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

The bad news is that the Rams wore their blue jerseys again yesterday in Jacksonville, with the gold trim clashing badly with the helmets and pants (additional photos here). The good news, based on the Rams’ remaining 2017 schedule, is that they probably won’t be wearing the blue jerseys again this season. Phew.

Interestingly, the Rams know how bad they look in the blue jerseys and asked the league for a waiver to allow them to wear their royal/yellow throwbacks yesterday, but the league said no, because teams are only allowed to wear throwbacks or alternates for two games per season, and the Rams have already worn theirs once and have another throwback game slated for late December. What a mess.

In other news from a fairly uni-uneventful day around the league yesterday:

• If there’s a worse NFL look than the Rams wearing blue, it’s probably the Cardinals going BFBS with Pinktober accents, which is what happened yesterday (click to enlarge; additional photos here):

• Then again, maybe the league’s worst look is the Broncos going mono-navy, which is what they did last night (additional photos here):

Embed from Getty Images

• I didn’t hear any advance word about this, but I noticed that the Giants added a “14” memorial decal for former quarterback Y.A. Tittle, who died last Sunday (click to enlarge):

• The Texans went mono-navy. (And as an aside, the Browns have now gone mono-white for all six games this season.)

• Texans quarterback DeShaun Watson arrived for Sunday’s game wearing a Warren Moon Oilers jersey.

• Only one team wore white at home: the Jaguars.

• Here’s a list of players who protested during the national anthem.

And that’s it. Quiet week.

(My thanks to @igTXSalazar and Phil for their contributions.)

• • • • •

The Ticker
By Jamie Rathjen

Baseball News: A nine-year-old Athletics fan who lost a lot of memorabilia in the California wildfires wrote a letter to the team, which will help him out with replacement gear (thanks, Brinke). … In a related item, all that was left of one 14-year-old fire victim was his Giants cap (from Tris Wykes).

Pro Football News: Here’s a vintage (ca. 1966) magazine cover featuring Dolphins WR Howard Twilley wearing a facemask-less helmet (from Bob Gassel). … The Jaguars will wear teal for the first time in four years on Nov. 5 against the Bengals (from Samuel Lam). … Here’s a mid-1970s shot of former Bills QB Jim Kelly and his brothers posing with a WFL Birmingham Vulcans pennant in the background (from Joe Pitzonka).

College Football News: Two items from Saturday’s games: My dad noticed this one: NC State wore a helmet decal in memory of DL Darian Roseboro’s father. … LSU had a black “Y.A.” memorial decal for Y.A. Tittle (from Clint Richardson). The team also created a special locker for Tittle (from Jimmy Henry). … Reader Richard Giron sent along a collaborative ranking of the Pac-12’s football uniforms done by The San Francisco Chronicle and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. … Division II South Dakota School of Mines has a stadium that’s a drive-in on one side (from Greg Enkers).

Hockey News: The Sharks became los Tiburones during warm-ups on Saturday night (from Daniel O’Leary). Here’s how they looked in action (from @TheGoalNet45). … New mask for goalie Lukas Hafner of the Colorado Eagles (ECHL) (from John Muir). … New yellow or “gold” uniforms for Lake Superior State (from Patrick Thomas). As NCAA teams wear white at home, this resulted in color-on-color with Michigan Tech.

Soccer News: In a pretty comprehensive campaign, teams and officials throughout all levels of Scottish men’s and women’s soccer supported the charity Show Racism the Red Card this weekend. This included oversized cards with which the players posed pre-game, a smaller version of the same worn as a patch, and warm-up shirts. Lots of pictures here. … Bundesliga team Hertha BSC knelt before their game on Saturday against Schalke 04. … Spencer Hollis notes that three of the four Premier League teams who played yesterday are normally clad in vertical stripes: Brighton & Hove Albion, Newcastle United, and Southampton. However, Southampton have a different motif for this season, and Newcastle changed against them, leaving Brighton as the only striped team of the day.

• • • • •

By the time most of you read this, I’ll be on my way to Manhattan, where I’ll be covering the shoot for the Puppy Bowl and Kitten Halftime Show — always one of my favorite experiences of the year. (I’ll be going back for more tomorrow afternoon.) Unfortunately, the whole thing is embargoed until late January, so I won’t be able to share any photos or stories until then. But still: Puppies and kittens! Play nice while I’m away this morning, okay? Okay! — Paul

59 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • AlMaFi | October 16, 2017 at 7:14 am |

    Proofreading: covering the Puppy Bowl is one of your “favorite experiences of the tear.” Seems like a typo–unless that’s an artful way of saying the Puppy Bowl is so fun that it makes you cry tears of joy.

    • Paul Lukas | October 16, 2017 at 7:18 am |

      Thanks. Fixed.

  • BurghFan | October 16, 2017 at 7:19 am |

    Proofreading:
    “But till: Puppies and kittens!”

    • Paul Lukas | October 16, 2017 at 7:22 am |

      Fixed.

  • Marcus | October 16, 2017 at 7:25 am |

    I wouldn’t really call the Cardinals’ uniforms BFBS. Black has been one of their official colors for a long time. I could see it being BFBS if the Cardinals’ colors were cardinal red & white, but that’s not the case.
    https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2016%20NFL%20Record%20and%20Fact%20Book.pdf#page=138

    • DJ | October 16, 2017 at 8:36 am |

      I would. Black is historically a trim color for the Cardinals. They got their name from wearing faded maroon hand-me-down jerseys from the University of Chicago. It’s as abominable as Stanford wearing black.

      • Marcus | October 16, 2017 at 9:19 am |

        Black has long been an official color for the Cards dating back to their St. Louis days. It might have been a trim color, but it’s still acknowledged in the Cards’ own materials as being part of the color scheme, so it’s not as if black is “extra” for them. Cardinal has been Stanford’s only official color and the university has never, ever acknowledged black as being one of its colors. Not the same thing.

      • MJ | October 16, 2017 at 10:15 am |

        I feel exactly this way about the Eagles. Also BFBS, plain and simple.

        • MJ | October 16, 2017 at 10:16 am |

          By “this way”, I was agreeing with DJ. The comment system didn’t place this where I thought it would.

    • RICKAZ | October 16, 2017 at 11:09 am |

      Black may be an official color of the Cardinals, but this is still an awful look. Looks like very little effort went into this, and it’s just to sell more jerseys. I’m surprised they even changed the pant stripe to black. The Cardinals would be better off if they changed there uniforms to a more classic look, without the curvy weird stripes. Also the red shoulders on their white uniforms are terrible. The Cards would look great in all white if they got rid of the red shoulders.

      • Marcus | October 16, 2017 at 11:19 am |

        I don’t really like the Cards’ set as a whole. Their white jersey is their weakest one IMO. I even like the black ones more than I like those (less busy). I liked the ones they wore when they were in St. Louis and early in their time in their current DMA.

  • Mr. Miami | October 16, 2017 at 8:04 am |

    The vintage Miamian cover is a faux back. It is from the Miami-Dade Chamber of Commerce, and the county did not change its name to that until 1997. Previously, it was just Dade County.

  • Bob Gassel | October 16, 2017 at 8:09 am |

    Not ideal, but this Rams combo with the white pants doesn’t look so hideous…just don’t wear the mono blue anymore.

    • Marcus | October 16, 2017 at 8:12 am |

      I agree, but it still looks like trash. I wish the NFL would’ve given them a waiver to wear their throwbacks. They look so much better anyway. I fear that we might see them wear yesterday’s combo in Twickenham, London, though. They wore mono-blue in last season’s game there vs. the Giants as the designated home team.

    • MotorCityJeff | October 16, 2017 at 8:58 am |

      If the Rams realize they look like clowns, why not go back to the gold horns and blue facemasks? It was so stupid to change to white with everything else remaining the same.

      • Rob S | October 16, 2017 at 9:02 am |

        Exactly.

        With regards to the whitewashing of the Rams, team officials were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

        • Thomas | October 16, 2017 at 9:34 am |

          Thank you Dr. Malcolm for your excellent insight.

          If they were really serious about doing the white horns but weren’t ready to change the jerseys, they should have just opted to make the all-whites their color rash. They could have made a gold-free color rash and seen how that looked with the white horns as a prototype.

          By the same token, if they really were into the white horns, why not just go the whole way right now?

          Instead they tried to have it both ways and it’s been a failure.

    • Greg | October 16, 2017 at 9:09 am |

      Agree, this is a little better than mono navy. You have to wonder who thought eliminating all gold but being stuck with those jerseys was a good idea. Either swap to the old blue and yellow now, or just wait until the new stadium opens to make changes. No reason to have these incomplete changes in the mean time. If the Rams continue to improve it will just make it worse, because their games will be consequential and we’ll actually have to pay attention to team that looks this awful.

      • Marcus | October 16, 2017 at 9:22 am |

        The Rams definitely would’ve been better off keeping all of their gold elements intact because their half-assed change isn’t a good look.

  • Rob S | October 16, 2017 at 8:10 am |

    Looks like Lake State borrowed the design of their new jersey from the Oilers, since it looks like the WHA-era jersey they wore the last two seasons, right down to the numbers in the shoulder yoke.

  • Graf Zeppelin | October 16, 2017 at 8:39 am |

    I’m sure this has been covered before and asked rhetorically a million times, but how could the Rams not know in advance that their “new” helmet and pants would clash with the blue-and-gold jerseys, which they would inevitably have to wear at least once?

    Why put something like that up to a fan vote when the result could be something like this? IIRC, only the facemask color and the pants design were put up to fan vote; the white horn decals were a given, and all of the pants options were blue and white with no gold trim.

    Ordinarily I’d blast the NFL for its priggishness on the uniform front, but this time I’m glad the league said no. The Rams did this to themselves. “You farked your own uniform, for no good reason, so deal with it; don’t come crying to us for a waiver when it’s your own fault you look ridiculous.”

  • Special K | October 16, 2017 at 8:54 am |

    So, could the Rams have put metallic gold horns on their helmets on the days they wore their blue jerseys? Or are they restricted in the number of different helmet decals they use?

    • Rob S | October 16, 2017 at 9:05 am |

      As far as I’m aware, there isn’t any league restriction on changing the decals, just the shells themselves (along with the jerseys).

    • Phil Hecken | October 16, 2017 at 9:18 am |

      They certainly could have. But they’re so dead set on the white horns/mask look for the non-throwback (i.e. 14 out of 16 games) look, they are sticking it out. It’s probably equal parts incompetence on the Rams (shocking, I know) and equal parts almost daring the NFL to not give them the uni-waiver, knowing it will make everyone — the league and the team — look like idiots.

      I disagree with the “5 year minimum” rule on jersey changes, but one would think the NFL might waive this for teams that move. Let them change to a blue/white jersey now, and then again once the new stadium opens, if that’s what they want. Even though you’ll have three relocations in 4 years (Rams, Chargers & Raiders), it’s unlikely the Raiders will change their jerseys, and the Chargers … well, their unis aren’t so bad (they could change now) that they can’t wait till the new stadium is ready for a switch.

      Of course, and I’ll say this for the umpteenth time — the simplest solution would have been for the Rams to designate their current alts (the gorgeous throwbacks) as their primary dark uni, and then they wouldn’t be stuck with the wretched blue/metallic gold tops for a few games. But then again, this is the Rams we’re talking about.

      • Greg | October 16, 2017 at 10:38 am |

        Phil, are you saying they could designate their throwback as the primary, and that would be different than creating a new uniform and not be subject to the 5 year rule?
        I am thinking the Rams are dead set against that because they are saving the switch to blue and yellow for when their new stadium opens. I assume so that they can cash in on jersey sales from relocation, and then again with the new uniforms for the stadium opening.

        • Phil Hecken | October 16, 2017 at 12:02 pm |

          I’m not sure about the machinations but I know that in recent years the Broncos (from navy blue to orange) and Falcons (from black to red) have changed their designations. I don’t see why the Rams couldn’t have petitioned to do the same.

        • Tape | October 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm |

          The Broncos hadn’t made a change in ~20 years though, so the 5 year rule wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

      • RICKAZ | October 16, 2017 at 11:20 am |

        So would the NFL require a team to keep their jerseys in the “5 year minimum” rule after a move if their jerseys said the name of the city they had moved from? This would be strange if on the chest it said “St Louis” or “San Diego”. I can’t think of any teams with their location (city, state, region) on the jersey, but this would be ridiculous if they were required to abide by the league rules on this.

        • walter | October 16, 2017 at 11:45 am |

          Cleveland Browns.

        • RICKAZ | October 16, 2017 at 1:59 pm |

          Yep. Thinking of Cleveland, I guess the 5 year rule doesn’t apply when you change your name.

      • Jason | October 16, 2017 at 1:04 pm |

        Phil,

        You make too much sense. Why do you think the 5 year rule is in place? My thought is that the backlash on the high cost of replacing a Jersey frequently would be an issue. I for one don’t think having the 5 year rule really impacts a lot of teams. Historically, teams have not really changed their look. It is safe to say that this rule needs to be changed, especially for special situations like relocation or ownership change; or when you get a new look that just doesn’t go over well like the Browns.

        • Greg | October 16, 2017 at 2:16 pm |

          Regarding your last point, about a look that doesn’t go over well. Simple answer to that is, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Or better yet, have a legit focus group who could tell you the designs are awful.
          When it comes to relocation, how often does a team relocate? And on the rare occasion it does happen, its unlikely they would have changed their look within 5 years anyway.

        • Brent | October 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm |

          Teams should have a one time waiver to the 5 year rule on the condition that they go back to something that worked in the past and they keep the perfectly fine look for 50 years.

        • Cole | October 16, 2017 at 11:53 pm |

          “Why do you think the 5 year rule is in place?”
          Bc the NFL is a big dumb bureaucracy with so many stupid stupid rules that it can’t help but trip all over itself and look stupid at every turn. These are the same people who can’t decide what a catch is, or what a fumble isn’t. So, arbitrary rule about how often you can change uniforms, a solution in search of a problem? Why not. Let’s make it a 26 page rule.

      • cbrock126 | October 16, 2017 at 4:45 pm |

        One reason I’ve heard for the Rams keeping their unis the same is that the NFL wants to increase uniform sales. The way it currently stands, they have fans buying the old St. Louis unis as well as the throwbacks and color rash. When the stadium opens, fans will buy the new jerseys which render the St. Louis gold ones redundant.

        Moreover, the Rams DID petition the league to switch to the throwbacks when they moved to LA, but were denied by the league, so they’re stuck until the stadium opens, when they will likely stay navy/white to increase sales of the regular and throwback jerseys.

        Makes me sick that it’s all about the bottom line.

        • Phil Hecken | October 16, 2017 at 10:30 pm |

          “(T)he Rams DID petition the league to switch to the throwbacks when they moved to LA, but were denied by the league…”

          This is the second time today I’m hearing this. Not saying you’re wrong, by any means, but do you have a cite? And if it is true, why would the NFL oppose a team wanting to swap an alt to primary designation? I find this hard to believe, but if true, the NFL are even bigger d-bags than I thought.

    • Andrew Harrington | October 16, 2017 at 9:54 pm |

      Teams can’t wear different helmets for home and away games, so it’s not an option to have gold horns on one and white horns on the other, nor is it an option to wear the complete throwback uniform at home, because then you’d be stuck wearing the throwback helmet with the normal road uniform.

  • Gene Sanny | October 16, 2017 at 9:06 am |

    Jim Kelly’s brother played for the Vulcans, just in case anyone is wondering why that pennant is behind them.

  • Rob S | October 16, 2017 at 9:23 am |

    What I find myself wondering right now is if an NFL team would be able to designate an alternate jersey as their primary dark jersey for the playoffs, or if the 2-game rule applies to the combined regular season and postseason.

    The only time I can think of an NFL team not wearing their current primary jerseys in the playoffs was 1994 with the 49ers, and that was because they’d basically shelved their regular jerseys from week 6 onward.

  • Bud | October 16, 2017 at 9:30 am |

    Broncos in mono-navy > Broncos in orange/white. The orange is so, so silly. Broncos in navy/white would be the best option they have, but they seemed to have stopped wearing that ever since they re-assigned the orange to the primary. I wonder if they even technically have the white pants with the orange swoosh in their repertoire anymore.

  • Thomas | October 16, 2017 at 9:38 am |

    Just to get a handle on how badly the Rams attempt to go halfway to the Fearsome Foursome has flopped: we just finished week 6 and the Rams have only worn their white over whites twice.

  • Jon Rose | October 16, 2017 at 10:13 am |

    The Puppy Bowl and the Kitty Halftime Show? I has a jealous!

  • pistolPete | October 16, 2017 at 12:50 pm |

    Paul,

    99% of the time when I hit Uniwatch it is from a mobile device. Today I was hitting from a Desktop PC when I noticed this link in the upper right hand corner
    https://offload.uni.watch/2017/10/02225739/no-guns-allowed-1-2_clipped_rev_1.png
    At first I thought it was one of the links to the sponsors/adverstiser of the site but then when i clicked it I realized it is permanmently posted. Is there any reason I cant see it when using a mobile device?

    thanks and keep up the great work!

    PS do you think we would get one on the left side with PURPLE inside the red circle instead of a gun? I hate purpled as much as I hate guns!

    • Paul Lukas | October 16, 2017 at 1:06 pm |

      No idea why that isn’t showing up on mobile. Thanks for letting me know — I’ll look into it.

  • Sean Tongson | October 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm |

    What are the rules when it comes to switching put facemasks? Could the Rams switch out to a blue facemask instead of white? I know the whole uniform is a giant mismatch, but replacing that white facemask could at marginally improve it.

    • Sean Tongson | October 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm |

      *out*

  • jwy1982 | October 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm |

    Its crazy how good the Rams look if they just pull out the gold.

    https://imgur.com/a/7Slo0

    Or, if you watch in black and white

    https://imgur.com/a/9Rsj7

  • PT | October 16, 2017 at 1:25 pm |

    College hockey being white at home I suppose is kind of true? That’s how it is in tournament play I believe, however, it varies conference to conference and some will switch at Christmas, to dark at home. MN wear gold at home a lot, Quinnipiac I don’t think ever wears white. We get plenty of color v color.

  • Don Silsby | October 16, 2017 at 2:37 pm |

    The Rams got stuck in the middle it seems. Too bad. I like the blue/white. I like the blue/ gold look. But the blue/gold jerseys with the blue white helmet looks like pure shite. Shame on the NFL for not letting them go one way or the other.

  • Terry Smith | October 16, 2017 at 3:01 pm |

    That Howard Twilley helmet looks like it could have had a facemask. Aren’t those screw holes for the mask just above the three snap rivets for the cheekpad?

    Also, the Kelly brothers sure look alike.

  • Dan | October 16, 2017 at 3:42 pm |

    I’m still lost as to WHY the Rams, who’ve had the Navy/Gold uniform since the 2000 season, couldn’t have changed the whole look when they wanted to. They clearly surpass the 5 year rule (if there is such a thing) and pants/helmet/decals/logos seem to not apply, only the “jersey”. I get that there is merchandise out there and they have to cycle it out (or whatever) but again, so what?!?!?

    You telling me if they walked out of the tunnel in their retro look they’re not playing the game??? Come on! If there’s a fine, take it and look good for a game.

    • Brian | October 16, 2017 at 5:24 pm |

      They *could* have changed. But If they changed now, they wouldn’t be able to introduce new uniforms the first year in the new stadium, which is obviously important enough to them to look like clowns a few times a year until then.

  • Dan | October 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm |

    BTW, The Rams new blue/white look with the white facemask is a BAD ASS LOOK!!! And I love the all whites at home. It’s better than the blue/yellow if you ask me and MILES better than the dingy looking blue/gold.

  • Wade Heidt | October 16, 2017 at 7:34 pm |

    The talk about the 5-year jersey rule got me thinking about another unique pro football uniform situation that was just the opposite in CFL 20 years ago.

    The Hamilton Tiger-Cats changed both their home and road jerseys (and helmet stripes) halfway through 1997. Odd, as it was not due to a relocation in mid-season or anything like that. Same team, same season.

    Starter was the jersey manufacturer. Ticats were 1-8 and played the first half of the season wearing these uniforms, which they had worn for some time:

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0913/4890/products/PaulOsbaldiston_1024x1024.jpg?v=1448652040

    Dismal season and the new look was broken out for the Labour Days Classic vs. Toronto. White striping removed from the helmet. Large Ticat logo on shoulder (similar style to what the NE Patriots were wearing at the time). New number font and some tiger skin striping on sleeve:

    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0913/4890/products/JoeRumolo_large.jpg?v=1448651760

    New look really did not breath new life into team. Finished 2-16.

  • Rob Z. | October 16, 2017 at 9:21 pm |

    Yesterday’s Ram helmet-jersey combo has to be the most disjointed combo in recent league history! Sure the current Jags and previous Bills looks were a mess, but at least that looked like a uniform. The Rams combo looks like a mismatched Pro Bowl combo.