oldschoolvikings

No, I'm not. You're wrong here in thinking every instance of striping within the uniform has to slavishly match every other instance. How about this... the stripes on the blue jersey match the stripes on the blue pants. The stripes on the white jersey match the stripes on the white pants. And the stripes on the silver helmet match the stripes on the silver pants. Round of applause, take a bow, high fives all around, end of story.

I disagree to begin with. Striped pants are better than non-striped pants 10 out of 10 times. But the solution is easy. Just never wear mono-looks. The Lions blue jersey-silver pants is amazing. The white jersey-silver pants is also amazing. Everything else is a miss.

My guess (not my hope) is the silver pants will have a stripe that matches the helmet, but all the other pants, blue white, and probably black, will be without stripes.

Assuming the black jerseys get worn with the blue helmets and pants this will be the least offensive black alt in the NFL. Still sucks but better than all black head to toe.

Why should you hate it?

Here you go...

The use of the word tough had the exact opposite effect on me.

Yeah, design wise that works, but if you notice, the Cowboys never have the star as anything but blue with a blue offset outline. That’s why it has that awkward final white outline. It must be some kind of marketing consistency they stick to.

For the record, I couldn’t agree more with this last sentence. The side panel Viking uniform was an abomination. And also, I don’t dislike the current Vikings uniforms at all. Easily one of the best of the new designs since Nike took over. If I made a list in my head, it would probably be top ten. Probably. But I also think modern uniform designs… even the best of them… just aren’t really meant to be “forever” uniforms. The Raiders, the Colts, the Bears, the 49ers, (like the Yankees, Dodgers, Celtics, Canadians) have uniforms that they can wear forever. If you had a future viewing machine, and saw those teams wearing basically the same thing 50 years from now, you wouldn’t be surprised. But the current Vikings? As nice as it is overall, it just doesn’t feel built to last to me. Quirky asymmetrical stripes, high concept number font. I honestly don’t think it’s an insult to say it’s not a “forever” uniform. And as a huge Viking fan, and crazy uniform fanatic, I want the Vikings to be in one of those classic untouchable uniforms. It’s sort of like the argument I used to make about the Padres all those years when they fought against going back to brown. It really doesn’t even matter if it looks better. It’s just how they’re supposed to look. IMO the Vikings throwback is how they’re supposed to look. Period. Of course, as my good friend @infrared41 used to say, your mileage may vary.

I disagree. You would only replace a uniform if it's terrible? That seems like a weird stance. Obviously terrible is terrible, and those uniforms need to be burned, but if a team can go from good (current Vikings) to great (throwback Vikings) as well as bringing back an iconic look from when the team was annually one of the best teams in the league (just obviously not the best team in any of their 4 Super bowls ) then you do it IMO.

To be clear, if it were up to me, I wouldn't allow even a second helmet for NFL teams. It needlessly dilutes the brands. However, if this is the new game, I guess I can play...

Since the old helmet was black, they can do both. Hell, starting in 2025, the can have a black, teal, AND a white helmet.

And...

Because the "rules" aren't really rules, and teams will pretty much do whatever they want.

I think needless is pretty much the best way to put it. I mean, even if you liked it and thought it looked good, I’m not sure anyone would say it was needed.

And if you live in Detroit you know he wasn’t exactly beloved as an owner.

This is exactly right. I can’t understand how so many people here can talk about some particular uniform and say “this is a really good uniform as long as they don’t….” and then say the very thing that the team has insisted on doing for every single game. It’s like a drinking game around here. How many times do I have to read someone saying they really like some uniform when it’s worn with contrasting socks and the team they’re talking about hasn’t worn contrasting socks since the 90’s. Bottom line is the Cardinals looked like ass in all 17 games last year.

I like everyone lawyering through the various NFL “rules” about how alternates can or can’t be matched with non alternate pieces. I guarantee we are giving much MUCH more thought to these “rules” than the teams will be once they start deciding what might look cool, or asking the fans or (even worse) the players what combo they should break out. They’ll do what they want and the league will, once again, adjust the rules to fit. In case you aren’t paying attention the slope is no longer just slippery, its f’n greased and we are officially going for the ride.

Yet.

This is true. Remember all those people who kept posting that they were all for alternate helmets “ as long as the league limits them to throwbacks”? Cue your favorite uproarious laughter gif.

Wait… after only one year the NFL has already watered down their alternate helmet rules. Shocking. Who could’ve predicted it.

I specifically said “non white”… so no, I don’t think those first three suck. However, the teal on teal most definitely suck. True, they’d suck even harder with teal socks, but still… they suck.

Well, if you want to call it something else that’s up to you, but I think for a lot of us, saying “monochrome” is short hand for anytime the pants and jerseys are the same (non white) color… regardless of the socks. That’s how I’ve always used the term, and will continue to do so. Put it this way… when the pants and jerseys are the same color, but the socks are a different color, the uniform sucks really bad. And when the pants and jerseys are the same color, and so are the socks, the uniform sucks really really bad. Not too much reason to split hairs.