Proven

Here is young Wilson as a rookie, playing against the Rams. He was sacked a lot in that game but even then showed his trademark positivity and ownership of mistakes.

I remember that game. Back then I was bemused by this sleepy-eyed quarterback who was physically deranged several times but refused to let it derange his composure.

It was entirely appropriate for the announcers to remark on him proving himself in his rookie season. That's what you do for any rookie. He still had a lot to learn. It was a big deal for a relatively untested rookie to stay focused after getting sacked several times and to win his game against a very physical team like the Rams.

He was still proving himself to his teammates, too. They were watching. You could see them even in the video clips, oh yes, because they needed to find out whether this Wilson kid would start whining, or throw a tantrum, or start making bad decisions. They didn't know him all that well yet. Instead of doing those things, he looked for a way to improve communication and change his strategy to be more effective. 

Even his coach was proud of him for his work in that game. Until your guy is in a situation like that, you don't know what he'll do. So that was kinda cool.

The other reason why I send this, though, is because I noted an irritating similarity between the things said in this rookie game and the things said about Wilson now.

After three great seasons, two NFC West championships and one Super Bowl ring, it sounds condescending when people still say those same things. Here is an article written just last week aboutthe Steelers game. Sadly, this isn't atypical. 

While the writer did say Wilson's career was "already stellar," they added condescendingly that "he showed it's possible for him to be one of the main reasons his team can win against a good squad."

So... what... they were just playing mediocre teams until now...? Or wasn't Wilson part of why they won...? I am genuinely not sure why people still say things like this about him. 

My point is that if you look at when he really was still proving the qualities / abilities and compare that to the 2015 Wilson that his coaches, teammates, and 12s are able to rely on, it seems ludicrous for anyone to say that he's "proving himself" today.

Uniform Silliness

In the recent past the Seahawks had rain-colored uniforms with rain-colored numbers and rain-colored accents. This reflected the weather patterns of the region but it made our players seem like they were trying to literally blend into the scenery.

Since Pete Carroll took over the blue has gotten darker, the metallic pattern made the numbers look tougher and the bright green accents give the uniforms flair. Most Seattle fans probably agree that this is an improvement. This uniform still represents the region but gives the team an emphatic presence.

In the spirit of silliness, here are some observations about the different logos and uniforms across the NFL.

Ravens strike fear into the hearts of poets as they ponder “weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.” However, the Baltimore Ravens’ logo is less than awe inspiring. A quirk of the eye makes the raven look concerned. “It does not look like it’s ready to fight,” said Michael Howard. Further, someone must have thought people might not get the association and added a letter B to the raven. It is not a good idea to put a letter on a logo that must reverse: the B has to turn the opposite way on the other side of the helmet, which effectively makes it two different logos.

At least they decided to use the raven for the helmet. They could have used the shield. 

The New York Giants also have letters on their helmets, but because this is the only thing on the helmet-logo, they can reverse the big, readable letters from one side to the other without the logo suffering a change. New York made a good decision in staying with the letters of their state or team name, which are more identifiable than trying to create a giant (which would defeat its own purpose on the scale of a helmet). They are a traditional team that doesn’t fuss with their uniforms so while there is a craze for retro uniforms this year, I don’t know if the Giants would get much out of switching them.

The Dallas Cowboys come from the Lone Star State. They went with silver uniforms and a big bold star on their helmets.  This logo is not artsy but Texas is more “wild west” than “artsy” anyway. The star does exactly what it is supposed to do: captures the spirit of the team for the fans and lets them know immediately which players in a scrimmage are theirs.

 

The Pittsburgh Steelers have a good-looking logo. It is historic, bold and unmistakable for that of any other team. It has the word “Steelers” on it, which is not reversible within the image, but they made the good decision to only have the logo on one side of the helmet rather than mess with the look of it.

However, in 2015 the Steelers are wearing “bumble bee” uniforms from 1934. These are a different story. Striped shirts and knee-highs are cute in themselves, but to quote L, “This is something that works and is cute in nature for a bumble bee but does not translate well to a football team.” Also the numbers look as if they are drawn on paper and then pinned to the jerseys.

The Oakland Raiders are a tough, old-school football team and their logo shows exactly that. This logo is such a busy mixture of things that it ought to be a disaster: a crest, two crossed swords, and a guy wearing both an eye-patch and an old-fashioned football helmet. As if that wasn't enough, it also has the word RAIDERS on it. However, it is so crazy that it sails all the way around and becomes amazing.

Perhaps the Miami Dolphins were trying for a similar theme with their retro 2015 uniforms but unlike the Raiders they do not get to amazing. Their dolphin is either jumping through a hoop or across the sun. For some reason the dolphin is wearing a helmet which has an M on it because while they didn’t feel the need to make the sun/hoop clear, the fact that this is Miami needed to be established beyond all doubt. To be fair to the Dolphins, their modern logo does not wear a helmet. The sun is a little clearer and there are no letters. This turns their logo from “WTF” to “oh, it’s a dolphin.”

I will also say that no one else in the NFL wears turquoise blue and orange.

The Cleveland Browns do not wear the “brownie elf,” opting instead for plain orange helmets.  This is wise.

The Browns have perhaps widest aesthetic split in their uniforms: the retro chocolate-brown uniforms might not be bright but they suit the name, look old-fashioned in a gritty "play in rain or shine" way, and are unique. The orange version is an unfortunate shade meant to be different from the Bengals. However, the two are still similar enough to be confusing in scrimmage and the Browns’ shade of red-orange somehow triggers afterimages on the television screen.

The Cincinnati Bengals’ helmets look great. The black tiger-stripes against the bright orange are striking. I must address the elephant in the room, though. Their uniforms make the huddle look like Cone-henge.

Tigers are orange and black. Ravens are purplish-black. Stars are silver. So what colors do you pick for rams? The St. Louis Rams said “to hell with it” and chose blue and gold. Their helmets are the most simple and effective in the league. Further, the gold ram-horn swirl makes the players look like they are about to lower their heads and move the chains.  Note how the shoulder accents echo the horns. 

The Cowboys’ star and the Rams’ horns are simple and effective. However, the Minnesota Vikings’ horns do not achieve the same effect. 

Why not? It’s hard to say. The star and swirl are simple 2D renderings but if anything the Vikings went too simple with their big white curve. It’s difficult sometimes to tell what the horns are. Is it a Joker smile? Venom eyes? For all their simplicity, the Viking horns are not as readily apparent as other logos.

 

The Washington Redskins logo is meant to be a stereotypical Native American. Dan Snyder resists changing it because of “tradition” but it isn’t even a great logo. Aesthetically, it has a lot of fussy details that blur into a dark blob from further away than about ten yards. If someone didn’t already know what the logo was supposed to be, they probably would not be able to tell from the stands.

The Denver Broncos made excellent use of abstract rendering with their logo. The Bronco is immediately identifiable. It looks fierce and fast, and discourages people from wanting to mess with it. Can't say I'm a fan of the orange jerseys but that color does look cool in the mane of the logo.