Lights Out

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the Lions' last three uniform sets all lasted less than a decade. It's nothing new and I would assume their futility on the field during that period has to do with it. They kept tinkering with their look to turn the page from a previous failed era.

I'm not saying I love every team's current uniforms, because I don't. But looking around the league, the only teams I don't think have a clear identity are the Cardinals, Saints and Commanders. The Texans were also on that list until today. The rest of the league, no matter how conservative or modern they are, at least have something that stands out, whether it's a color, a font, a striping pattern, etc. In 1996, we still had the Bills and Giants dressing exactly the same from the neck down and the Falcons trying to cosplay as the Raiders. Half the league had a basic black, silver or white helmet and unlike today, there were no alternate helmets that allowed teams to try something else. Merchandising has grown since then and forced teams to put a little more thought into it, not that they always succeed.

I guarantee there'd be people bitching about those, the Eagles, the Niners, and the Ravens if this was 1996. There'd probably even still be grumbling over the Falcons and Jets "going BFBS" and the Jaguars using such a "gimmicky" color like teal. The Panthers' uniforms would probably be compared to the Arena League. Of course, that would all look quaint compared to the meltdowns that would ensue over the Broncos' redesign the following year.

If the entire league rolled back to 1996, people would immediately start pining for 1986.

I like that horn helmet a lot. Always nice to see teams do something more inspired than the usual logo.

Seeing it laid out like this, I like how the new road jerseys have more orange than the old ones.

Not every team needs to look exactly the same as they did 50 years ago at all times. Especially for a team like the Broncos whose greatest success has come in modern uniforms.

Now that we've seen the whole thing, I like Denver's new uniforms except for the weird triangle motif. I hope they do a slight tweak as soon as they can and get rid of those.

These uniforms lasted almost as long as the ones they replaced. I'd say they did stand the test of time.

This looks so fake that I'm starting to doubt all their previous leaks. In addition to the wordmark issue that others have pointed out, the NOB is also sloppily misaligned. It looks like someone's first attempt in the Concepts board.

This is the exact same BS that Alex Spanos pulled in the '90s that got the ball rolling on the Chargers' eventual relocation. He demanded expensive renovations to the Q, got them, and then immediately started demanding a new stadium and threatening to move to LA. I hope this doesn't end in Cleveland losing the Browns again, but I won't be surprised at all if it does. The NFL's greed is out of control.

We've already seen the jerseys and none of them are as bad as those god-awful Commanders road jerseys.

The Texans' old uniforms were as boring, mediocre, and anonymous as their play on the field for 99% of the time they were in use. Frankly, the horn stripes from the new set are the kind of thing they should have done all along instead of recoloring the USC template from a catalog. The new uniforms might be "trying too hard" (I don't think so) but the old ones weren't trying at all. They finally have a real identity now. The only thing I don't like is neither of the home jerseys matching the road and alternate, but that's nothing we haven't already seen countless times in the NFL.

Erik Kramer's jersey looks almost exactly the same as what they just unveiled.

I don't like the star tacked on at the side, but I don't see a problem with the H itself. Whether this was intended or not, the double-struck blackletter font evokes the classic oil derrick logo without actually using it and pissing off the Titans. I'm not sure I love it as a helmet logo, but as a secondary logo, it's fine. It's better than this, which they never used anyway.

The Lions' new look is pretty solid. The BFBS alternate is going to have some serious legibility problems, though. Last time they tried this, they included some white trim so there would be actual contrast. Not sure why they didn't do the same this time.

While I prefer the logos/wordmark they have now, I otherwise agree that those uniforms were better. The only issue was the helmet finish, which looked good in photos (like that one) but was an eyesore most of the time on TV... so of course that was the one thing the Jets didn't fix.

I think it says more about the franchises involved than it does about Nike. The Jets, Browns and Bucs were all coming off some of the worst on-field eras in their history and figured they could boost sales and morale by pandering to their fans' nostalgia for better times. It's just marketing 101. It also needs to be pointed out that all three kept some of the modernized elements from the uniforms they ditched instead of throwing all the way back.

It's Steps 1 and 2 that make it the NFL's fault. At the end of the day, because of their exclusive contract with the NFL, Nike is obligated to humor all the dumb ideas that the out-of-touch suits come up with. If Reebok was still the supplier, we still would have gotten Color Rush or something along those lines, just with super-stretchy fabric and piping and panels instead. For better or worse, all of this was inevitable when the NFL moved from having several different suppliers to centralizing around one. Color Rush would have never been possible back when some teams wore Nike, some wore Adidas, some wore Puma, etc. As always, the buck stops with the league and their unlimited desire for money.

Nike is the tail. The client (the NFL) is the dog. As for "the next five years at least" - I assume Wood is just being modest. Their outgoing uniform set only lasted, what, seven years? The one before that lasted eight. And the one before that lasted six. It would be presumptuous for a team that can't go a full decade without redesigning their look to start touting the next set as their "forever uniforms." And by not making such a firm public commitment, they're also covering themselves in case the fans don't like the new ones.

Not a fan of that Chiefs concept. The colors are all out of balance and it just seems like change for the sake of change. Also not crazy about monochrome black for the Raiders. On the other hand, I like that Jets concept better than what they just unveiled. I also like your idea for Denver.

Of course they didn't fix the only flaw of their previous uniforms (the helmet finish).

Five years ago, we had the Chargers playing at a 27,000-seat soccer stadium in Carson, waiting for Kroenke to build his new stadium so they could mooch off it for $1 rent. Basically, blame Dean Spanos. The A's are just following his example.

Uhh... isn't that the goal of any coach? Especially in a high-stress single-elimination tournament like March Madness. Hurley's constant whining, jawing, and walking onto the court is irritating, but he's objectively one hell of a coach when it comes to pure Xs and Os. It shows from how diligently they move the ball on offemse. The way they calmly break the press every time like it's nothing, making the rest of the sport look like a joke for not being able to handle it nearly as well. He had the perfect defensive strategy for Purdue too. Then on the other side, you have Purdue's god-awful style of just spamming the ball to Edey so he can flop and get bailout calls from the refs, while getting away with blatant three seconds violations and offensive fouls all game. No adjustments when they have to play from behind, no plan B when a team has someone like Clingan who can guard Edey one-on-one, because Painter thinks it's 1973 and he doesn't need guards as long as he has a really tall guy on his team. At least we didn't have to watch that eyesore of a team win. It's already a bad look for the sport that their style is as successful as it is.

Could be that pitchers are the new running backs, and we'll start to see the position devalued in both draft stock and money because you can't count on them to have any longevity anymore. I think a comparison can already be made between the use of openers and strict pitch counts and the "RB by committee" approach. It's not fair since a lot of this has to do with the unnatural pressure on prospects to throw 100 MPH at 3000 RPM from a young age to even get glanced at by MLB scouts. But front offices have gotten so in over their heads with analytics that they aren't likely to change anytime soon, so it'll be future pitchers getting screwed because the current ones keep needing Tommy John surgeries every year.