HawkShack.com

Looks like we are going to finally get the road version of the classic throwbacks..

https://news.sportslogos.net/2025/06/30/sources-seattle-seahawks-to-reveal-white-road-version-of-1990s-era-throwback-uniforms/football/

I really wish they would just switch back to them as our full time unis.

I like it!

I like the older uniforms better, but I prefer the newer Seahawk design.

If they'd incorporate the current logo with the old-style uniforms, I'd be good with it. But I can't stand the stoned seagull. It's about as non-football looking as Tampa Bay's original uniform featuring their gay pirate.

Old unis with new logo I can handle. But I prefer the original logo. It looks less "stoned" to me and more "authentic" and I like that. Put another way, I agree, RD, that the original logo doesn't look like a football logo, which is precisely why I like it. I hate the uniform aesthetic of modern NFL logos. My current faves are almost all ones that predate the modern look: the Raiders, Steelers, Green Bay, Vikings, Chargers, etc. And the old Hawk is the best of them all. I'd go so far as to say the throwbacks we wore last year are my favorite unis in the history of sports.

I like them all. Thanks for having me back, homeys.

burrrton wrote:I like them all. Thanks for having me back, homeys.

Hey, an old friend pokes his head in here! Great to see you again, burrton! Hope you stick around. I've always enjoyed your contributions.

On Oct 5th the Seahawks play the Buccaneers and as this is their 50th season they both will be wearing their original uniforms.
It would be cool if they both wore the old style big shoulder pads, too along with maybe neck rolls and such.

River Dog wrote:Hey, an old friend pokes his head in here! Great to see you again, burrton! Hope you stick around. I've always enjoyed your contributions.

Good to see you, too, RD.

Speaking of uniforms, I see where Nick Emmanwori has been assigned jersey #3. An intentional sign of disrespect or a no-never mind? I'd tend to lean towards the latter, but I'm sure you'll hear a few 12's chuckling about it when everyone becomes fully aware of it.

I read that he chose #3 and wasn't assigned it.
Maybe a bit of obliviousness or not understanding that it might create some distraction?

NorthHawk wrote:I read that he chose #3 and wasn't assigned it.
Maybe a bit of obliviousness or not understanding that it might create some distraction?

Whether or not he requested #3 is beside the point. Management had to have known the significance of the assignment. The equipment manager isn't going to make that decision on his/her own, he/she is going to kick it upstairs to John Schneider or higher.

It's not like Wilson's number is retired or anything. If he requested it maybe like I said he's oblivious to its history or doesn't care.
Would management say you can't have that number? I doubt it.

NorthHawk wrote:It's not like Wilson's number is retired or anything. If he requested it maybe like I said he's oblivious to its history or doesn't care.
Would management say you can't have that number? I doubt it.

Yes, I do think that management would say no to a rookie requesting the number of the player who just 3 years earlier was the face of the franchise and is unarguably the best QB in franchise history, or at least I'd hope they'd have the balls to do so, and that they could explain it in such a manner that the rookie could understand their rationale.

Remember the uproar when they gave Artie Burns, a backup DB, #3 two years ago? It didn't take them long to backtrack.

“It’s an ignominious end for the iconic No. 3, some might say, but it’s clear the Seahawks are keen to present the appearance that they’ve quickly moved on from their former poster boy. On the flip side, such over-the-top disrespect shown to the organization’s greatest-ever player reveals a distinct lack of class on Seattle’s part.”

https://heavy.com/sports/nfl/seattle-se ... -reaction/

I'm not objecting to giving Nick #3, to the contrary. IMO three years is a long enough time to move away, and many fans will argue that considering the way Russell left that he doesn't deserve any respect, that making a 2nd round draft pick feel happy is worth any flack they might take. I'm just pointing out the significance of it, that it's evidence of a rub between Wilson and Schneider.

I think 3 years is more than enough time to get on with life after Wilson. It has to be done sometime so like any decision that might have a level of sensitivity it’s often best to rip the bandage off quickly so to speak.

NorthHawk wrote:I think 3 years is more than enough time to get on with life after Wilson. It has to be done sometime so like any decision that might have a level of sensitivity it’s often best to rip the bandage off quickly so to speak.

More than enough time?

For a player who is undeniably the best QB in our franchise's history, was instrumental in the best period of Seahawk football in the nearly 50-year history of our franchise and was literally loved by a large percentage of Seahawk faithful, I think that anything less than three years would be an insult and classless to give away his number as quickly as they nearly did with Artie Burns unless some kind of consent was given as they did when they let Jerry Rice wear #80.

That's kinda what happened with the Lions when they gave away Mathew Stafford's #9. The player requesting the jersey reached out to Stafford.

Yes. More than enough time. Wilson was the best QB in franchise history, true but he was also divisive in his own way and although he never got into trouble he was often thought of as different.
It wouldn't have bothered me even if they gave #3 out after the first year without Wilson. Time marches on.

NorthHawk wrote:Yes. More than enough time. Wilson was the best QB in franchise history, true but he was also divisive in his own way and although he never got into trouble he was often thought of as different.
It wouldn't have bothered me even if they gave #3 out after the first year without Wilson. Time marches on.

We're on the same page with Russell Wilson. It wouldn't bother me personally either and there's a part of me that feels exactly the way you do.

But regardless of what you and I think about him now, the man deserves respect. His behavior the last 3-4 seasons with us does not erase all of the good things he did for our franchise. If I'm in the stands when his name is put in the ROH, I won't stand up and cheer, rather I'll politely applaud as one might for the conductor of a sympathy orchestra.

I would give him a standing ovation just because he was the first to win a Super Bowl for this franchise - just as I would for Sherman, Bennett, Avril and others. But I'm not concerned about his number at this point. If it were a case of it having been retired and a player wanted it then that's a different story.