Chicago Bears Break out Throwback Jerseys for Week 15
Good news, Bears fans. The boys are breaking out the throwbacks for their battle with the Green Bay Packers.
While the accuracy of that statement hasn't been verified, the Chicago Bears would do well to find any possible advantage against the Packers. The season is spiraling out of control, and the division could fall into Cheesehead hands if a defense isn't mounted today.
In all seriousness, the effect on the game will be limited. Unless the orange is so distracting that Aaron Rodgers gets sidetracked while going through his progressions, the only relevant discussion will center around their aesthetic value.
Which, according to most of the folks on twitter, is quite high.
— Nathan Hollis (@IndianHead24) December 16, 2012
Actually, you're not. They're quite popular among the Chicago faithful.
#Bears unis should be cool today. Navy throwbacks, orange rings on sleeves. Helmets sans 'C,' as well? Went orange jerseys last yr here.— Justin Felder (@Justin_Felder) December 16, 2012
#bears wearing their awesome throwbacks— I Like Chi-Sports (@ilikechisports) December 16, 2012
I've always loved the throwbacks. #Bears
— Adam Van Fleet (@chknlomein) December 16, 2012
But this is Twitter. If too many people like something, there are bound to be a few "haters."
Do you like when teams rock the throwbacks?
Every rendition of throwbacks the #Bears have worn over the years have been, to put it kindly, ugly. I expect this to be no exception
— Chicago Sports (@ChiTownSports) December 16, 2012
That's certainly one view. Although the next guy might not be buying one anytime soon, you have to appreciate his glass-is-half-full approach.
Ultimately, the uniforms won't mean anything unless the Bears can take down the hated Packers. But the optimism permeating from the first tweet might have some substance behind it.
— Dionne Miller(@DionneMiller) December 16, 2012
This is fandom at its finest. I say run with it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?