infrared41

infrared41's Best and Worst 2016 - NFL Week 5

49 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, Metro Boomin said:

Color balance is definitely off with the bills current look

 

Navy blue should be completely removed

 

I also don't like that logo on a white helmet

 

IMHO, the navy helmet or shoulder stripe isn't super bad, only a bit unnecessary.

 

What the Bills should do is kill the navy outline on the numerals, and use the proper socks.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Buffalo said:

 

IMHO, the navy helmet or shoulder stripe isn't super bad, only a bit unnecessary.

 

What the Bills should do is kill the navy outline on the numerals, and use the proper socks.

 

 

There isn't a navy stripe on the current helmets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dont care said:

There isn't a navy stripe on the current helmets

There are thin navy stripes between the royal stripes and the white shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

There are thin navy stripes between the royal stripes and the white shells.

I stand corrected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in part to be contrarian, I dislike the Titans light blue jersey vs. the original dark blue jersey and I think the Bills uniform as a whole is overrated and littered with gimmicky modern elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, C-Squared said:

Only in part to be contrarian, I dislike the Titans light blue jersey vs. the original dark blue jersey and I think the Bills uniform as a whole is overrated and littered with gimmicky modern elements.

 

I agree with half of that. The Titans navy jersey over white pants is easily the team's best look. Navy over the light blue pants ain't bad either.

 

The Bills have one of the best uniforms in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2016 at 6:07 PM, Metro Boomin said:

Color balance is definitely off with the bills current look

 

Navy blue should be completely removed

 

I also don't like that logo on a white helmet

 

Nothing wrong with the charging bison on the white helmet. Gives the team more umph! But I did like the standing bison, but I like the charging one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/10/2016 at 7:26 PM, C-Squared said:

Only in part to be contrarian, I dislike the Titans light blue jersey vs. the original dark blue jersey and I think the Bills uniform as a whole is overrated and littered with gimmicky modern elements.

I'm curious on what you mean by the modern elements 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DiePerske said:

I'm curious on what you mean by the modern elements 

 

- GFGS facemask

- Helmet stripe that widens in the back for no specific reason

- Superfluous primary logos over the nameplate and on the hip

- Dark blue border around the numbers

- Asymmetrical arbitrary collar pattern

 

An admittedly excellent base gets dragged down by all these gimmicky elements, but maybe that's what people mean by “modern classic.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, C-Squared said:

 

- GFGS facemask

- Helmet stripe that widens in the back for no specific reason

- Superfluous primary logos over the nameplate and on the hip

- Dark blue border around the numbers

- Asymmetrical arbitrary collar pattern

 

An admittedly excellent base gets dragged down by all these gimmicky elements, but maybe that's what people mean by “modern classic.”

Grey face masks are the opposite of modern

you are right on the helmet stripe

logos aren't exactly modern

outlines are modern?

having a striped double knit collar is the opposite of modern.

the only gimmicky element on their uniform is the helmet stripe that is suppose to mimic the logo. And even then it's subtle and doesn't take away from the look overall.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dont care said:

Grey face masks are the opposite of modern

you are right on the helmet stripe

logos aren't exactly modern

outlines are modern?

having a striped double knit collar is the opposite of modern.

the only gimmicky element on their uniform is the helmet stripe that is suppose to mimic the logo. And even then it's subtle and doesn't take away from the look overall.

 

Stripping away half of my argument to form your own is clumsy, if not calculated. Let's dismiss the grey-facemasked elephant in the room... the logo placement & collar design aren't modern because the concept of logos and collars themselves aren't modern? I don't think you've fully developed your own argument yet, let alone refuted mine.

 

For the sake of comparison, the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs have similar bases & core elements without all the gimmicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-10-15 at 5:41 PM, C-Squared said:

I don't think you've fully developed your own argument yet, let alone refuted mine.

 

For the sake of comparison, the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs have similar bases & core elements without all the gimmicks.

"I don't like your opinion therefore it's as 'developed' as mine"? I'm sure you can do better than that. 

 

The only things I hold against the Bills' current set would be the inclusion of navy and the widening helmet stripe. Both are irksome, but are so minor in comparison to the absolute train wreck they were wearing before that I'm ok with them. 

 

Grey facemasks (which you brought up but then decided you didn't want to talk about) work given the more traditional look they were going for. Their last set had all the worst elements of "modern" uniform design. The grey masks work as a way to emphasise how this look is going back to basics. 

Which is admittedly undermined by the navy and the widening helmet stripe, but again. Small potatoes compared to the problems they used to have.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that the widening helmet stripe was mimicking the weird red stripe that comes out of the buffalo on the helmets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harmening said:

I've always thought that the widening helmet stripe was mimicking the weird red stripe that comes out of the buffalo on the helmets.

It does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

Stripping away half of my argument to form your own is clumsy, if not calculated. Let's dismiss the grey-facemasked elephant in the room... the logo placement & collar design aren't modern because the concept of logos and collars themselves aren't modern? I don't think you've fully developed your own argument yet, let alone refuted mine.

 

For the sake of comparison, the Bears, Packers, and Chiefs have similar bases & core elements without all the gimmicks.

I don't think you know the difference between a gimmick, and a design element. Logos are design elements that is a norm in the rest of football, the bucs enlarged logo, jags "chrome" shoulder stripes and matte black to gold fade helmets are gimmicks because when introduced they were new to the NFL and got people talking about them. Now for the bills the only thing that could be considered a gimmick is the helmet stripe widening to the back but even then the broncos are worse offenders having a stripe to mimic a horses mane. The bills stripe still looks like a regular triple stripe from most angles. They decided to keep navy from the last set for pretty unnecessary outlines but as a whole they aren't offensive and take away from the design in anyway. They are infinitely better than the uniforms that they had before that were an example of everything wrong with modern designs. From the piping, side panels, Navy, fill tool template, over use of outlines, there wasn't one thing that was a good gimmick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-10-15 at 6:38 PM, Ice_Cap said:

"I don't like your opinion therefore it's as 'developed' as mine"? I'm sure you can do better than that. 

 

The only things I hold against the Bills' current set would be the inclusion of navy and the widening helmet stripe. Both are irksome, but are so minor in comparison to the absolute train wreck they were wearing before that I'm ok with them. 

 

Grey facemasks (which you brought up but then decided you didn't want to talk about) work given the more traditional look they were going for. Their last set had all the worst elements of "modern" uniform design. The grey masks work as a way to emphasise how this look is going back to basics. 

Which is admittedly undermined by the navy and the widening helmet stripe, but again. Small potatoes compared to the problems they used to have.

 

My argument:

"Superfluous primary logos over the nameplate and on the hip"

"Asymmetrical arbitrary collar pattern"

His argument:

"Logos aren't exactly modern"

"Having a striped double knit collar is the opposite of modern"

 

Either my points went clean over his head or he is purposefully ignoring the core of my argument. Neither is ideal. Pretending grey facemasks aren't one of the most common modern design gimmicks in football - on this site, of all places - is the icing on the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dont care said:

I don't think you know the difference between a gimmick, and a design element. Logos are design elements that is a norm in the rest of football, the bucs enlarged logo, jags "chrome" shoulder stripes and matte black to gold fade helmets are gimmicks because when introduced they were new to the NFL and got people talking about them. Now for the bills the only thing that could be considered a gimmick is the helmet stripe widening to the back but even then the broncos are worse offenders having a stripe to mimic a horses mane. The bills stripe still looks like a regular triple stripe from most angles. They decided to keep navy from the last set for pretty unnecessary outlines but as a whole they aren't offensive and take away from the design in anyway. They are infinitely better than the uniforms that they had before that were an example of everything wrong with modern designs. From the piping, side panels, Navy, fill tool template, over use of outlines, there wasn't one thing that was a good gimmick. 

 

Lets not get bogged down in semantics - clearly, if you like it, its a "design element," and if you dislike it, its a "gimmick." I would argue the very new trend of tacking an extra logo over the nameplate is a "gimmick" that emphasized branding over aesthetic, but I can admit that is an opinion, albeit a justifiable one.

 

Grey facemasks are popping up left and right in modern college & pro football design to feign a vintage motif. 50 years ago, grey facemasks were not a "design element" or a "gimmick," but a simply unpolished, utilitarian part of the helmet. In 2016, teams with grey facemasks are specifically coloring their facemasks grey "because vintage." Again, if you like it, "design element," and if you dislike it, "gimmick."

 

The bad uniforms they replaced do not nullify any of my points about what they are wearing now. The Broncos stripe being subjectively worse is irrelevant, too.

 

Grey facemasks used to make modern uniforms feel "old school" is a modern design element. Primary logos tacked over the nameplate and on the hip of the pants stripe is a modern design element. Even if all these elements have been sparingly done before, and even if you like them, to pretend none of them are definitive, go-to modern design elements is baffling. The asymmetrical collar stripes are just flat-out weird and seem to exist to clumsily tie in the needless dark blue number borders. I argue "modern" because there is little precedent for such a clunky design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

Lets not get bogged down in semantics - clearly, if you like it, its a "design element," and if you dislike it, its a "gimmick." I would argue the very new trend of tacking an extra logo over the nameplate is a "gimmick" that emphasized branding over aesthetic, but I can admit that is an opinion, albeit a justifiable one.

 

Grey facemasks are popping up left and right in modern college & pro football design to feign a vintage motif. 50 years ago, grey facemasks were not a "design element" or a "gimmick," but a simply unpolished, utilitarian part of the helmet. In 2016, teams with grey facemasks are specifically coloring their facemasks grey "because vintage." Again, if you like it, "design element," and if you dislike it, "gimmick."

 

The bad uniforms they replaced do not nullify any of my points about what they are wearing now. The Broncos stripe being subjectively worse is irrelevant, too.

 

Grey facemasks used to make modern uniforms feel "old school" is a modern design element. Primary logos tacked over the nameplate and on the hip of the pants stripe is a modern design element. Even if all these elements have been sparingly done before, and even if you like them, to pretend none of them are definitive, go-to modern design elements is baffling. The asymmetrical collar stripes are just flat-out weird and seem to exist to clumsily tie in the needless dark blue number borders. I argue "modern" because there is little precedent for such a clunky design.

Collar stripes have been around for 50 years just because you don't like the way they were arranged doesn't make them modern, the toilet seat collar on Nike uniforms are modern, the falcons collar is modern. Using grey face masks to look oldschool is the exact opposite of modern it doesn't even make sense, you are literally saying because they are trying to look old then it has to be modern. Teams that wear grey face masks are teams that don't wear modern uniforms except for the cardinals which looks more like oversite than a conscious effort to try to look old. The colts are a traditional team and thus have a traditional grey face mask, 9ers have traditional uniforms and a traditional grey face mask goes better with it. Same thing goes for the bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I'd call the widening stripe, upper back and hip logos, and gray mask on an otherwise modern(ish) uniform gimmicks, too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, C-Squared said:

My argument:

"Superfluous primary logos over the nameplate and on the hip"

"Asymmetrical arbitrary collar pattern"

His argument:

"Logos aren't exactly modern"

"Having a striped double knit collar is the opposite of modern"

 

Either my points went clean over his head or he is purposefully ignoring the core of my argument. Neither is ideal. Pretending grey facemasks aren't one of the most common modern design gimmicks in football - on this site, of all places - is the icing on the cake.

I took his "logos aren't exactly modern" comment to mean the Bills' logo specifically not being modern. Which is fair. It was introduced forty-two years ago, and used on a uniform that was very similar conceptually to the one the Bills wear now.

And yeah, a striped collar isn't something I think of when I think "modern." Mod modern uniforms seem to treat the collar as an element to be ignored on the design end if possible (see the toilet seat collars on Nike's NFL templates).

 

As far as grey facemasks go...

 

8 hours ago, C-Squared said:

Grey facemasks are popping up left and right in modern college & pro football design to feign a vintage motif. 50 years ago, grey facemasks were not a "design element" or a "gimmick," but a simply unpolished, utilitarian part of the helmet. In 2016, teams with grey facemasks are specifically coloring their facemasks grey "because vintage." Again, if you like it, "design element," and if you dislike it, "gimmick."

I used to be in the camp that thought grey facemasks had no place on a uniform unless silver or grey was present elsewhere in the uniform. I've gradually changed my mind on that, and I'm now of the opinion that if I were Uniform Dictator? Every football helmet would have grey facemasks (black would be acceptable for certain teams). Basically? I've come around to the facemask being equipment, and not part of the uniform. Like cages on hockey helmets. Which are rarely, if ever, colour coordinated with the uniforms.

Now I know that's never going to happen. That being said? It means I tend to be completely ok with grey facemasks, regardless of what the rest of the uniform looks like.

In some cases? I think the grey masks are one of the uniform's saving graces. See Cardinals, Arizona.

 

I understand that the grey facemask thing sets some people off, but that's just it, isn't it? Opinion? I think a lot of us, myself included, get so wrapped up in trying to justify subjective opinions as "facts" that we lose sight of the fact that it is ultimately all subjective. If the line between "design element" and "gimmick" is entirely opinion based, as you suggested? Then you have to allow the fact that what would qualify as a "design element" vs a "gimmick" will differ between you and someone else.

Personally? It's all just double-speak. Something as simple as sleeve stripes was a gimmick once upon a time. I rather just use the term "design element" to describe everything, be it personally preferable or not. It's a neutral term that accounts for subjective taste. "Gimmick" is too rooted in bias to be thrown around as if its application is an undisputed fact. 

 

8 hours ago, C-Squared said:

Primary logos tacked over the nameplate and on the hip of the pants stripe is a modern design element.

I would argue that these elements, and the inclusion of wordmarks under the collar, are more anti-counterfeit measures than anything. Much like how every new NFL uniform will feature some sort of proprietary font. The NFL wants their teams' looks to be fully branded. Which means sneaking as many trademarked and copyrighted material onto the design as possible.

This is a league that brands everything down to the stickers on helmets meant to designate which ones have mic receivers in them, after all.

 

8 hours ago, C-Squared said:

The bad uniforms they replaced do not nullify any of my points about what they are wearing now.

Uniforms don't exist in a vacuum. A new uniform will always be judged, in part, by the uniforms of other teams and the uniform it replaced. The navy and the widening helmet stripe would probably be judged much more harshly if the Bills' 2002-10 look never happened. Go straight from the Kelly-era look to the current look? Those flaws become much more noticeable. 

The 2002-2010 set was bad though. So many people, myself included, are willing to accept the 2011-present look on its own terms, because even with those flaws? It's still so much better than what it replaced. You can't just discount this aspect of opinion formation. Nothing exists in a vacuum. What came before WILL influence how what's new is viewed. 

 

Does all of that nullify your objections to the current set's flaws? No, but again. Subjective opinion comes in to play. I doubt very many people here disagree with your assessment of the current set's flaws. They just bother us less than they bother you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now