DeFrank

Members
  • Content count

    2,390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About DeFrank

  • Rank
    haha dope
  • Birthday 11/29/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington D.C.
  • Favourite Logos
    White striped NFL socks!
  • Favourite Teams
    Washington Football, Nationals, Capitals, Wizards, Colgate, Texas A&M

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    @andrewdefrank
  1. Agreed, but it would be wonderful if they could just use a white striped sock.
  2. I had no idea the Saints had been messing up their pant/sock options for so long.
  3. Yep, that's where I got the idea. I think it works for a variety of reasons that are similar to the Vikings situation. Both helmets feature a helmet-specific logo as opposed to any other primary logo put on the helmet. Both of these helmet-specific logos feature black, and both teams don't employ black in any part of the uniform below the helmet. I chose black for the facemask color as a "neutral" that I felt worked better than gray the same way the black outline in the spear (or Viking horn) acts as a neutral color and not a true part of the team's identity.
  4. Went with the black on purpose.
  5. Good catch! I got lazy there. Should be consistent.
  6. Posted the concept of what I was talking about in text above:
  7. After seeing a fruitful discussion about a Washington Redskins throwback uniform from 2002-2003, I decided to make my first uniform concept since 2013. These aren't anything groundbreaking, but they represent the latest of what I would want to see my NFL team do with their uniforms. C&C appreciated.
  8. In a vacuum, I would tend to agree. The problem, of course, is that shades of burgundy and gold we know now are so completely associated with success for the team. All five Super Bowl appearances, including five victories, in what outsiders often refer to as the "McDonalds" colors. I've never seen them this way because of how much of a fan I've been all my life. I think any return to darker shades would have to retain a white over burgundy road uniform so as not to completely depart from what I consider to be a top-five all-time NFL uniform.
  9. Was watching the first episode of the fourth season of The West Wing tonight and thought it would be fun to post some of the branding below. For context, this campaign rally would have been in September 2002 ahead of the 2002 general election (different than in real life of course).
  10. I agree with all of those changes. I think what so many people love about the uniform is 1. the shades of burgundy and gold and 2. the spear helmet. Washington has sort of meandered their way over to some of what that 2002 uniform had to offer, specifically by using gold pants and that sock stripe, but as many of us are aware, there is no conscientious plan to all this. The team tried a fauxback in 2002-2003. Gibbs came in and went back to the ultimate classic of white/burgundy at home and away with some all-white mixed in. We tried the above-linked Lombardi-era throwback in 2007. New GM Bruce Allen took those 2007 throwback pants and socks and paired them with the rarely-used burgundy jerseys of the 1979-present set (also linked above). A gorgeous new throwback since 2012, using the colors we love from the 2002 fauxback, hasn't gained as much love (probably due to the tan pants and helmet changes). Going forward, if Washington/Nike are smart, I could see all of the above lead to a real "modern throwback" overhaul if the team ever decides to (hopefully) change the name (I think that unless they decide to change the name, they won't overhaul the uniforms and draw more media attention to the issue). This set could use some features of the 2002 fauxback and 2012-present throwback while retaining many features of the 1979-present set. Helmet: Dark burgundy, dark gold facemask. Nike-updated spear helmet. No stripe. Home Jersey: Dark burgundy jersey. Dark gold numbers outlined in white (or not...). '79-present sleeve stripe (dark gold/white). Move TV numbers to shoulders. Home Pants/Socks: Dark gold pants. 79-present pants stripe (dark burgundy/white). Dark burgundy socks (with same striping pattern why not!) Away Jersey: White. Dark burgundy numbers outlined in dark gold. '79-present sleeve stripe (dark burgundy/dark gold). Move TV numbers again. Away Pants/socks: Dark burgundy. 79-present pants stripe (dark gold/white). White socks (striped socks again). The team doesn't have a sentimental attachment to any iteration of the burgundy jersey, so having one that looks pretty different than anything we've seen on a consistent basis before (specifically dark gold pants and numbers!) wouldn't be "too much" of a change. Alternatively, the classic, sentimental, don't-touch-this white over burgundy look remains largely intact. If anything, the new colors keep the feel/appreciation for that combo while making it look far more snazzy in a very Nike way. I'll whip up a concept soon. It'll be my first one since 2013.
  11. I was at this game when I was 7 years old.
  12. If I was to take those who want the name not to be Stallions at their word, which I don't see any reason not to, then I would come to the conclusion that "finding something to complain about" was not part of their consideration.
  13. *Whispers* What's wrong with "going the extra step or two of deliberate thought...?"
  14. Agreed.
  15. As I'm sure most of you know, the Washington Redskins wore 1960s-style fauxback uniforms in 2002 for all of their home games except for Dallas (forcing them to wear blue). Does anyone know why/how the NFL allowed the team to have a full-time alternate for one year? Does that even fit within the NFL's parameters for this sort of thing? A couple other notes: -The below photo shows the team wearing their normal white-topped striped socks rather than what they ended up using. -Snyder's claim they might go back to wearing them full time is fascinating and something I never knew was considered. Here's part of a story from Scout.com about the changes: The Redskins will wear their new uniforms for this season only, though owner Daniel Snyder did not rule out making a permanent change after this year. Washington Redskins' Rod Gardner (87) and Fred Smoot (21) wear the new home-field uniform for the 2002 season during a news conference in Ashburn, Va., Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2002. The Redskins have adopted a new uniform for their 70th anniversary season, shedding the image of a stern Indian face from the side of their helmets. The revamped uniforms, which will only be worn at home games, include burgundy helmets that feature a logo with a spear and feathers, according to the team. (AP Photo/Stephen J. Boitano) Washington will wear gold pants with burgundy and white stripes and a dark burgundy top. The Redskins' helmets will be dark burgundy with a spear and feather dangling off it. But they'll only wear the uniforms for home games--it's back to the more recent jerseys on the road. However, Spurrier said the Redskins would wear white tops at home against Dallas, forcing the Cowboys to wear their less-favored dark uniforms. And Snyder was adamant that this move had nothing to do with any pressure by local civic groups to change the name. ''None whatsoever,'' Snyder said. ''We won't be changing the name for 100-years plus.'' The change is designed to commemorate the franchise's 70th anniversary. It also will boost sales of jerseys--the Redskins lag in the middle of the NFL sales for such items.