2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[IceCap]

The more I think about the uniform/equipment divide the more and more the idea of facemasks being equipment makes sense.

Ehhh, that ship has sailed considering how often helmets are used in the NFL's marketing.

Not really, no. Baseball caps are a huge part of a baseball team's identity and you don't see people freaking out about the undersides of brims not colour coordinating with the rest of the cap. Granted it's not as visible as a facemask on a football helmet but my point is that there's a precedent for not having to match EVERYTHING. Cages on hockey helmets and goalie masks are typically black, silver, or chrome, hockey sticks are whatever colour the manufacturer feels like making that model, baseball gloves are brown or black or grey, and bats are always a natural wood colour or painted a neutral black. So why do we feel the facemasks of a football helmet MUST be a team colour? Grey works fine as a neutral colour, as does black, as the Vikings have proven.

I mean a bright athletic gold mask ala the Redskins' mask sticks out way more to me then the grey mask the Cardinals wear.

[vicfurth]

We seriously are having this argument with the same five knuckleheads?

Yes. Yes we are.

[IceCap]

We seriously are having this argument with the same five knuckleheads?

Yes. Yes we are.

Hi. You're welcome.

Seriously, I'm a bit tired of it myself to be honest, but I have to think that bringing up a more interesting topic would be more helpful then just complaining.

I'll start.

I think the NFL should consider moving the designated space for manufacturer logos to the upper chest on the left, just under the collar. With sleeves getting tighter and smaller designs and designers need all the real estate they can get on the sleeves, whereas the upper breast is empty space anyway, save for the Steelers, Jets, and Jags. In the Jags' case they should probably move their shield logo to the sleeves anyway, and the Steelers and Jets would look better without the logo patches all together.

[BrandMooreArt]

We seriously are having this argument with the same five knuckleheads?

Yes. Yes we are.

I'll start.

I think the NFL should consider moving the designated space for manufacturer logos to the upper chest on the left, just under the collar. With sleeves getting tighter and smaller designs and designers need all the real estate they can get on the sleeves, whereas the upper breast is empty space anyway, save for the Steelers, Jets, and Jags. In the Jags' case they should probably move their shield logo to the sleeves anyway, and the Steelers and Jets would look better without the logo patches all together.

ive thought about this too. it would be better than the sleeves where you're cramming stripes and logos together, plus give Nike what they want, more visibility. but if we're talking from Nike's perspective, we have to account for the things the NFL wants on the front of the jersey: team wordmark, captains patch, NFL logo, and alternate/commemorative patch. from Nike's point of view cramming all that into the front of the jersey is just as bad. thats why i think the ideal logo placement should be on the back of the collar, ala' Baseball and Hockey jerseys.

but if we take it from the NFL POV, and i get to decide the layout area of the jersey, then i want the manufacturer logo on front chest, and eliminate the captains patches, moving the swoosh to the right chest in place of them. then no more than 1 patch on a jersey at a time. for instance the Steelers couldnt keep their current logo patch and have an "in memory of" or "X Season" patch with it

[oldschoolvikings]

I would prefer it on the back above the NOB also, but I can't imagine Nike would go for that, as that reduces the overall visability quite a bit.

[Bathysphere]

We seriously are having this argument with the same five knuckleheads?

Yes. Yes we are.

I'll start.

I think the NFL should consider moving the designated space for manufacturer logos to the upper chest on the left, just under the collar. With sleeves getting tighter and smaller designs and designers need all the real estate they can get on the sleeves, whereas the upper breast is empty space anyway, save for the Steelers, Jets, and Jags. In the Jags' case they should probably move their shield logo to the sleeves anyway, and the Steelers and Jets would look better without the logo patches all together.

ive thought about this too. it would be better than the sleeves where you're cramming stripes and logos together, plus give Nike what they want, more visibility. but if we're talking from Nike's perspective, we have to account for the things the NFL wants on the front of the jersey: team wordmark, captains patch, NFL logo, and alternate/commemorative patch. from Nike's point of view cramming all that into the front of the jersey is just as bad. thats why i think the ideal logo placement should be on the back of the collar, ala' Baseball and Hockey jerseys.

but if we take it from the NFL POV, and i get to decide the layout area of the jersey, then i want the manufacturer logo on front chest, and eliminate the captains patches, moving the swoosh to the right chest in place of them. then no more than 1 patch on a jersey at a time. for instance the Steelers couldnt keep their current logo patch and have an "in memory of" or "X Season" patch with it

Why not just get rid of auxillary patches (captain, commemorative patches) altogether? These can get really cluttery and arena-y quickly. Save those for the helmet, why not?

The huge red collar completes the arena look, no?

As for conflict with team logo chest patches, it seems they've remedied this in college by simply moving the right-facing swoosh to the right boob.

However, it looks kind of unnatural there and I think that the Jets and Gators would would be better off without their logo patch anyway.

In general, though, the swoosh on the chest kind of looks uneven to me and there are teams like the Jags that do have quite a bit of real estate left there (not to mention that the swoosh is an integral part to the Hawks sleeve design), so if a team can squish it in there comfortably, they may as well should. Leave it up to the teams.

EDIT: Above NOB does sound best. The Cards would have to accommodate, but they don't need that logo there anyway.

[IceCap]

I never got the point of the captain patches in the NFL. They serve a purpose in hockey, I'm not sure that carries over to football.

[GriffinM6]

I never got the point of the captain patches in the NFL. They serve a purpose in hockey, I'm not sure that carries over to football.

I like it. It shows you who the leaders are on the team, and it can even make some players iconic with that patch on their chest.

[BrandMooreArt]

We seriously are having this argument with the same five knuckleheads?

Yes. Yes we are.

I'll start.

I think the NFL should consider moving the designated space for manufacturer logos to the upper chest on the left, just under the collar. With sleeves getting tighter and smaller designs and designers need all the real estate they can get on the sleeves, whereas the upper breast is empty space anyway, save for the Steelers, Jets, and Jags. In the Jags' case they should probably move their shield logo to the sleeves anyway, and the Steelers and Jets would look better without the logo patches all together.

ive thought about this too. it would be better than the sleeves where you're cramming stripes and logos together, plus give Nike what they want, more visibility. but if we're talking from Nike's perspective, we have to account for the things the NFL wants on the front of the jersey: team wordmark, captains patch, NFL logo, and alternate/commemorative patch. from Nike's point of view cramming all that into the front of the jersey is just as bad. thats why i think the ideal logo placement should be on the back of the collar, ala' Baseball and Hockey jerseys.

but if we take it from the NFL POV, and i get to decide the layout area of the jersey, then i want the manufacturer logo on front chest, and eliminate the captains patches, moving the swoosh to the right chest in place of them. then no more than 1 patch on a jersey at a time. for instance the Steelers couldnt keep their current logo patch and have an "in memory of" or "X Season" patch with it

Why not just get rid of auxillary patches (captain, commemorative patches) altogether? These can get really cluttery and arena-y quickly. Save those for the helmet, why not?

The huge red collar completes the arena look, no?

As for conflict with team logo chest patches, it seems they've remedied this in college by simply moving the right-facing swoosh to the right boob.

However, it looks kind of unnatural there and I think that the Jets and Gators would would be better off without their logo patch anyway.

In general, though, the swoosh on the chest kind of looks uneven to me and there are teams like the Jags that do have quite a bit of real estate left there (not to mention that the swoosh is an integral part to the Hawks sleeve design), so if a team can squish it in there comfortably, they may as well should. Leave it up to the teams.

EDIT: Above NOB does sound best. The Cards would have to accommodate, but they don't need that logo there anyway.

well, i like the commemorative jersey patches personally. i dont think it cheapens the look and id rather see them on the jersey than the helmet. i think the helmet is a sort of sacred space and is already cluttered. plus, it adds a bit of variety to a design every now and then. (no, i dont dislike the Texans collar either. its fine)

the NFL designates where the Nike logo goes (why its on the sleeves) but either way you have to allow for those extra patches somehow. teams will want them

yea if we're going for above NOB then the Cards would just lose that logo there

[Bathysphere]

well, i like the commemorative jersey patches personally. i dont think it cheapens the look and id rather see them on the jersey than the helmet. i think the helmet is a sort of sacred space and is already cluttered. plus, it adds a bit of variety to a design every now and then. (no, i dont dislike the Texans collar either. its fine)

the NFL designates where the Nike logo goes (why its on the sleeves) but either way you have to allow for those extra patches somehow. teams will want them

yea if we're going for above NOB then the Cards would just lose that logo there

I do agree that the patches can look good from time to time (I rather liked the HOF patch for some teams last year), though this isn't always the case for me.

Count me as at least one person who didn't like the look Art patch. I thought it was cheap and just created a big, empty hole on the chest.

They only really cheapen the look if they look bad or get too cluttered with anything else (See above: Andre Johnson).

Of course, none of this may even present that big of an an issue in most cases, as it seems the Gators above show that they can get a bit crafty with their patch placement. I'd say, though, if teams really wanted to use a patch like that, I'd rather they save them for one special anniversary night where they wear a nice throwback or something. Either way, though, I just wouldn't mind that much if teams just stopped doing them.

[BrandMooreArt]

well, i like the commemorative jersey patches personally. i dont think it cheapens the look and id rather see them on the jersey than the helmet. i think the helmet is a sort of sacred space and is already cluttered. plus, it adds a bit of variety to a design every now and then. (no, i dont dislike the Texans collar either. its fine)

the NFL designates where the Nike logo goes (why its on the sleeves) but either way you have to allow for those extra patches somehow. teams will want them

yea if we're going for above NOB then the Cards would just lose that logo there

I do agree that the patches can look good from time to time (I rather liked the HOF patch for some teams last year), though this isn't always the case for me.

Count me as at least one person who didn't like the look Art patch. I thought it was cheap and just created a big, empty hole on the chest.

They only really cheapen the look if they look bad or get too cluttered with anything else (See above: Andre Johnson).

Of course, none of this may even present that big of an an issue in most cases, as it seems the Gators above show that they can get a bit crafty with their patch placement. I'd say, though, if teams really wanted to use a patch like that, I'd rather they save them for one special anniversary night where they wear a nice throwback or something. Either way, though, I just wouldn't mind that much if teams just stopped doing them.

i didnt like the Art patch either. its too simple; generic looking. i like patches that are little works of art, detailed and intricate. i totally agree on the one night only thing though. if someone passes and they want to do a patch or sticker for them, then 1 game is enough on the uniform. i could see anniversary patches doing the same. first home opener maybe

[Sport]

I never got the point of the captain patches in the NFL. They serve a purpose in hockey, I'm not sure that carries over to football.

I like it. It shows you who the leaders are on the team, and it can even make some players iconic with that patch on their chest.

The patch is always on the quarterbacks and then like the veteran middle linebacker. We don't need a patch to know that they're a leader.

It's been around for like 5 years. Nobody is "iconic" (one of the most overused words on these boards) because of that captain's patch.

[Gothamite]

Agreed on both counts. Time for that silly patch to go.

[guest23]

I never got the point of the captain patches in the NFL. They serve a purpose in hockey, I'm not sure that carries over to football.

I like it. It shows you who the leaders are on the team, and it can even make some players iconic with that patch on their chest.

The patch is always on the quarterbacks and then like the veteran middle linebacker. We don't need a patch to know that they're a leader.

It's been around for like 5 years. Nobody is "iconic" (one of the most overused words on these boards) because of that captain's patch.

and don't forget about the iconic pink captain's patch

[wonderbread]

ya that captain patch adds nothing, i dont need to be told that tom brady, or peyton manning, or ray lewis are captains of their teams, it's pretty well known

[Bathysphere]

i didnt like the Art patch either. its too simple; generic looking. i like patches that are little works of art, detailed and intricate. i totally agree on the one night only thing though. if someone passes and they want to do a patch or sticker for them, then 1 game is enough on the uniform. i could see anniversary patches doing the same. first home opener maybe

Glad that we agree on something, then

Agreed on both counts. Time for that silly patch to go.

Ditto. If the league is so intent on keeping captain's patches, then they should do it like in hockey and make it a simple "c" that is based on the team's lettering rather than keep tacking on the current, intrusive one with the meaningless star-meter-thing. I would actually be kinda up for that as long as teams kept it subtle, though it would still serve no actual purpose.

[rohlfyboy]

Not sure if it's a uniform change per se, but the Giants DT Marvin Austin has a new facemask design which I haven't seen before.

[andycumbee19]

Not sure if it's a uniform change per se, but the Giants DT Marvin Austin has a new facemask design which I haven't seen before.

Instantly worst in the league. That tops anything else, even Peyton's

[Brave-Bird 08]

Actually kind of neat. Could look good on tailbacks. Give these helmets time...as more and more teams use them (Giants are seemingly always first though).

I mean, I thought the revo-speed looked terrible when it first hit the field. Now it's the standard at the collegiate level.

[LETSGOBLUEBEATMSU]

It's a facemask for the Schutt Vengeance