Evolving Uniform Opinions

[BJ Sands]

In the NFL uniform matchups thread I posted this about the Jaguars:

 

In the past I’ve defended the current Jaguars uniforms. I’ve said (other than the helmet) they are a decent modern uniform that’s just a tweak or two away from being good.

 

I was wrong.

 

Watching the Jags in action the last two weeks has made me realize these are ghastly. The pants striping sucks and the collar is dopey. The color balance is off and they are everything bad about modern design.

 

I apologize to anybody I’ve offended by defending this uniform.

 

What opinions of yours have changed or evolved?

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

I agree with your original opinion about the Jags.  The helmets stink, but I still like the rest of the uniform.  

 

Back to the topic tho:

 

- I thought the Seahawks' uniforms were a complete joke when they were originally unveiled.  Now I can not only tolerate them, I actually like them

- I initially liked WVU's football uniforms.  I think I was blinded by blatant homerism.  Now I can't stand them.  They may be my least favorite in all of college football.

- I thought the Brooklyn Nets identity was cool and the simplicity of the uniforms was like an evil-Celtics which I was okay with.  Now I think they're boring as heck and they should go for something more original.

 

 

[PrimalCookie]

3 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

I agree with your original opinion about the Jags.  The helmets stink, but I still like the rest of the uniform.  

 

Back to the topic tho:

 

- I thought the Seahawks' uniforms were a complete joke when they were originally unveiled.  Now I can not only tolerate them, I actually like them

- I initially liked WVU's football uniforms.  I think I was blinded by blatant homerism.  Now I can't stand them.  They may be my least favorite in all of college football.

- I thought the Brooklyn Nets identity was cool and the simplicity of the uniforms was like an evil-Celtics which I was okay with.  Now I think they're boring as heck and they should go for something more original.

 

 

Huh. On WVU and Brooklyn, I'm the exact opposite. I hated both when they came out, but now I love both (and that's even more surprising because I hate WVU with all my soul)

 

Anyway...

- I hated the Hawks uniforms when they came out, but now I love them. Same with the Diamondbacks (yes including the dark grey)

- When they came out, I actually was okay with the Browns uniforms. Now I've gone so far to avoid them that whenever I play the Browns on Madden I switch their uniforms to the pre-2015 ones. Now, I still like the concept behind the Browns, but it's so poorly executed that it can only be described as "Browns".

[hugevolsfan]

31 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

In the NFL uniform matchups thread I posted this about the Jaguars:

 

In the past I’ve defended the current Jaguars uniforms. I’ve said (other than the helmet) they are a decent modern uniform that’s just a tweak or two away from being good.

 

I was wrong.

 

Watching the Jags in action the last two weeks has made me realize these are ghastly. The pants striping sucks and the collar is dopey. The color balance is off and they are everything bad about modern design.

 

I apologize to anybody I’ve offended by defending this uniform.

 

What opinions of yours have changed or evolved?

 

I was offended but I forgive you! I just do not want to see these atrocities in the big game but I do not want to see the Patriots again either. What a dilema!

[BrandMooreArt]

that's the thing with the Nike-era uniforms; most of them are not meant to be classic but to make a splash in the pan. the goal was always to stand out now, rather than build something that will last. but i've got a few of my own opinions that have evolved over the years but the main one is gray facemasks on football helmets.

 

when the Colts updated their unis in 2004, i couldn't believe they put a gray mask on a white helmet. at the time it was so ugly, especially compared to the blue masks they had before. it didnt take long though for me to come around and see the light. once i learned why they did it and what it represents, it completely changed my taste. now, if i were football czar, i'd put a gray mask on most helmets. love the look.

 

[MJD7]

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

when the Colts updated their unis in 2004, i couldn't believe they put a gray mask on a white helmet. at the time it was so ugly, especially compared to the blue masks they had before. it didnt take long though for me to come around and see the light. once i learned why they did it and what it represents, it completely changed my taste. now, if i were football czar, i'd put a gray mask on most helmets. love the look.

Just out of curiousity, why did the Colts switch to gray facemasks? I'm personally not a fan of gray facemasks on football helmets, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.

[leopard88]

20 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

Just out of curiousity, why did the Colts switch to gray facemasks? I'm personally not a fan of gray facemasks on football helmets, but I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.

 

My recollection is that they were trying to replicate their traditional look.  They also darkened the blue, if memory serves me (from a royal to a dark royal).

[shaydre1019]

2 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

that's the thing with the Nike-era uniforms; most of them are not meant to be classic but to make a splash in the pan. the goal was always to stand out now, rather than build something that will last. but i've got a few of my own opinions that have evolved over the years but the main one is gray facemasks on football helmets.

 

when the Colts updated their unis in 2004, i couldn't believe they put a gray mask on a white helmet. at the time it was so ugly, especially compared to the blue masks they had before. it didnt take long though for me to come around and see the light. once i learned why they did it and what it represents, it completely changed my taste. now, if i were football czar, i'd put a gray mask on most helmets. love the look.

 

I love gray facemasks, but in almost all instances, they need to be paired with black cleats and white socks. 

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

that's the thing with the Nike-era uniforms; most of them are not meant to be classic but to make a splash in the pan. the goal was always to stand out now, rather than build something that will last. but i've got a few of my own opinions that have evolved over the years but the main one is gray facemasks on football helmets.

 

when the Colts updated their unis in 2004, i couldn't believe they put a gray mask on a white helmet. at the time it was so ugly, especially compared to the blue masks they had before. it didnt take long though for me to come around and see the light. once i learned why they did it and what it represents, it completely changed my taste. now, if i were football czar, i'd put a gray mask on most helmets. love the look.

 

I still like a well-placed grey facemask, but I'm sort of the opposite.. I used to LOVE em and thought they were always a solid option, but now I feel more like they need to be used properly.. 

I used to dislike sleeve numbers in favor of shoulder numbers, but I've come to the opinion that sleeves are the first location for design.. If you have a striping pattern or secondary logo, etc for the sleeves, then the numbers get bumped up to the shoulders, otherwise the numbers belong on the sleeves.. A bare sleeve is ugly and awkward of the shoulders are covered with a design element - such as numbers..

[MCM0313]

When the Rams unveiled their 2000 uniform changes, I thought they were awful. Now, while I still think they were a downgrade from what came before, I also consider them the best major overhaul or update of 2000-05. If they still had the metallic gold pants (and that rich gold color as opposed to the lighter Vegas gold), they really wouldn't NEED to change - granted they would still WANT to because those uniforms are identified with St. Louis, but they'd still look pretty good anyway.

 

The evolution of my opinion here is almost identical to that of my opinion of the 1997-present Broncos set. Both replaced classics but weren't so bad themselves.

[Jungle Jim]

I've come around some on monochrome football uniforms, but only with non-classic uniforms (Broncos, Seahawks, Bengals, etc) and only if there are contrasting color socks.

 

I'm also coming around some on matte baseball batting helmets, but I'll always hold a nostalgic fondness for the traditional shiny ones.  (I hate to imagine a world where I had not witnessed Jose Cruz's beautiful orange helmet twinkling under the lights of the Astrodome in the 1970s.   )

 

As a kid in the 70s, I loved the baseball pullover jerseys and elastic waistbands, and hated the "old-fashioned" button-downs and belts.  I'm the opposite now.  

 

I thought short shorts looked normal on basketball players in the 70s and 80s, but now they look really funny.

[wildwing64]

When the Ducks unveiled their third-now-home in 2010, I was instantly in love. It made better use of the colour scheme than the regular uniforms, used an actual logo instead of the wordmark, and best of all the Mighty Ducks logo made its glorious return as a shoulder patch. And I couldn't wait until this was made into the new home jersey and a new set was based around it.

 

Now? I can't wait for them to bin these. Viewed from the front or back it looks relatively inoffensive if a bit boring without any hemstripes, but then you turn it around to be greeted by obnoxious sidepanels. The white version is even worse and further shows how much of a mess the template is. Then there's the addition of laces, which are usually something I'd like, but are one thing too many on this Ducks set.

 

Admitedly my newfound dislike may have spawned from my saltiness at the recent orange thirds being retired. Or maybe that uniform was the eye opener I needed. It got everything right that the Ducks have got wrong since they rebranded. But of course they don't take the opportunity that was staring them in the face and stick with the terrible mess of a uniform for the Adidas switcheroo. Nor did they ever wear that in the playoffs despite the whole #PaintItOrange thing. This f***ing team. Argh.

[Dynasty]

I, like many, despised the Marlins 2012 identity. I didn't like how the teal was dropped and replaced with orange. I didn't like how the blue was minimal. I didn't like the logo and I didn't like the uniforms.

 

Now, I like their newer identity, the colors are great. It's a look that says "we're from Miami, :censored:ing Florida". Yeah, I'd still like blue emphasized more than orange, but that's the only nitpick I have with them.

[OnWis97]

Interesting topic.  Most of mine are uniforms I first discovered as a kid and grew to like.   Including:

• I didn't like the Lions or Saints uniforms as a kid and now I think those looks (particularly the helmets; 1980s for the Lions) are among the best. 
• I did not like the green/blue Mavs look at first but grew to like it.
• I did not like the pre-Gretzky purple/yellow Kings uniforms, but those jerseys (particularly the yellow ones) are among my all-time favorites.
• I like the Orioles cartoon bird as a kid but eventually ditched it for being too silly (Same with helmet-wearing dolphin)

 

2 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I, like many, despised the Marlins 2012 identity. I didn't like how the teal was dropped and replaced with orange. I didn't like how the blue was minimal. I didn't like the logo and I didn't like the uniforms.

 

Now, I like their newer identity, the colors are great. It's a look that says "we're from Miami, :censored:ing Florida". Yeah, I'd still like blue emphasized more than orange, but that's the only nitpick I have with them.

I don't have too many changes I actually remember where my opinion has changed a lot.  But the Marlins is one of 'em.  I hated it at first.  But it's grown on me.  I wish they used less black, but the look has grown on me overall.

 

Aside from that the only one I can think of that occurred in my memory (and it's over 20 years ago now) is the Pats Flying Elvis look.  I don't like the current piping and side panel look, but the logo has grown on me quite a bit.  I loved the red 1980s jersey but Pat the Patriot was too detailed.  Flying Elvis is a decent logo, it took me a long time to get there.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

I thought the Brooklyn Nets identity was cool and the simplicity of the uniforms was like an evil-Celtics which I was okay with.  Now I think they're boring as heck and they should go for something more original

 

This really resonates with me.  When the Nets made the change, I was relieved that the new uniforms weren't garish.  But, when I saw that set on the court, I quickly became disenchanted with its blandness, weakness, and lack of character. 
 

I sometimes can't believe that my initial reaction to the Nets' current uniforms was positive, because that feeling has changed so drastically. Watching the team really bums me out -- especially when they played the Celtics twice in a week recently, in a matchup that points up one of the major things that the Nets are doing wrong (i.e.: the numbers).

 

This is a case where bad uniforms have soured me on a team that I used to be really into. In another thread a Rams fan admitted not wanting to see his team win while it is wearing bad uniforms. I feel the same way about the Nets.

[VikWings]

I liked a lot of the Reebok era NFL changes at first: Vikings, Falcons, Bengals, Cardinals (White & Black only. Always hated the red. Still like the black), etc. But they didn’t age well. I still don’t think the Vikings were that bad but when they changed it was definitely time for one and what they have now is a big improvement. And like I said I still like ARZ’s black.

 

 

[andrewharrington]

On 1/15/2018 at 1:14 PM, WavePunter said:

I still like a well-placed grey facemask, but I'm sort of the opposite.. I used to LOVE em and thought they were always a solid option, but now I feel more like they need to be used properly.. 

I used to dislike sleeve numbers in favor of shoulder numbers, but I've come to the opinion that sleeves are the first location for design.. If you have a striping pattern or secondary logo, etc for the sleeves, then the numbers get bumped up to the shoulders, otherwise the numbers belong on the sleeves.. A bare sleeve is ugly and awkward of the shoulders are covered with a design element - such as numbers..

 

Spot on. I love grey masks, but you definitely have to make them work. It’s not a universal “this always looks good” kind of choice. It *can* always look good, but it’s completely dependent on the vibe of the other components.

 

I also agree about the sleeve numbers. One thing that reeealy bugs me is a jersey with a UCLA-esque loop, but with the numbers on the shoulder, above the loop, instead of under the loop where they belong. For example, the Patriots’ uniform would be much cleaner if the numbers moved to where the logo is on the sleeve.

[WavePunter]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Spot on. I love grey masks, but you definitely have to make them work. It’s not a universal “this always looks good” kind of choice. It *can* always look good, but it’s completely dependent on the vibe of the other components.

 

I also agree about the sleeve numbers. One thing that reeealy bugs me is a jersey with a UCLA-esque loop, but with the numbers on the shoulder, above the loop, instead of under the loop where they belong. For example, the Patriots’ uniform would be much cleaner if the numbers moved to where the logo is on the sleeve.

While I agree 100% with the Ucla loop comment, I think the Patriots and Panthers fall more into the Texans/USC category with their loops.. They're not quite shoulder, not quite sleeve, so I give both teams a pass on their "above the loop" numbers.. However, both might have a cleaner look if they ditched the sleeve logos and moved the numbers down..

 

Which leads me to my next uniform opinion.. I used to like teams with logos on the sleeve, but the scope of that opinion has changed significantly.. Now, I really dislike repeating the helmet logo on the sleeve.. If you have a solid secondary logo (like the early Jaguars or current Eagles), then it's a great look, but if your only options are helmet logo and numbers, then numbers win every time..

[MCM0313]

14 hours ago, VikWings said:

I liked a lot of the Reebok era NFL changes at first: Vikings, Falcons, Bengals, Cardinals (White & Black only. Always hated the red. Still like the black), etc. But they didn’t age well. I still don’t think the Vikings were that bad but when they changed it was definitely time for one and what they have now is a big improvement. And like I said I still like ARZ’s black.

 

 

Weird as that may be, and as little sense as it makes, I agree with you that the Cardinals' black alt looks good. Better than their red or white uniforms, which is weird because they shouldn't even have a black uniform. They should simplify their look, darken the red back to an actual cardinal shade, and reduce black to trim-only - but until they do that their black alts can stick around because they look illogically good.

[OnWis97]

I'm surprised by any love that the Cardinals black jersey gets if for no other reason than they'd historically worn red.  I don't like their Reebok update, but the red, to me, is the lesser of two evils.  

 

I don't like most "Reeboky" updates but I think my opinion on the Vikings has evolved (though probably through influence of the uniforms on either side of it). I hated it at first, but it was replacing the great Randy Moss - era uniforms that are easily my favorites of all time.  I eventually got used to them and now I strangely like them after the update that I am in the minority not being a fan of.  I've said it before (broken record) that I like the color balance of those better...yellow out lines help me a lot.  That number font was, I guess, custom, but close enough to block to be "sturdy."  There are, of course bad things: the transition from jersey to pants was absolutely horrible (particularly with the white jersey, since they almost never wore the purple pants) and side panels are not great.  But there are bad things about this set: The number font tries to hard and while the serifs on the left digit wrap nicely around rounded numbers, they don't work with other numbers. I also dislike how the yellow stripe gets lost on the white jersey (and, of course, the minimal use of yellow in general).  

 

Anyway, I don't know whether my opinion of the Vikings Reebok design changed or if my perception is impacted by the before and after looks.