Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, ltjets21 said:

Earlier I was looking at the Jags possibly leaked uniforms with the Jaguar head patch and wondered if every team had something on their jerseys that made you know it was theirs. IE a wordmark or logo. I then realized that the  Raiders, Bears, Packers, Colts, Chiefs and Cowboys whites do not have any logo or wordmark on them. I know each of these teams have a pretty strong brand but I think that they should each incorporate either a jersey patch or wordmark somewhere on their jerseys. It doesn't have to be huge a subtle patch or wordmark right above or to the right of the numbers would do just fine. I think if the NFL is to reach global notoriety it needs to do this as it is the only sport that not every jersey does not have a logo, team or city name, or crest of somesort.

 

Is the NFL currently lacking "global notoriety"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ltjets21 said:

Earlier I was looking at the Jags possibly leaked uniforms with the Jaguar head patch and wondered if every team had something on their jerseys that made you know it was theirs. IE a wordmark or logo. I then realized that the  Raiders, Bears, Packers, Colts, Chiefs and Cowboys whites do not have any logo or wordmark on them. I know each of these teams have a pretty strong brand but I think that they should each incorporate either a jersey patch or wordmark somewhere on their jerseys. It doesn't have to be huge a subtle patch or wordmark right above or to the right of the numbers would do just fine. I think if the NFL is to reach global notoriety it needs to do this as it is the only sport that not every jersey does not have a logo, team or city name, or crest of somesort.

The Cowboys did have a wordmark on their White jersey from 1996 to 1998 I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eszcz21 said:

The Cowboys did have a wordmark on their White jersey from 1996 to 1998 I believe.

 

Indeed.

 

nov-1997-dallas-cowboys-wide-receiver-an

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Fortunately, they came to their senses. 

Exactly. IMO there shouldn't be any word marks on the uniforms other than the helmet bumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

were the Patriots the team that started the trend?  I vaguely remember the jumbo elvis jerseys being the first one to sport a little wordmark.

 

For the most part, I like that little addition, as long as it doesn't push the front number down at all.  I like that it gives the NFL teams a way to have the team name on the front of the jersey without looking like a college or high school (if any even still do that) team.  

 

What was the last jersey that was released that didn't have that feature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bears have the GSH on the left sleeve, which I think fits the bill just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the name on the front, because it’s so obviously a merchandising thing.   I know the tail usually wags the dog now, but I don’t have to like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gothamite said:

I hate the name on the front, because it’s so obviously a merchandising thing.   I know the tail usually wags the dog now, but I don’t have to like it. 

 

sometimes even a merchandising thing can still be aesthetically appealing, which is what I find this one to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be fine with almost all teams doing the little name on the front (or the patch like the Steelers and Jets). I wouldn't want it for the oldest of the old (Bears, Packers) or traditionalest of the traditional (Colts, Raiders), but for the majority of teams I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

were the Patriots the team that started the trend?  I vaguely remember the jumbo elvis jerseys being the first one to sport a little wordmark.

 

 

Man_0971.jpg

 

I remember it as being the Cowboys who did it first, in 1995, but I could be mistaken.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I'd be fine with almost all teams doing the little name on the front (or the patch like the Steelers and Jets). I wouldn't want it for the oldest of the old (Bears, Packers) or traditionalest of the traditional (Colts, Raiders), but for the majority of teams I like it.

 

Yeah the Packers wordmark wouldn't look good on a jersey.  They also don't need a G patch.  I guess if they had to add something (for merchandising reasons or whatever) I'd do that over the wordmark.

 

The Steelers patch works because it's on the same side as the non-logoed side of the helmet, so in a way it kinda balances things out.

 

The Colts would look fine with it.  For some reason, the Colts just don't feel like a traditional team to me, even though obviously you can't get more traditional than their uniform.  I think it's because they've mostly played in sterile fake environments with bad lighting for most of my life.

 

The Raiders should definitely never put anything on their jersey.  If they had to, like if the NFL mandated it, they should just go with either a middle finger patch, or a patch depicting Mark Davis' ass cheeks being spread open by a pair of floating hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Man_0971.jpg

 

I remember it as being the Cowboys who did it first, in 1995, but I could be mistaken.

 

 

OH yeah, you're right.  I think there's a version of that where the logo is actually on the side where the 75 patch is.  I guess I didn't count that since it was an alt (in an era where alts were super rare) rather than a full-time jersey like the Patriots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ravens and Eagles in 1996 started to used their wordmark on the front of their primaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2018 at 6:25 PM, Cosmic said:

Step 0.5 is for the Rams to actually want it. We don't know that they do.

I recall that one of the Rams execs said that they tried to wear their throwbacks full-time the move to LA, but the NFL rejected it...Hopefully the loophole can finally give them this wish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TJSC said:

I recall that one of the Rams execs said that they tried to wear their throwbacks full-time the move to LA, but the NFL rejected it...Hopefully the loophole can finally give them this wish

They wanted to switch to the throwbacks when they moved, and then do another wholesale change when the stadium opened three years (now delayed to four) later. Normal rules are that you have to keep uniforms for at least five years. The Rams could change/could have changed any year they want, from the move onward. The reason they haven't is they want their moment of glory with new uniforms and a new stadium at the same time. So that's why I say they don't really want to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cosmic said:

They wanted to switch to the throwbacks when they moved, and then do another wholesale change when the stadium opened three years (now delayed to four) later. Normal rules are that you have to keep uniforms for at least five years. The Rams could change/could have changed any year they want, from the move onward. The reason they haven't is they want their moment of glory with new uniforms and a new stadium at the same time. So that's why I say they don't really want to change.

and yet they changed the helmets to get a mismatch uniform combo because......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, insert name said:

and yet they changed the helmets to get a mismatch uniform combo because......?

The same reason they didn't think it was important to get back to the classic colors immediately... bad judgment regarding uniforms. It's all part of the same thread. Team wants new uniforms at the same time as they get their football palace. NFL won't let them change twice in four years, so the team figures it won't be a big deal to stick with the St. Louis colors for a while. Fans really, really want the classic colors. Team realizes they made a mistake, but now they'd be even further into the new stadium before they can get new uniforms again. Somebody comes up with the idea to do SOMETHING, and realize they can change to a pseudo-blue-and-white look. Sure, the blue jersey looks bad, but we'll like never wear it, right?

 

Edit: Think about it. They've had the same St. Louis uniforms since circa 2000. I think there used to be a St. Louis wordmark that they dropped, and some stripes are probably a little different, but it's basically the same uniform ever since they switched after their Super Bowl win. The uniforms didn't change with the move to LA, since there was no city signifier on the jersey. They can change whenever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2018 at 5:47 AM, WSU151 said:

 

The Browns are on a different list though, as the teams listed all had white helmets.

 

But agreed on your thoughts on Color Rush.

I always thought this was the Browns all time best look. Not a Browns fan either. 

cle-12-allwhite-jaytalbott-620x930.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BrandoCalri55ian said:

I always thought this was the Browns all time best look. Not a Browns fan either. 

cle-12-allwhite-jaytalbott-620x930.jpg

 

That's a fine football uniform.  I might match the jersey stripes with the pants, but it's a fine uniform.

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