Conrad.

NBA Changes 2017-18

Recommended Posts

I really like those black uniforms in a vacuum, but something feels off about them. I hope the Celtics wear them primarily on the road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:
7 hours ago, Danny the Sheeb said:

I do not get why everyone loves these.

 

Me neither. The “Brooklyn” down the side (as well as “New York” on the jersey that inspired it) is a terrible clutter. The Nets have had far better uniforms in their history than either set.

 

I don't disagree at all with that last part. The Nets' final set before their move was the best uniform they ever had.

 

b5rZV3a.jpg

 

This beautiful uniform was worn for twelve years. It coincided with the team's best period in its NBA history: Martin, Jefferson, Carter, and the incomparable Kidd. (I know that it ended badly with Kidd -- twice. But he transformed that franchise.)

 

In this uniform, the Nets experienced plenty of excitement in the regular season and the playoffs, and twice made the Finals.  What's more, this set actually achieved the task of incorporating a net design into the look. Ideally, it should have remained unchanged after the move.

 

But, if the team was intent on changing the colours to black and white and on simplifying the look, then the black and white version of the classic ABA style was the way to go.

 

Instead, we got a look that is beyond generic; the Nets are more aesthetically bereft than the Thunder. The uniforms say only the locality name (which is not even a city name -- the f-ing team should be the "New York Nets", damn it!); and the uninspiring number font is thin and wispy, as opposed to the bold varsity number font of the Celtics that stands out so well under thin lettering.

 

Furthermore, the Nets' primary logo, a decent continuation of the previous era's shield, is terribly underutilised. The team improperly uses the secondary circular logo in places where the primary logo belongs, such as on the backdrop used for interviews, and, worst of all, at centre court.

 

The primary logo appears on the regular shorts; but on the uniforms that debuted today it was replaced by the secondary circular logo. It's like these guys are going out of their way to annoy me.

Share this post


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

I really like those black uniforms in a vacuum, but something feels off about them. I hope the Celtics wear them primarily on the road

 

LOL you know those are going to be the new home set (or Association or some other dumb :censored: Nike label).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It was considered serious enough that the Lakers took the question to Nike, which determined the shade was identical to what the franchise wore in the early 2000s.

Quote

 

 

Hell no, it sure ain’t lol...lying bastages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HighCheese said:

Nice read about the state of the lakers jerseys

 

few highlights:

-nike insists this is the same shade as the early 2000s teams and that adidas had gone to a golder hue the past few years

 

-they decided to ditch the yellow accessories seemingly for good. Started a week ago in phoenix with white accessories with the yellow jerseys. They will go with purple accessories for the purple unis

Nike is lying, someone from the lakers subreddit posted comparison pictures to the shader jersey from early 2000s to the current ones.

xSypm1q.jpg

mdZD7ap.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's even more baffling with Nike's "Yellow-gate" is that Utah's and possibly Indiana's statement jerseys appear to be a darker/more saturated shade of yellow. Comparing the three, there seems to be a distinct difference in shade between the three:

 nba-statement-jerseys-preview.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, LakeShow24 said:

Nike is lying, someone from the lakers subreddit posted comparison pictures to the shader jersey from early 2000s to the current ones.

xSypm1q.jpg

mdZD7ap.jpg

 

There are so many different variables there that make it a terribly inaccurate way of comparing the two. Different cameras (and different camera technology for that matter), different lighting conditions, different materials, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, upperV03 said:

The Nets really need to redesign their set and model them after these:

DPaqQDYXUAEkSdk?format=jpg

And frankly, I wouldn’t even mind if they made the primary colored uniform anthracite rather than black, although I would prefer a full Brooklyn wordmark rather than BKLYN. Add white and black versions, and maybe a RWB fauxback version, and they’d have a really solid set.

 

I think this looks way better than the old one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

There are so many different variables there that make it a terribly inaccurate way of comparing the two. Different cameras (and different camera technology for that matter), different lighting conditions, different materials, etc.

I got more pictures to show

X38u4DB.png

 

o2J9m9H.png

 

c6GnOpJ.jpg

 

rgbL930.png

 

Again credit to the person from the lakers subreddit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can post 10,000 pictures if you want, but until a 2000 jersey is right next to a 2017 jersey in the same picture, we’ll never know the actual difference due to all the variables that Jonah listed.

 

o5cgnz-b88683196z.120160408190721000ghif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That anthracite on the Nets uniforms is awful, especially when paired with black trim. It looks like faded black that is the result of cheap fabric or bad detergent. Hard pass on those ABA-inspired alts as well. Even if there is a historical precedent, we have enough stars and stripes teams now. We don't need another team making it into an alt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the last decade, no one ever said, "hey, do the Lakers look kind of pale to you?" That's because the Lakers didn't look pale. Not until this year. 

 

And I'm sure the purple will have something similarly wrong with it too. If your m.o. is change for change's sake, then all you've got is seeking out minor things to tweak just so people will notice you did something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Over the last decade, no one ever said, "hey, do the Lakers look kind of pale to you?" That's because the Lakers didn't look pale. Not until this year. 

 

Nike's not saying they are using the same shade as the last 10 years.  They noted Reebok/Adidas changed it from the original 2000 jerseys.

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