Argonauts Uniform Combinations?

[R.J]

Have to disagree -- I think both helmets look sharp, provided there is contrast in the look. White-White-Oxford-Cambridge, White-Oxford-White-Oxford, White-Oxford-White-Cambridge (top to bottom) all look sharp IMO. If I had to choose a single helmet I'd go with the Oxford, but I like having two different helmet looks. (However, I suspect the days are numbered for that idea because it's harder to ensure safe helmets when there are twice as many in circulation.)

I'd much rather see the Argonauts spend some money and buy the VICIS Zero1 helmet for players than having 2 separate coloured helmets. Either way, I don't find the white helmet that great looking, and it's unnecessary IMO.

[Foxhound]

I just hope we get a contrast look this week, for once. That is, blue pants with the white jerseys.

So we keep telling the Argonaut organization that we hate the same colour jersey and pants combination but the Argos keep trotting out onto the field in uni-colour uniforms!



I really don't understand. Why do they refuse to listen to us the fans? We're the customers!

[mchesher03]

indifferent on helmet colour to be honest. However I'm pro-contrast like Paul:
- Blue Jersey, White Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks
- White Jersey, Blue Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks

as you could tell - i have no clue why they don't wear the cambridge blue socks all the time.

[paulwoods13]

So we keep telling the Argonaut organization that we hate the same colour jersey and pants combination but the Argos keep trotting out onto the field in uni-colour uniforms!

I really don't understand. Why do they refuse to listen to us the fans? We're the customers!

My theory is that teams (not just the Argos, as this trend is rampant) have allowed players to choose their preferred look, and players in general like the monochrome look. Dark monochrome unis supposedly look tougher. I obviously disagree completely with that notion, and if I were team president the decision on uniforms would be simple -- contrast all the way, home and away, and no same socks/pants "pyjamas" look. Unfortunately I'm not team president.

[Foxhound]

indifferent on helmet colour to be honest. However I'm pro-contrast like Paul:
- Blue Jersey, White Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks
- White Jersey, Blue Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks

as you could tell - i have no clue why they don't wear the cambridge blue socks all the time.

I fully agree.

[ArgoGabe22]

Bring back white pants @ home!

[gilthethrill]

Same coloured pant and jersey combo are just plain boring. But you see that in the NFL and college level now too. Not sure how this originated or why.

[Argo57]

My theory is that teams (not just the Argos, as this trend is rampant) have allowed players to choose their preferred look, and players in general like the monochrome look. Dark monochrome unis supposedly look tougher. I obviously disagree completely with that notion, and if I were team president the decision on uniforms would be simple -- contrast all the way, home and away, and no same socks/pants "pyjamas" look. Unfortunately I'm not team president.

Like it used to be, agreed.

[paulwoods13]

indifferent on helmet colour to be honest. However I'm pro-contrast like Paul:
- Blue Jersey, White Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks
- White Jersey, Blue Pants, Cambridge Blue Socks

as you could tell - i have no clue why they don't wear the cambridge blue socks all the time.

Speaking of socks, it is increasingly apparent that whatever rules used to exist re showing skin on the legs are no longer in effect. The Ticats dressed a backup kicker last week (one of the Mexican players, I believe) who wore his pants way above the knee. Looked like he was wearing shorts. Ugliest look I have ever seen. Argos also dressed some guys who showed their bare knees. And this trend of having bare legs at the bottom of the upper socks has really got to go. Beltre does this every game; it looks incredibly amateurish, IMO. Say what you want about the NFL but at least they make players cover their entire legs, the way football uniforms have been worn at the pro level for many decades.

[Foxhound]

I agree 100%! Bare legs are sloppy attire and should not be tolerated.

[paulwoods13]

Now that the stink of last night's performance is fading, I'd love to hear opinions about the look the team wore. I was initially (and predictably) unhappy with the white pants/white jerseys, but once the game was on I grew to like the look. The caveat is that IMO the look worked only because the upper socks were Cambridge Blue. Had they used Oxford uppers or (heaven forbid) white uppers, I'd be total thumbs down on this look. But the Cambridge socks nicely matched the numbers and made for what I have to concede was a sharp look. That said, I think I would still prefer Oxford pants with white jerseys (and Cambridge socks) on the road, and would definitely like to see that look in action to judge whether it is in fact better than what we had last night.

[RB957]

Now that the stink of last night's performance is fading, I'd love to hear opinions about the look the team wore. I was initially (and predictably) unhappy with the white pants/white jerseys, but once the game was on I grew to like the look. The caveat is that IMO the look worked only because the upper socks were Cambridge Blue. Had they used Oxford uppers or (heaven forbid) white uppers, I'd be total thumbs down on this look. But the Cambridge socks nicely matched the numbers and made for what I have to concede was a sharp look. That said, I think I would still prefer Oxford pants with white jerseys (and Cambridge socks) on the road, and would definitely like to see that look in action to judge whether it is in fact better than what we had last night.

I thought the Argos looked really sharp. Too bad they played anything but. Oxford pants would look good as well, but I have no issue with what they wore. I really like the light blue numbers, even though it is sometimes hard to read them.

[Neely2005]

Speaking of socks, it is increasingly apparent that whatever rules used to exist re showing skin on the legs are no longer in effect. The Ticats dressed a backup kicker last week (one of the Mexican players, I believe) who wore his pants way above the knee. Looked like he was wearing shorts. Ugliest look I have ever seen. Argos also dressed some guys who showed their bare knees. And this trend of having bare legs at the bottom of the upper socks has really got to go. Beltre does this every game; it looks incredibly amateurish, IMO. Say what you want about the NFL but at least they make players cover their entire legs, the way football uniforms have been worn at the pro level for many decades.

Tonight some of the Winnipeg players aren't wearing socks at all. I don't remember ever seeing that before.

[Wobbler]

I thought the Argos looked really sharp. Too bad they played anything but.

This is the path to madness. Say "hi" to Dr. Woods when you arrive! :)

The ideal Argo uniform is an Oxford blue jersey (and helmet) plus white pants with modest Cambridge blue highlights. Fight me!

[paulwoods13]

Tonight some of the Winnipeg players aren't wearing socks at all. I don't remember ever seeing that before.

Sigh.

[Stevoman]

Sigh.

I think the no socks thing is a complete embarrassment and they should be mandated to wear them. Oh, and players should have to tuck in their jerseys too. This is why it is called a "uniform". So that the players look alike.

Argos are all blue today. I too would prefer the contrast of having white pants instead.

[AngeloV]

I really don’t care if players are wearing socks or not. This is sports, not the military. It’s meant to be fun. I don’t get the whole this is embarrassing thing. Same as I don’t get it when people knock Mike O’Shea and Devone Claybrooks for the way they dress as head coaches. Lighten up everyone.

[paulwoods13]

Uniforms mean something. They are part of the spectacle, and as Stevoman said they are intended to bring a look of, er, uniformity to a team. Having guys looking like they don't care offends me. Not wearing socks is not vastly different than if guys wore different coloured pants than their teammates. That would not be allowed, so why the exception/turning a blind eye for socks, which have always been considered an integral part of football uniforms?

I can live without tucked-in jerseys because teams have (in every case) gone to a different style of jersey that is form-fitting and the right length. But even with that, guys are flouting the rules, like Wilder raising the jersey up which appears to have no purpose other than to show off his six-pack abs.

As for the Argos wearing all blue again today, it was sadly predictable. I'm prepared to abandon hope of them ever again getting the combination correct. That ship seems to have sailed, for reasons unknown.

[Stevoman]

I really don’t care if players are wearing socks or not. This is sports, not the military. It’s meant to be fun. I don’t get the whole this is embarrassing thing. Same as I don’t get it when people knock Mike O’Shea and Devone Claybrooks for the way they dress as head coaches. Lighten up everyone.

I get where you're coming from in terms of allowing players to be free and I have absolutely no issues with Claybrooks and O'Shea (they are wearing team paraphernalia after all) but the lack of socks does not look professional and it truly looks like they are missing part of the uniform, because they are.

[paulwoods13]

At least we have busted out the Cambridge socks today, but just imagine how sharp the unis would look with white pants and Cambridge socks.