow decals and a blue cage.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 5:30 pm |

          Oh, OK; since there’s only one throwback uniform (the blue-jersey variant) they’d still need a white-jersey uniform and thus would have to wear the current whites with the yellow-horned helmet if it became the primary. That’s a good point. Well, since changing decals seems to be fairly easy, perhaps the NFL could allow for a distinction between different -helmets- and different -decals-.

          As others have pointed out herein, this is really the Rams’ fault more than the NFL’s. There was no reason or need to scrap and change the St. Louis-era helmets and pants prior to the overall overhaul.

      • Phil Hecken | October 2, 2017 at 10:17 am |

        While not quite as egregious as the current throwbacks, in the past (80s/90s), the Rams blue helmet was darker than their jerseys, so the throwbacks aren’t that far off, even with the one-helmet rule.

        You can’t seriously tell me anything the Rams will trot out this year will look better than the throwbacks do. My question is whether (1) they could have designated the alternate (throwback) as the primary and (2) if they could have, why didn’t they?

        • Andrew Harrington | October 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm |

          Like I said, assuming it was even an option, I’m guessing it’s because they can’t wear a different helmet for home and road games, so if they designated the alternate uniform the home uniform, they would be stuck wearing yellow horns with the gold accented away jersey, which would look just as bad as what they’re going with now.

  • kdf | October 2, 2017 at 9:22 am |

    Could the Green Purple thing in the NH High School game be a color blindness thing? It’s not a subject I’m particularly knowledgeable but it’s the only explanation I can come up with.

    • Another Josh | October 2, 2017 at 9:39 am |

      That could be it. I put the picture in this color blindness simulator: http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/

      In some variations of color blindness the uniforms look pretty close. Still, it seems kinda strange, and if that was the reason you’d think they’d just come out and say so.

    • Matthew Radican | October 2, 2017 at 4:07 pm |

      Wouldn’t color blindness be cause for someone not to be able to officiate games?

  • Forde | October 2, 2017 at 9:25 am |

    I was at the Jets game yesterday and it was a “white out”. They promoted it all week, gave away white towels as well for Kevin Mawae’s induction to the Ring of Honor. They usually do one game like this early on in the year when it is still warm.

    I really like the white facemask look. Just wish the green was more of a kelly green. Current Jets green is so inconsistent in pictures depending on the lighting.

    • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 9:38 am |

      Nike, for some reason, has problems with the color green, at least with its new NFL jersey fabric. Note that the Packers’ green still looks fine, because they’re still using the old Reebok template. I noticed last week that the Jets’ green jerseys look better this year than they did last year, but the sleeves on the white jerseys are still olive-drab in sunlight, which is depressing.

      And the retail jerseys, with the elbow-length sleeves and TV numbers all the way down at the bottom, are just g-d-awful.

      • Forde | October 2, 2017 at 10:05 am |

        Wish the Jets would just go with a nicer green.
        Looks like army green, olive green, bright green, all different depending on the sun/photo. I don’t think any other team has this issue.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 10:12 am |

          Other teams have subtle color variations between the different fabric types, but not to this extent because their jerseys are not green, which as mentioned is a color Nike has particular difficulty with (there was an issue with the Eagles jerseys a couple of years back after they switched to the Nike template, where they had to wear white or black-alts for half the season because Nike couldn’t get the color right).

          The Jets’ green should be the same as the Packers’ green, which as mentioned looks fine because they’re still using the Reebok template and fabric. The Jets’ Reebok jerseys pre-2012 were a gorgeous shade of green (although the shoulder/sleeve treatment was terrible). There’s no question that Nike and the Jets need to address this.

        • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 10:18 am |

          The Jets’ green should be the same as the Packers’ green…

          That is correct. They have exactly the same same Panton spec in the NFL Style Guide.

  • Mike Engle | October 2, 2017 at 9:51 am |

    Florida Panthers alumni. That Tomas Vokoun jersey makes absolutely no sense. One, Vokoun wore #29, not #1. Two, I can’t recall the last time Bauer ever made NHL uniforms. Now, Vokoun was a Bauer client in the late portion of his career, so is it an endorsement accommodation? That’s my best guess, but it’s pretty far-fetched, and still doesn’t explain the weird jersey number.

    • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 10:01 am |

      Bauer made the Predators’ inaugural jerseys in the 1998-99 season, and at that time they were owned by Nike.

    • Mark | October 2, 2017 at 11:30 am |

      That jersey really has me thrown too. And it doesn’t look like a jersey re-brand for endorsement purposes – No sign of the Reebok/Adidas logo being removed from below the neckline, and the elbow striping (stitching pattern on the white, additional oversewing on the gold, and a slight variation in the gold color) is inconsistent with the Reebok versions. Plus that jersey is only a year or so old. There’s no way it’s really old stock from back before uniform manufacture was standardized across the League.

      One option I came up with (and it’s the only one I have for now) – is it possible to buy Bauer branded jerseys in NHL templates that are uncrested? I’m thinking perhaps the organization couldn’t get hold of any authentic Reebok (or Adidas) jerseys in a goalie cut, so had the EQM pick up some uncrested jerseys and stitch on the logos and numerals/letters.

      It’s a long shot, but it’s all I have! I’d love to know the whole story…

    • Mark | October 2, 2017 at 11:53 am |

      Sorry Paul, my mistake!

      This one really has me intrigued though. You don’t have a contact in the Panthers’ Equipment Room, do you?!

      • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 12:02 pm |

        I don’t, alas.

  • Jon Strauss | October 2, 2017 at 10:02 am |

    Wondering if that stitching on Benjamin’s jersey is for a piece of velcro so his shoulder sleeve stays tight to his pads…

  • RICKAZ | October 2, 2017 at 10:27 am |

    With the Lakers wearing yellow while TWolves wearing white, haven’t the Pacers worn yellow before against teams wearing white? I’m thinking this was an alternate uniform that they might have worn on both the road and home.

    • Mike Engle | October 2, 2017 at 10:51 am |

      Before this year, Lakers were yellow at home, purple on road, and white as the alternate (generally Sundays and holidays if at home). Meanwhile, Pacers were white at home with yellow alts. Lakers were literally the only team whose home uniform was not white. So sure, maybe we’ve yellow vs white before, but never Lakers yellow vs white.

      • RICKAZ | October 2, 2017 at 11:16 am |

        I’m thinking that at some point in the past Golden State wore yellow as their home uniform.

        • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm |

          Yes, they did. For about 20 years or so, up until 1984.

    • Phil Hecken | October 2, 2017 at 11:18 am |

      Not only have the Pacers worn gold vs. white, they’ve also worn white vs. gold.

      So, it’s not *that* uncommon.

  • Bill H | October 2, 2017 at 10:51 am |

    Lifelong Rams fan, that was such a embarrassing look for a NFL team. Just a complete mess, really reminded me of watching a high school JV team. The fact that they are good this compounds it!!

  • Ian | October 2, 2017 at 11:53 am |

    The Rams (and Chargers, I guess) stadium opens in 2020, not 2019 as you wrote. It was delayed by a year due to rain.

  • Chris | October 2, 2017 at 12:03 pm |

    The Rams don’t move into the new stadium until 2020. So likely they will continue to use the current uniform for 2 more seasons.

    • Marcus | October 2, 2017 at 1:15 pm |

      2020 can’t get here soon enough. I think the Rams might have removed the New Century Gold from their pants and helmets a few years too early. Even a Millennium Blue face mask wouldn’t have saved that atrocity of a uniform. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen it for the last time this season.

      • Winter | October 2, 2017 at 4:13 pm |

        “New Century” Gold?

        “Millenium” Blue?

        I don’t remember those in my crayola box.

        • Marcus | October 3, 2017 at 7:24 am |

          Well, the Rams somehow planted those in there after they won Super Bowl XXXIV and it was a downgrade. I guess we’ll just have to wait for them to look like a darker version of the Colts when they can finally move to Inglewood.

  • Rydell | October 2, 2017 at 12:32 pm |

    Maybe the Twins had to wear their bp hats because their game hats were busy getting the Wildcard game patches ironed on?

    • Jerry | October 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm |

      Maybe the Twins wore BP caps so they could throw them into the crowd at the end.

  • Thomas | October 2, 2017 at 12:50 pm |

    Funny thing about the Falcons is that their fauxback is an accurate representation of the 1997 uniform from the waist up and the 1966 uniform from the neck down.

    The 1966 jersey is identical to that worn from 1997-2002. It’s like time warp.

    • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 1:01 pm |

      Although the full 1966 uniform would be ideal, I don’t think I’d even mind the neck-down throwback with the current helmet decal.

      • walter | October 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm |

        I really dislike the Falcons’ current helmet decal. Too fussy, unnecessary silver color. The original never needed replacing; it looks modern right to the present day.

      • Thomas | October 2, 2017 at 2:30 pm |

        I’d rather see neck down ’66 with the 1990-2002 helmet. If the team is really committed to doing a reverse ’66 (red jersey, black helmet) they could easily adapt that fauxback to use a red jersey/socks.

        • Graf Zeppelin | October 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm |

          “[N]eck down ’66 with the 1990-2002 helmet” is basically what the current fauxback is, but you knew that. I’ve never liked that helmet; it at least needs a little red on it.

  • Marcus | October 2, 2017 at 1:13 pm |

    The uniforms that the Falcons wore yesterday was a blended fauxback. The helmet was from the ’90s, but the pants and tops were the same design that they wore when the franchise launched in the ’60s and the pants alone lasted from the ’60s and mid-1970s. Remember that the Falcons wore silver pants in the ’90s.

    • Marcus | October 2, 2017 at 1:14 pm |

      ‘”through”, not “and”

    • walter | October 2, 2017 at 1:44 pm |

      Despite the blended elements, it is a very handsome uniform. It should be their day-in, day-out kit.

      • Marcus | October 3, 2017 at 7:21 am |

        Not a bad idea! I wouldn’t mind seeing the red jersey they wore through 1989 come back at some point.

  • Corey | October 2, 2017 at 1:24 pm |

    Are uni numbers used to designate eligible receivers in high school football? I definitely remember tight ends wearing numbers in the 50s and 60s for multiple teams.

    • Winter | October 2, 2017 at 1:28 pm |

      They were in my high school playing days. Only difference, one that I still see in college but not in the pros, was that numbers in the 90s were eligible receivers.

  • Drew | October 2, 2017 at 1:47 pm |

    Man, another instance of sports teams embracing “video game” presentations and getting all of the details completely wrong. That Falcons gif is a disaster.

  • Kyle | October 2, 2017 at 2:32 pm |

    Rams:
    A team that relocates should be allowed to change their uniform.

    I kind of like that the Rams seem to be intentionally making a mockery out of the uniform change rule.

    The outrage on social media shows more people care about uniforms than I previously imagined.

    • Special K | October 2, 2017 at 6:47 pm |

      It’s not that the Rams weren’t allowed to change their uniforms when they moved to LA. It’s that they would have to wait five years before they could change them again, and they want to change them in 3 years when they open their new stadium.

  • RICKAZ | October 2, 2017 at 2:34 pm |

    Yes the Rams mismatched uniforms are aweful, but I’m thinking it would have looked better with their white pants. Not much better, but still not as bad as this.
    I do agree with Phil that they should have switched to their alternate Royal/Yellow as the main uniform, if allowed.

  • Randy | October 2, 2017 at 2:42 pm |

    The “RAMS” franchise started wearing those jerseys 15 years ago!!! Changing them wouldn’t be “willy-nilly” if you ask me.

    If Al Davis can MOVE an entire franchise to LA without consenting to the league rules of majority owner approval, then the Rams (or any other team for that matter) should be able to switch the color of their uniform without consenting to league rules too. Really, if the Rams showed up in Dallas in a uniform that matched but wasn’t the official one, you telling me they ain’t playing the game???

  • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm |

    It would be nice if every NFL team had their uniform schedules posted, and in such a way that would be easy to find. As it is, the only remaining road opponent for the Rams that I can find such a schedule for is the Giants, and they’re wearing their blue jerseys at home for that game.

    Still, barring any new information I receive, it would seem unlikely that the Rams would be forced to wear their navy jerseys again for the remainder of the regular season. I just hope they realize just how ugly this combination looked, and would just bring back the millennium gold helmet horns for the scant few remaining times over the next few seasons they’ll wear the navy jersey. If they can swap in the cheddar horns for the Color Rash and throwbacks, they should be able to bring the gold back for these.

    • Paul Lukas | October 2, 2017 at 4:01 pm |

      1) I agree that every NFL team should post its jersey schedule. I’ve been advocating for this for many years.

      2) The Rams might have to wear blue on Oct. 15 in Jacksonville, where the Jags often opt to wear white at home. That appears to be the only time we might see the blue jerseys again in the regular season.

      3) But here’s a thought: What if they make the playoffs? And what if they have to play in Dallas? Yikes.

      • Rob S | October 2, 2017 at 7:38 pm |

        I thought about the playoffs as well… and all I can do is shake my damn head.

      • Marcus | October 4, 2017 at 8:26 am |

        Don’t be surprised if the Rams wear those same jerseys in Twickenham, London, too.

  • David | October 2, 2017 at 5:27 pm |

    I never thought I’d say this about any team, but maybe the Rams should just wear their Color Rush uniforms all season.

  • Oakville Endive | October 2, 2017 at 9:46 pm |

    Nice to see the Chiefs didn’t go mono-red tonight, a great look, playing in a stadium that has changed very little from my childhood, except I think they had astro-turf in the 70’s.

  • Billy | October 2, 2017 at 11:35 pm |

    Anyone else think of uni-watch after seeing the “papyrus” skit on SNL season premier this past Saturday?

  • Ian W. | October 3, 2017 at 6:17 am |

    I believe that the Rams will now not open their new stadium until the 2020 season, because of delays during construction this past year. I could be wrong.