Why do people hate unique uniforms

[Dboi2001]

I don’t get why people seem to hate anything Nike does because it’s too ‘complicated’. I don’t get the hate. I love that kind of stuff and don’t understand what is wrong with them. Sure sometimes they look bad but sometimes it feels like people hate them simply because Nike. Like I don’t get the hate for the jags old set.  Besides the helmet I really loved the set. The biggest criticism is that it is ‘too complicated’ but they never clarify it. I just think they looked really sleek. And now they are saying the same about the Titans new look

 

Like why? Because god forbid we get a set that isn’t generic and stands out from the crowd. The sword on the sleeeves look awesome. Worst of all people will outright ignore problems of ‘classic’ sets because they’re classic and through fore means they’re perfect. Like the 49ers pants are a disgusting cream yellow and inconsistent striping but everyone treats them like they’re perfect. With the jags new uniforms people are outright praising them for being as generic as possible. I don’t get. They’ll always be a place for simplistity but why can’t we get fun and crazy uniforms too? Why does every uniform have to look the same? 

 

Id like some real criticisms to why the titans and jags old uniforms were bad and not ‘owe of course they’re bad just look at those sword and :censored:’ I want legitimate criticisms and it has to be consistent (example if you hate the jags patch for looking too cluttered you have to hate the Steelers patch too)

[DouglasQuaid]

2 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

(example if you hate the jags patch for looking too cluttered you have to hate the Steelers patch too)

I dislike all chest patches/wordmarks.

[Gothamite]

6 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

I don’t get why people seem to hate anything Nike does because it’s too ‘complicated’. I don’t get the hate. I love that kind of stuff and don’t understand what is wrong with them. Sure sometimes they look bad but sometimes it feels like people hate them simply because Nike.

 

If that's what you think the problem is, then you really don't understand at all.

 

I think you may have better luck responding to individual comments when you find them, rather than creating a new thread to tilt at ridiculous straw men.

[Dboi2001]

2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If that's what you think the problem is, then you really don't understand at all.

 

I think you may have better luck responding to individual comments when you find them, rather than creating a new thread to tilt at ridiculous straw men.

Then what is the problem? Everyone trashes the Seahawks and even say they should go back to their terrible 80s uniforms with the worst logo in pro sports. Like people claim the green on the sleeves is there solely for the Nike logo but it’s based on Native American tribal totems. Then what is the issue? Meanwhile they blindly accept simple uniforms like the jags new ones, the niners and Bills ignoring all their problems

 

please explain to me what is wrong with say the Jaguars old set. What is so awful about it and how you would fix it personally  

[DTConcepts]

People tend to stay with what they know, and what people know is the more classically-styled uniforms from the 80s and beforehand.

 

Also, a lot of teams get "unique" confused with "gimmicky." People love the Arizona Coyotes inaugural uniforms because they were unique and just looked good, whereas they dislike the New York Islanders "fishsticks" uniforms because the only reason they were created was to sell more merchandise.

[C-Squared]

21 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Id like some real criticisms to why the titans and jags old uniforms were bad and not ‘owe of course they’re bad just look at those sword and :censored:’ I want legitimate criticisms and it has to be consistent (example if you hate the jags patch for looking too cluttered you have to hate the Steelers patch too)

 

I'm new here. Explain yourselves.

[BrandMooreArt]

well, even here, you have people on all sides of every issue. nothing is so black and white that everyone loves something new or old or whatever. but generally, the majority of people will resist change; at least at first. i think asking everyone to express their thoughts and feelings in a well laid out design critique is a bit unfair, though. i mean, im not a plumber; all i can do is tell you my faucet leaks, you know?

 

just speaking to the Titans for now, i disagree that any of the elements actually look appealing but moreover there is a lack of consistency in the shapes and how they're used in every piece of the uniform. each sword element is a variation on the idea and that ends up looking chaotic and the peices (helmet, jersye, pants) have a lack of visual unity— the shapes divide the uniform instead of tying it together. this was the major issue with the previous uniform as well.

 

theres also a practical element here where the numbers are probably going to be hard to read because they're so wide they curve around the players body a bit, and because they're so. . . unique? they're more an expression of "swords" or whatever than they are actual numbers. theres this sense of some kind of "brand story" being told in all the details yet its like different people worked on all of those details without consulting with one another. personally, i think the uniform lacks taste— i love a sating helmet shell and like the metallic facemask as an option but put them together? i think thats the tackiest ive ever seen and theres nothing "professional" about the way that looks. and NFL players can be near 40 years old, you have to think about how these apply to grown men with some gray hairs as well. if Adam Vinatieri played for the Titans, i think he'd look ridiculous. 

 

if there is intent to make the uniforms short-lived and have a constant change, trendy, experimental uniforms can work. it works great for Oregon because they keep changing. but theres something to be said for longevity and timeless (or as close as you can get to it) design. i just saw a picture of the 49ers as i write this and you know what, that uniform looks freaking great. the colors, helmet finish, logos, numbers, every detail about that is beautiful and it has nothing to do with Montana, Rice, or 5 Super Bowl victories. there is an approach and philosophy to that uniform that just works perfectly, so when the Titans break all of those rules and try so hard to do something unique and original? it shows. and i am not at all against new ideas, but you have to execute them well and have some sort of taste. Nike and NFL teams are struggling with that right now. but for what its worth? i really like Jacksonville. but thats for another time

 

"when you're young, you just want to break the box but as you get older you realize, that was a pretty good box" — Steven Heller, designer.

[Brown1]

1 hour ago, Dboi2001 said:

Then what is the problem? Everyone trashes the Seahawks and even say they should go back to their terrible 80s uniforms with the worst logo in pro sports. Like people claim the green on the sleeves is there solely for the Nike logo but it’s based on Native American tribal totems. Then what is the issue? Meanwhile they blindly accept simple uniforms like the jags new ones, the niners and Bills ignoring all their problems

 

please explain to me what is wrong with say the Jaguars old set. What is so awful about it and how you would fix it personally  

“Please justify my opinions and explain to me why other people wouldn’t express the same opinions I do. Everyone must have bad taste.”

 

Simple answer here is you’d be the problem.

[SSmith48]

From what I can tell, the problem isn't necessarily a uniform being "unique", it's more or less the problem that Nike tries to cram too much symbolism into a uniform that already has too much going on. Many of us here like simplicity; we want something that has visual appeal without the gimmicks. 

 

"Nike-speak" does get a bad rep, but I have no problem with symbolism and imagery in uniforms, as long as said uniform is more simple and clean. The Titans packed WAY too many things into a cluttered uniform, but say the Dolphins and Jags were simpler and cleaner. Does this necessarily mean that they are perfect? No, not at all. I think that the Jags may be too generic. But most of the positive feedback about them is for the elimination of the dual-tone helmet of the previous set. 

 

I think that someone's preference comes down to you. I think that sometimes people love nostalgia because they were more familiar with that era. But, I would like to here what you think. The site shouldn't discriminate against someone who likes a particular set. Not everyone thinks the same, so don't feel angry or alienated that other people think a certain way. Just know that some people like things you don't Just make sure to have fun on the boards and engage in healthy discussion.

[nuordr]

2 hours ago, Dboi2001 said:

Then what is the problem? Everyone trashes the Seahawks and even say they should go back to their terrible 80s uniforms with the worst logo in pro sports. Like people claim the green on the sleeves is there solely for the Nike logo but it’s based on Native American tribal totems. Then what is the issue? Meanwhile they blindly accept simple uniforms like the jags new ones, the niners and Bills ignoring all their problems

 

please explain to me what is wrong with say the Jaguars old set. What is so awful about it and how you would fix it personally  

Worst Logo? Really? These two logos are 1000x worse than the original Seahawks logo: 

 

[henburg]

2 hours ago, Zeus89725 said:

Also, a lot of teams get "unique" confused with "gimmicky." People love the Arizona Coyotes inaugural uniforms because they were unique and just looked good, whereas they dislike the New York Islanders "fishsticks" uniforms because the only reason they were created was to sell more merchandise.

 

1 hour ago, SSmith48 said:

From what I can tell, the problem isn't necessarily a uniform being "unique", it's more or less the problem that Nike tries to cram too much symbolism into a uniform that already has too much going on. Many of us here like simplicity; we want something that has visual appeal without the gimmicks. 

 

But what's really the difference between a "gimmick" vs. a unique design trait? I feel like people sometimes call something new a gimmick when really it's really just something that hasn't been used in a sports uniform before. For example, there was a large debate in one of the Nike NFL threads that any number font outside of block was gimmicky. Even in your own example of the Coyotes vs. the Islanders, I don't see much difference between the two except for the fact that the Coyotes' designs were executed more successfully. 

[Dboi2001]

18 minutes ago, nuordr said:

Worst Logo? Really? These two logos are 1000x worse than the original Seahawks logo: 

 

Those are bland but not bad. You can’t tlel me they’re worse than this thing 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

2 hours ago, Dboi2001 said:

Then what is the problem? Everyone trashes the Seahawks and even say they should go back to their terrible 80s uniforms with the worst logo in pro sports. Like people claim the green on the sleeves is there solely for the Nike logo but it’s based on Native American tribal totems. Then what is the issue? Meanwhile they blindly accept simple uniforms like the jags new ones, the niners and Bills ignoring all their problems

 

please explain to me what is wrong with say the Jaguars old set. What is so awful about it and how you would fix it personally  

 

Point 1: The Seahawks uniforms of the 80's and 90's were glorious and thoroughly unique. Using a logo that far more closely evoked indigenous aesthetics they also had a wrap around helmet logo and wrap around sleeve details. Those were quite unique. 

Point 2: It doesn't matter where Nike culled the design for green sleeve detail, its what it's used for and we get a really clear idea of what it's for based on how the design is used elsewhere in the uniform. Only on the home jersey (which is also the most common one sold to fans) does that patch contrast with the front and rear stripes. Only on that jerseys is it the more vibrant green as opposed to a more neutral grey or dark blue. It isn't even the same form as the design on the Haida design on the pants which has much more negative space. So it doesn't match with the Haida design anywhere else in the uniform except on the home uniform in a way that stands out beyond anything else. 

 

Point 3: The Jaguars old set had a myriad of problems. Most of them related to Nike's ongoing problem of putting too much into the uniform and not giving what does work enough space to stand out. 

 

            Helmet: The two tone color scheme looked horrible, it seemed to have no definite reason for being marked the way it was. The two different finishes (flat black and flecked shiny gold) just made it infinitely worse.

 

            Jersey: The least terrible feature but had too many features in the contrasting sleeves, three color numbers, truncated stripes, and alternate finish shoulder designs. The should bits were not too noticeable but seemed to serve absolutely no purpose. 

            Pants: The wide patch was a bad idea and the angled stripes which differed at the top and bottom doesn't blend well with anything else in the uniform while looking awkward and disjointed. Just connect one end to the top or bottom of the pants, and straighten the other colors out and it might have been tolerable. 

 

            Overall: All of this adds up. Any one feature on its own could be easily tweaked to look serviceable in its own right but nothing can be looked at in isolation. A uniform is a complete set and not just the individual pieces. Too many disjointed pieces across the design makes it wayyyyy to cluttered and that's before its topped by the worst helmet in NFL history. 
 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

The original Seahawks logo evokes local Haida imagery much more precisely that any of the pants and sleeve details in the current set.

 

Indeed much better than any logo currently available in the 4 major leagues.

[Dboi2001]

2 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

well, even here, you have people on all sides of every issue. nothing is so black and white that everyone loves something new or old or whatever. but generally, the majority of people will resist change; at least at first. i think asking everyone to express their thoughts and feelings in a well laid out design critique is a bit unfair, though. i mean, im not a plumber; all i can do is tell you my faucet leaks, you know?

 

just speaking to the Titans for now, i disagree that any of the elements actually look appealing but moreover there is a lack of consistency in the shapes and how they're used in every piece of the uniform. each sword element is a variation on the idea and that ends up looking chaotic and the peices (helmet, jersye, pants) have a lack of visual unity— the shapes divide the uniform instead of tying it together. this was the major issue with the previous uniform as well.

 

theres also a practical element here where the numbers are probably going to be hard to read because they're so wide they curve around the players body a bit, and because they're so. . . unique? they're more an expression of "swords" or whatever than they are actual numbers. theres this sense of some kind of "brand story" being told in all the details yet its like different people worked on all of those details without consulting with one another. personally, i think the uniform lacks taste— i love a sating helmet shell and like the metallic facemask as an option but put them together? i think thats the tackiest ive ever seen and theres nothing "professional" about the way that looks. and NFL players can be near 40 years old, you have to think about how these apply to grown men with some gray hairs as well. if Adam Vinatieri played for the Titans, i think he'd look ridiculous. 

 

if there is intent to make the uniforms short-lived and have a constant change, trendy, experimental uniforms can work. it works great for Oregon because they keep changing. but theres something to be said for longevity and timeless (or as close as you can get to it) design. i just saw a picture of the 49ers as i write this and you know what, that uniform looks freaking great. the colors, helmet finish, logos, numbers, every detail about that is beautiful and it has nothing to do with Montana, Rice, or 5 Super Bowl victories. there is an approach and philosophy to that uniform that just works perfectly, so when the Titans break all of those rules and try so hard to do something unique and original? it shows. and i am not at all against new ideas, but you have to execute them well and have some sort of taste. Nike and NFL teams are struggling with that right now. but for what its worth? i really like Jacksonville. but thats for another time

 

"when you're young, you just want to break the box but as you get older you realize, that was a pretty good box" — Steven Heller, designer.

But see that’s the problem. Anything unique is ‘gimmicky’ and pointless. Why can’t the titans have giant swords on their sleeves? What’s the difference between ‘unique’ and ‘gimmick’? 

 

What makes the 49ers uniforms look good to you? I don’t get it they’re just so plain. Imo you just come off as wanting every uniform set to be as plain and generic as possible. Outside of the niners helmets there is nothing special and their pants are hideous. They literally look like the color of an old person’s car and of course the ugly gray facemask. They could really use some gold trim on the numbers because they’re just so hard to see. The shade of red is inconsistent between the logo, pants and jerseys. And of course they have a wordmark on the chest which I HATE wordmarks. They just don’t fit in the modern age AT ALL. Another one is the cowboys with their sea foam green pants and mismatched blue. Looking back on older players like Troy Aikmen or Joe Motana they look better on the worse quality cameras compared to now in HD.  Just because it’s old doesn’t make it good

 

Name me one uniform set that is crazy, wild and unique but good in your eyes

[Carolingian Steamroller]

3 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Name me one uniform set that is crazy, wild and unique but good in your eyes

 

The 1976 White Sox

 

 

[Gothamite]

13 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

Those are bland but not bad. You can’t tlel me they’re worse than this thing 

 

 

I'm sorry, that's mean.  But I couldn't resist.   

 

Yes, I absolutely can tell you that..

 

The original Seahawks logo is a fitting tribute to the First Nations history of the Pacific Northwest.  It's a good logo, with local relevance, well rendered in a unique and fitting color scheme.

 

[Dboi2001]

12 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

Point 1: The Seahawks uniforms of the 80's and 90's were glorious and thoroughly unique. Using a logo that far more closely evoked indigenous aesthetics they also had a wrap around helmet logo and wrap around sleeve details. Those were quite unique. 

Point 2: It doesn't matter where Nike culled the design for green sleeve detail, its what it's used for and we get a really clear idea of what it's for based on how the design is used elsewhere in the uniform. Only on the home jersey (which is also the most common one sold to fans) does that patch contrast with the front and rear stripes. Only on that jerseys is it the more vibrant green as opposed to a more neutral grey or dark blue. It isn't even the same form as the design on the Haida design on the pants which has much more negative space. So it doesn't match with the Haida design anywhere else in the uniform except on the home uniform in a way that stands out beyond anything else. 

 

Point 3: The Jaguars old set had a myriad of problems. Most of them related to Nike's ongoing problem of putting too much into the uniform and not giving what does work enough space to stand out. 

 

            Helmet: The two tone color scheme looked horrible, it seemed to have no definite reason for being marked the way it was. The two different finishes (flat black and flecked shiny gold) just made it infinitely worse.

 

            Jersey: The least terrible feature but had too many features in the contrasting sleeves, three color numbers, truncated stripes, and alternate finish shoulder designs. The should bits were not too noticeable but seemed to serve absolutely no purpose. 

            Pants: The wide patch was a bad idea and the angled stripes which differed at the top and bottom doesn't blend well with anything else in the uniform while looking awkward and disjointed. Just connect one end to the top or bottom of the pants, and straighten the other colors out and it might have been tolerable. 

 

            Overall: All of this adds up. Any one feature on its own could be easily tweaked to look serviceable in its own right but nothing can be looked at in isolation. A uniform is a complete set and not just the individual pieces. Too many disjointed pieces across the design makes it wayyyyy to cluttered and that's before its topped by the worst helmet in NFL history. 
 

1. No they weren’t. They were hideous. Why do people love the silver helmet of the Seahawks, a team that barely uses silver, but hate the silver helmet of the patriots, a team that barely uses silver? See this nolstagia bias is ridiculous why do you think old=perfect and new=bad?

 

2. It just looks better with the green patch on the navy than on white. Seriously could you drop this ridiculous crusade against Nike? It isn’t hurting anyone nor is it taking away form the designs. Nike isn’t even the first to do this someone posted a picture of when Wilson and Adadis produced the jerseys and they were even more blantant. Hell colleges put the brands on the form of the uniforms, sometime in the center (looking at you Louisville). You must really hate soccer jerseys

 

3. The pieces do go together. The piping in the side matches the sleeve caps. Again why do you want every nfl jersey to be bland and homogenous? Clearly the nil should just remove color and have every team wear white and black clearly that would satisfy you because colors are just superfluous. This is the nfl and we need to be as serious as possible 

[Dboi2001]

4 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

The 1976 White Sox

 

 

How are those crazy they’re literally designed to look super old school?

[SFGiants58]

7 minutes ago, Dboi2001 said:

 

Name me one uniform set that is crazy, wild and unique but good in your eyes

 

1 minute ago, Dboi2001 said:

1. No they weren’t. They were hideous. Why do people love the silver helmet of the Seahawks, a team that barely uses silver, but hate the silver helmet of the patriots, a team that barely uses silver? See this nolstagia bias is ridiculous why do you think old=perfect and new=bad?

 

I can smell the confirmation bias oozing off of your soul.