Jacksonville Jaguars Unveil Stripped-Down Uniforms

[Dboi2001]

4 hours ago, Gupti said:

 

Why would I? I hated every single bit about the last uniform from the moment they were revealed, and not just the easy-to-hate parts like the helmet, either. They were the second worst uniform of the Super Bowl era and probably my least favorite overall for reasons that I've ranted about at embarrassing length. I'm not going to just blindly accept whatever I'm being fed by the franchise here. I wouldn't say that I'm any more brainwashed than someone who claims to understand whatever the heck was going on with the 2013 design.

 

It's not like these are my ideal vision of the Jaguars uniform, but I just like a lot that they decided to follow up the previous mess with something that is subdued and meant to emulate teams who always had a no nonsense approach to their uniforms. It's different than what a lot of teams are doing, but that's cool to me, a lot cooler than tossing together a mess of "cutting edge (literally)" features like the Titans did. I think the current state of football uniforms has led people to thinking that uniforms always have to have extra unique features, but I don't think that has to be the case for a uniform to be good.

 

For instance, the Lions tried to make their uniforms scream "LIONS!" by literally adding the word LIONS to their simple Northwestern stripes, and while I still like the jersey, I'm sure we can all agree that that is something that we can live without. The Titans tried to make something unique and, *boom*, we ended up with the first team to wear giant swords on their jerseys. Ouch. Meanwhile, teams like the Colts and Chiefs have been using simple jerseys for their whole history and people have no problem identifying them. You could argue, then, that the Jags may be a little late to that party but I'll say that it's better late than never.

 

Are they, in some ways, a little too simplistic? Sure, I would've perhaps done something a bit different with the pants, or maybe taken the slightest hint of gold elsewhere than the logo (Although not too much, since it's a very loud color and I almost feel as though Nike can't be trusted with it). Do I wish they'd gone with teal for the primary? Hell yeah, I do. Is this the greatest that the Jaguars have ever looked? Nah, wouldn't say so.

 

The simple direction is just something that I appreciate, though, especially as long as they're going to be a team that changes uniforms often, which is key here and appears to be the case. I can accept these because I like how there are no extraneous features, I can take the gold present in the logos for what it is, I really like the font and the crispness of no outlines (although the last font was probably the only part of the last set that I liked), and I really, REALLY like having a helmet that is all black with just the Jag head on the sides. That is what screams "JAGUARS!" to me.

 

IMO, of course.

First off what exactly was wrong with our last uniform set? Outside of the helmets they were really sleek and cool. Sure they could’ve cut down some of the extra stuff but outside of that they were really solid. Like you can’t tell me this simple edit is awful 

 

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/6584-new-uniforms-thread/?page=4

 

you seem to think unique=bad and generic=good. I’m sorry but the Titans uniforms are amazing and unique. You must really hate college uniforms.But to you I guess you’d rather have everyone where generic jerseys that all are pallet swaps. I don’t have a problem with simple uniforms but you’re confusing simple with bland. The Lions even without the wordmark still screams lions. These don’t say anything at all they’re just sitting In the corner of the room clipping their toenails 

 

the problem is why are the jags are trying to mimick a style of before they existed? We’re a 90s team trying to carve our own history so let’s embrace that not pretend we’re an old school 60s team that’s braced the storm through thick and thin. Teams like the chiefs and colts are historic so simple uniforms work for them because that’s what their organization is the jags isn’t. Imagine the colts having a super modern looking set. That’s the same for the jags just look at our first set it’s pretty out there. So let’s embrace that. They could’ve easily done this and it’d be amazing and truly traditional 

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbKO-4_UQAAZjgE.jpg

[Dboi2001]

5 hours ago, DeFrank said:

 

I actually think the painting example is perfect. Calling these uniforms “amateurish” because they’re (and I agree with you here) TOO simple for my tastes is the equivalent of saying “my five year old could draw that” about some abstract art

No it’s not I never claimed I could make a better uniform set than a multi million dollar company. There’s a fine line with abstract art. It’s one thing to do something artistic like this 

 

https://m.imgur.com/RObPd

 

but another to just do scribbles like this

 

 

similarly there’s simplicity 

 

 

and then theres straight up bland. 

 

 

See the difference? I don’t get why people hate crazy uniforms. Like do you want every team to just be a pallet swap of each other? Like what about these jags uniforms even so much as *whisper* Jagaurs?

[oldschoolvikings]

To me the worst part of this update is that it's brought out so many people who now want to claim that the previous nightmare of a uniform was "fine, except for the helmet."

 

Stop that.

 

You don't like this new look?  OK... but that old garbage still needed to be dragged to the curb.

 

 

Oh... IMO.

[Dboi2001]

37 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

To me the worst part of this update is that it's brought out so many people who now want to claim that the previous nightmare of a uniform was "fine, except for the helmet."

 

Stop that.

 

You don't like this new look?  OK... but that old garbage still needed to be dragged to the curb.

 

 

Oh... IMO.

Care to explain or are you just gonna spout nonsense? What is wrong about this look? The piping on the pants matches the sleeves, the numbers are great and the jags patch is sick. Outside of the reflective shoulders (which are honestly a non issue in most cases and I didn’t even notice for a while) they looked great and fit the identity of the jags franchise. Seriously why do people hate fun and unique uniforms? Sorry they’re not just generic pallet swaps 

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Yeah, with an all black helmet this is a better look than what they went with.

 

[WavePunter]

28 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Care to explain or are you just gonna spout nonsense? What is wrong about this look? The piping on the pants matches the sleeves, the numbers are great and the jags patch is sick. Outside of the reflective shoulders (which are honestly a non issue in most cases and I didn’t even notice for a while) they looked great and fit the identity of the jags franchise. Seriously why do people hate fun and unique uniforms? Sorry they’re not just generic pallet swaps 

 

The previous set had some redeeming qualities, but it also had some major flaws..

-the helmet, obviously

-the glossy texture stuff on the shoulders

-the black numbers on the teal jersey

-the silly pants stripe

-the black jersey being primary

-the ridiculous JAGS patch 

-the empty sleeves

If you fix those issues (which, honestly are all pretty small issues - but add up to a big mess), it really would be a decent, serviceable set.. The extraneous details are what ruin it though..

I actually didn't mind it when it was unveiled, but the more I saw it, and the more details I saw/noticed, the worse it got..

[oldschoolvikings]

12 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Care to explain or are you just gonna spout nonsense? What is wrong about this look? The piping on the pants matches the sleeves, the numbers are great and the jags patch is sick. Outside of the reflective shoulders (which are honestly a non issue in most cases and I didn’t even notice for a while) they looked great and fit the identity of the jags franchise. Seriously why do people hate fun and unique uniforms? Sorry they’re not just generic pallet swaps 

 

 

OK... sorry to spout such nonsense.

 

I did say it was just my opinion, but since you're asking, here's my list of dislikes;

 

1.  Not a fan of the patch... it's awkwardly shaped for where it's placed, and I don't care for nickname abbreviations showing up on the actual uniform.

2. Shiny shoulder spikes are only noticeable enough to be annoying... one of those "too clever" touches that seem added just because they can.

3. Empty contrast-color shoulder caps... again, why? Seems like a "fill tool" decision.

4. The black numbers on the teal jersey muddied up an already over-complicated look.

5. Truncated pants stripes that just sort of float... just personally not a fan.  For myself, I need the pants stripe to attach at the top or bottom, minimum... I'd prefer it to travel the length of the pants.

5. The stubborn insistence on the monochrome combinations. Sure, if you like that sort of thing, you can say I'm just a grump about it, but as I've said close to 1000 times on this board, monochrome football uniforms make me think of high school and lower tier colleges, and look out of place in the NFL.

6.  Black socks with black pants. Hate. Ugly. Must die.

7. The worst helmet in the history of the NFL.

8. The worst helmet in the history of the NFL.

 

That's just off the top of my head.  And my complaints for numbers 5 and 6 will no doubt be carried over in the new uniform, but that's not really the question, here.

 

As always, this is just my nonsense spouting opinion.

 

 

[DeFrank]

40 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Care to explain or are you just gonna spout nonsense? What is wrong about this look? The piping on the pants matches the sleeves, the numbers are great and the jags patch is sick. Outside of the reflective shoulders (which are honestly a non issue in most cases and I didn’t even notice for a while) they looked great and fit the identity of the jags franchise. Seriously why do people hate fun and unique uniforms? Sorry they’re not just generic pallet swaps 

 

 

The way the gold collar looks on the teal jersey is enough to make me like the new uniforms better than the old ones. It looks... so bad.

[Dboi2001]

2 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

The previous set had some redeeming qualities, but it also had some major flaws..

-the helmet, obviously

-the glossy texture stuff on the shoulders

-the black numbers on the teal jersey

-the silly pants stripe

-the black jersey being primary

-the ridiculous JAGS patch 

-the empty sleeves

If you fix those issues (which, honestly are all pretty small issues - but add up to a big mess), it really would be a decent, serviceable set.. The extraneous details are what ruin it though..

I actually didn't mind it when it was unveiled, but the more I saw it, and the more details I saw/noticed, the worse it got..

Alright you have some points but some things I want to address

 

- The glossy texture is barely noticeable in game

- what’s wrong with black numbers? They look really cool and contrast the teal great. Again god forbid we have something *different* even on alternate jerseys 

- admittedly I’d like a different design but the piping on the pants were fine and matched up with the sleeves 

- how is the jags patch ridiculous? It looks great and a nod to the army. If you criticize then you HAVE to criticize the Chiefs, Steelers and Jets for their patches 

[Claystation360]

You lose me when you prefer the Titans new gear over the Jags, #1 I question your taste and #2 just on GP being a Jags fan lol.  

[Claystation360]

Also Bold isn't always isn't about sharp edges, edgey fonts and having a half dozen colors. Bold is also doing something against the grain, something different, something that makes you notice and I say they hit on that. Clean and crisp can be bold.

[Dboi2001]

22 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

OK... sorry to spout such nonsense.

 

I did say it was just my opinion, but since you're asking, here's my list of dislikes;

 

1.  Not a fan of the patch... it's awkwardly shaped for where it's placed, and I don't care for nickname abbreviations showing up on the actual uniform.

2. Shiny shoulder spikes are only noticeable enough to be annoying... one of those "too clever" touches that seem added just because they can.

3. Empty contrast-color shoulder caps... again, why? Seems like a "fill tool" decision.

4. The black numbers on the teal jersey muddied up an already over-complicated look.

5. Truncated pants stripes that just sort of float... just personally not a fan.  For myself, I need the pants stripe to attach at the top or bottom, minimum... I'd prefer it to travel the length of the pants.

5. The stubborn insistence on the monochrome combinations. Sure, if you like that sort of thing, you can say I'm just a grump about it, but as I've said close to 1000 times on this board, monochrome football uniforms make me think of high school and lower tier colleges, and look out of place in the NFL.

6.  Black socks with black pants. Hate. Ugly. Must die.

7. The worst helmet in the history of the NFL.

8. The worst helmet in the history of the NFL.

 

That's just off the top of my head.  And my complaints for numbers 5 and 6 will no doubt be carried over in the new uniform, but that's not really the question, here.

 

As always, this is just my nonsense spouting opinion.

 

 

 

1. It’s literally the stereotypical patch. That’s where patches are suppose to go. Are you even for real?

2. No they’re not. I didn’t even notice them for the longest time

3. They could use some stripping but I still think it looks solid. I actually like the colored sleeves 

4. No it doesn’t it makes it look even more clear 

5. So because it’s not standard, traditional and boring you hate it? Seriously why do people hate monochromatic why does everything need to be color on white? Again if we had it your way every uniform would just be a color swap because who needs variety 

6. I don’t get the problem 

 

again it just feels like you hate them because they’re not traditional and boring. Like again why does every team HAVE to have colored and white pants? Why does every team have to have white numbers? None of this stuff is bad justness not traditional and stereotypical and of course you dislike it for the sake of disliking it. Want to prove me wrong find me a ‘classic’ or retro design you hate and a ‘modern’ crazy design you love in ANY sport. Not just football but all the sports 

[Dboi2001]

8 minutes ago, Claystation360 said:

Also Bold isn't always isn't about sharp edges, edgey fonts and having a half dozen colors. Bold is also doing something against the grain, something different, something that makes you notice and I say they hit on that. Clean and crisp can be bold.

“Bold: adjective 

1. (of a person, action, or idea) showing an ability to *take risks*; confident and courageous.”

 

not necessarily edgy but the very definition is standing out and TAKING RISK. WHAT ABOUT THIS IS A RISK? How do these stand out outside of how bland they are? Clean and crisp can be bold but in this case it’s bland

[WavePunter]

10 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Alright you have some points but some things I want to address

 

- The glossy texture is barely noticeable in game

- what’s wrong with black numbers? They look really cool and contrast the teal great. Again god forbid we have something *different* even on alternate jerseys 

- admittedly I’d like a different design but the piping on the pants were fine and matched up with the sleeves 

- how is the jags patch ridiculous? It looks great and a nod to the army. If you criticize then you HAVE to criticize the Chiefs, Steelers and Jets for their patches 

-if the glossy detail is barely noticeable, then it's an unnecessary detail.. It's added for the sake of adding it.. It never helps the look, and when noticeable, it hurts the look.. 

 

-the black numbers are bad because they aren't functional.. You may think they contrast enough, but I can assure you they would cause issues for spotters in the press box and coaches watching film.. It's a pretty hard rule of thumb that colored jerseys should always have white numbers - with very few exceptions..

 

-how exactly do they match up with the sleeves? The sleeves are solid and blank, but the pants have an abbreviated color-block with angular, contrasting, terminal color-blocks.. They're nothing alike.. You may like the way they look, and that's fine, but they don't match the any element of the sleeves whatsoever..

 

-the jags patch is ridiculous for a number of reasons: unofficial nickname, wordmark crammed into a shape with the logo, wordmark in wrong location, poor execution on "military ties", etc.. (And I don't like any of the other examples you mentioned either.. The Chiefs get a bit of a pass, since theirs is a memorial patch, rather than a logo patch)

 

[Sec19Row53]

6 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

 

1. It’s literally the stereotypical patch. That’s where patches are suppose to go. Are you even for real?

2. No they’re not. I didn’t even notice them for the longest time

3. They could use some stripping but I still think it looks solid. I actually like the colored sleeves 

4. No it doesn’t it makes it look even more clear 

5. So because it’s not standard, traditional and boring you hate it? Seriously why do people hate monochromatic why does everything need to be color on white? Again if we had it your way every uniform would just be a color swap because who needs variety 

6. I don’t get the problem 

 

again it just feels like you hate them because they’re not traditional and boring. Like again why does every team HAVE to have colored and white pants? Why does every team have to have white numbers? None of this stuff is bad justness not traditional and stereotypical and of course you dislike it for the sake of disliking it. Want to prove me wrong find me a ‘classic’ or retro design you hate and a ‘modern’ crazy design you love in ANY sport. Not just football but all the sports 

Supporting @oldschoolvikings with this response.

 

I'm sorry that you seem to take it personally that many people think the old Jaguars uniforms sucked all sorts of donkey balls.  Somewhere in the old thread I'm sure I ran through the same litany of dislikes that he just ran through. No, it's not just the helmet. Much like "D'backs", a nickname of a nickname should never appear on a uniform.  Spiking things and shiny strips are only there because someone at Nike wanted to make a name or something. Evven though we've already bashed the helmet, could someone at Nike have come up with better Nike-speak than saying it was the Jaguar hunting from out ofthe shadows, because if it's coming out of the shadows, the shadow should be at the back of the helmet, NOT THE FRONT!

 

[get off my lawn]

[Dboi2001]

14 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

-if the glossy detail is barely noticeable, then it's an unnecessary detail.. It's added for the sake of adding it.. It never helps the look, and when noticeable, it hurts the look.. 

 

-the black numbers are bad because they aren't functional.. You may think they contrast enough, but I can assure you they would cause issues for spotters in the press box and coaches watching film.. It's a pretty hard rule of thumb that colored jerseys should always have white numbers - with very few exceptions..

 

-how exactly do they match up with the sleeves? The sleeves are solid and blank, but the pants have an abbreviated color-block with angular, contrasting, terminal color-blocks.. They're nothing alike.. You may like the way they look, and that's fine, but they don't match the any element of the sleeves whatsoever..

 

-the jags patch is ridiculous for a number of reasons: unofficial nickname, wordmark crammed into a shape with the logo, wordmark in wrong location, poor execution on "military ties", etc.. (And I don't like any of the other examples you mentioned either.. The Chiefs get a bit of a pass, since theirs is a memorial patch, rather than a logo patch)

 

- so if it’s noticeable it’s bad if it’s not it’s bad. So a lose-lose then? I agree they should’ve been removed but again this shows people will complain about anything 

 

- no they’re not I could easily tell them apart when I was watching the game. There is enough contrast to where it works. In fact I have to say white numbers on teal jerseys is HARDER to see without trim than with black number. Like basically every other sport has colored numbers but apparently football needs to be the special snowflake (and don’t say well not everything will look good on football well that doesn’t mean they’ll always look bad either)

 

- because they’re both large solid teal blocks on the side. So because of the tiny gold and white trim it immediately breaks the pattern? Okay so if the sleeves had white and gold trim at the top and bottom it’d be perfect?

 

- first off teams can’t hace nicknames? Next the word is done really well and bends nicely. What do you mean wrong location that’s where police and officer put their badges. I guess we agree to disagree because I love patches on jerseys. I just think they fill in some space while also keeping it clean and sleek. I like it over wordmarks which teams like the bills and niners have yet I don’t see you complaining about them

[Survival79]

In the Dolphins thread Sec19Row53 pointed out that the golds were flipped on the new helmet logo. I don't remember this being mentioned here.

 

 

[Dboi2001]

13 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Supporting @oldschoolvikings with this response.

 

I'm sorry that you seem to take it personally that many people think the old Jaguars uniforms sucked all sorts of donkey balls.  Somewhere in the old thread I'm sure I ran through the same litany of dislikes that he just ran through. No, it's not just the helmet. Much like "D'backs", a nickname of a nickname should never appear on a uniform.  Spiking things and shiny strips are only there because someone at Nike wanted to make a name or something. Evven though we've already bashed the helmet, could someone at Nike have come up with better Nike-speak than saying it was the Jaguar hunting from out ofthe shadows, because if it's coming out of the shadows, the shadow should be at the back of the helmet, NOT THE FRONT!

 

[get off my lawn]

And I’m sorry you prefer to have everything to look homogenous. You know plain and boring doesn’t mean serious right? 

 

Whats wrong with nicknames? First off the Dbacks DO have their name on a jersey and looks way better than cramming the whole word on their. The Cavs jerseys have Cavs in it (their old logo was literally just ‘Cavs’) yet no one seems to mind that 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

I think there's a fundamental question at the heart of the matter:

 

Where does gold fit into the identity of Jaguars fans?

 

How you answer than question, more so than questions of blandness or tradition, marks out how one reacts to the new Jaguars uniforms. 

 

Gold had a limited role in the original set, no role in the 2009 set, and a "complicated" role in the 2013 set.

 

Clearly, Khan and Coughlin did not feel that gold was a necessary piece of the Jaguars identity. I can understand why one Jaguars fan would feel insulted by this while another might agree on black and teal being the only necessary elements. 

 

I'm sure that the debate will go on and probably come up again the next time the Jaguars alter their uniforms. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

3 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Whats wrong with nicknames? First off the Dbacks DO have their name on a jersey and looks way better than cramming the whole word on their. The Cavs jerseys have Cavs in it (their old logo was literally just ‘Cavs’) yet no one seems to mind that 

 

 

I'm sorry but the Dbacks script has looked like a joke since it came out. Especially since the capital "A" which was the home jersey from 2001-2006 is infinitely superior.