This Week in Milford

September 27, 2016

True Colors

Filed under: actual action, Gil Thorp, What the hell is going on here? — robmize2013 @ 5:19 pm

First of all it appears a sea of water is enveloping the field as Hakeem Archer throws a ball off his back foot to our new hero TE Pete De Windt, also doubling as a reader of this slog, er blog. Why oh why do we need their position in front of their name?? Hakeems helmet also appears to be a size too big, aka the old Bills receiver Mark Kelso.

P2 has both color and black/white as the artist evidently ran low on color ink so made the fence and post b/w as well as Pete’s arms.

And in P3 we find Joe Long Hair still pandering to be the QB, even though his team just won behind Hakeem the Dream, and Dory (who?) doesnt seem to care or understand the logic.

Our song today honors Panel 2 for its diversity of color:


  1. To cite Gene Krantz (portrayed by Ed Harris in Apollo 13,) “OK, people, let’s WORK THE PROBLEM.” We have a lineman/linebacker who wants very much to be the quarterback, a girl who left the soccer team to become an apprentice trainer and self-appointed quarterbacks coach, and a quarterback who responds magically to coaching, even throwing the winning pass off the wrong foot.

    This is going to be confusing fall…

    Comment by vaganova — September 27, 2016 @ 6:18 pm

  2. So why does Pelwecki think he should get a shot at QB when they won with someone else at the helm? Is it based on his borderline targeting tackle. Strange logic.

    Comment by Bobby Joe — September 27, 2016 @ 6:30 pm

  3. P1: Hakeem:”We are DEVO!!!!!!!”

    Comment by T. Drew Hardin — September 27, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

  4. Here’s a song to honor P3.

    Comment by teenchy — September 28, 2016 @ 4:04 am

  5. Panel 1, so that’s what Boise State’s field looks like in between dye jobs…

    Nice reference to Mark Kelso’s Pro Cap helmet, by the way.

    Comment by billytheskink — September 28, 2016 @ 7:12 am

  6. I think that the colorist(s) mistook the yard line for the border to a diagonally split panel. There’s enough visual evidence in the bottom part of the panel to suggest that this is a single panel, all happening from the same perspective, but maybe the total lack of anything happening in the top of the panel threw the colorist(s) off. I guess they don’t have any notes to work from.

    Comment by nedryerson — September 28, 2016 @ 7:15 am

  7. Ok Ned, then explain Panel 2 from the colorists pov.

    Comment by robmize2013 — September 28, 2016 @ 6:36 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: