Jump to content

jws008

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jws008

  1. Two other examples, IMHO, on how winning reflects on uniforms: 1. The classic Jets uniform would be much less loved if Namath and company had not won Super Bowl III in them. [An aside: One of the best Dave Barry lines ever is that "The American Revolution is the greatest event in American history, with the exception of Super Bowl III (Jets 16, Colts 7, this historian won $20)."] 2. The Steelers helmet would have a logo on both sides by now without the Super Bowl wins (it's also possible that they would have decided to ditch that logo completely by now). I await the "you're wrong!" responses.
  2. I like this set a lot. Do I think they need two alternative/color rush sets? No, but I understand the difficulty in narrowing it down to one (both are good designs IMHO). Am I happy about the number font? Not in particular, but I could see them wanting an italic to emulate the angles we often see bolts drawn with (including in their word mark). I think they really attempted to combine a lot of elements from their uniform history: Numbers on the helmets and powder blue from the AFL days into the 70s. Yellow pants and royal blue from the late 70s and early 80s sets. Navy from their more recent history. And I like the return of more "normal" (for the Chargers) shoulder bolts and the consistency of the layout of the bolts on the pants. Overall, a 9.75 out of 10 (which says a lot, I don't think I'd give any current NFL uniform a 10/10).
  3. I'm glad the pant stripes were incorrect on the initial photos. The corrected stripes are much better and consistent with the uniform design. But my overall reaction remains: meh. I mean it's nice that the side panels are gone, but this still seems like a pretty basic change. I guess it accomplished their goal, if the Patriots basic goal was "We're going to tweak our existing set". On the other hand, if their goal was "We're going to introduce a new Patriots (post-Brady) era", I think these are way underwhelming. (And that, of course, brings to my somewhat warped mind the following thought, "What is a whelm? And how do you know if you're over or under one?")
  4. Agree on the number font, but I'd keep the sublimated stripes as something unique to the Pats. As I said many pages back, I think those were a highly underrated (and unique for that matter) part of this set.
  5. What is surprising to me is the contradictions in the new set: It seems that there was a big effort to simplify: block numbers instead of a custom font, removing the side panels, keeping the helmet as/is. But there was also a "modernize" effort: eliminate the shoulder numbers, one set of pants resulting in a mono-navy home set. I pretty much feel the same way about this set as I did about the last one: meh. Or in a few more words: they're OK; but there's nothing (besides winning) that makes them a top 10 in the league uniform either.
  6. From the end of the story on the Pats' website: "Several other NFL teams changed their uniforms ahead of the 2020 season, and while there was speculation that the Patriots change might revive the popular red uniforms of previous decades, a current NFL uniform rule makes it impossible to wear the red throwbacks while respecting the integrity of that uniform. NFL rules state that teams can only use one helmet for the season, and silver helmets have come to represent the modern era of the New England Patriots. A silver helmet with the "Flying Elvis" logo just doesn't work with the red uniforms, which, of course, feature a white helmet with the iconic "Pat Patriot" logo. Ferron did leave the door open that, if the NFL ever changed the rule to allow more than one helmet per season, the red uniforms could certainly make a comeback as the team's alternate. 'Our primary uniforms in the modern era have been blue and white and they will remain so,' Ferron said. 'We recognize that fans also have an affinity for the red 'throwback' uniform and we hope to incorporate that into our uniform rotation in the future.'"
  7. This remains the reason why I'm really afraid that they put the whole LA horn logo on the helmet. Which, if they did it, would make the gradient Falcons jersey look like Yankees' pinstripes.
  8. I wonder if what was really required was something on the shoulders -- meaning not necessarily numbers, but that numbers or stripes were required because the shoulders aren't permitted to be blank. Or, as someone else has already pointed out, it's just that the rules don't apply to New England (as usual, cried roughly 98% of the non-NE fans).
  9. Discussing the various ways national announcers pronounce "Hoomanawanui'? Or waiting for the head coach to say, "On to the new uniforms"?
  10. Well, I don't think that's really the opinion of most traditionalists on this board; and you're kind of making my point for me: I don't get that impression from any "traditionalist" who regularly posts here; in fact, I think 99% of the folks you might label as traditionalist would find the whole uniform discussion boring if every team used block fonts, grey facemarks, and traditional shoulder and sleeve stripes. (And yes, that was mostly a cheap joke on the Jets new set).
  11. Wait?!?! The Browns once wore orange pants? Next thing you'll try to convince me that the Pepsi can design hasn't always been the exact same thing. (This is what happens when I read through ten pages of this thread rapidly after having a little too much caffeine in the morning).
  12. I have two simple responses: 1. Being called a "traditionalist" on this board is like the whole "OK, boomer" thing on the inter webs -- meaning it's a way to react negative to someone's opinion without any real evidence behind your counterpoint (other than "old" automatically = "bad"). 2. If the Jets new set is so peak uniform, why did the Saskatchewan Roughriders ever change away from it in the first place?
  13. Overall, this is a solid return to normal, so to speak. I'd have liked them to be more inventive with the alternative set (not necessarily more "out there"). I mean a simple fix, if you wanted to keep the color rush "feel", would be to swap the brown for white, but stick with the orange numbers and add minimal striping. And I think orange pants will come, sooner or later.
  14. And, again, if the NFL had a will to do this, irregardless of whether we're discussing socks or undershirts or chin straps; they'd negotiate such a rule with the NFLPA, and then enforce whatever rule was in place.
  15. And, again, if you wanted to enforce it, you would keep escalating the fines (and penalties). I think if a player was facing losing, oh 1/4 their annual salary or having to wear their socks right (or wear the undershirt that's part of their team's uniform), the decision to follow the rule would become easy. And it doesn't even have to be fines; for example, just inform the head coach that each of his players with incorrect socks is ineligible to play in the game until their uniform conforms with the rules. It still goes back to the idea that if there were a will by the NFL to enforce the rules; the rules would be followed.
  16. I've seen the "ATL", and the Jets "New York", and the "Cleveland" on the Browns outgoing set, and it always seems "unprofessional" to me -- for years you only saw this on high school and college uniforms. I kind of liked that "unofficial" designation, that a place name across the chest was a no-no for pro teams. Weirdly, I've never been too bothered by team nicknames being in the same spot (as long as it's not large); and I've grown to accept the Giants "NY" logo being there, too (I'd hate it if they spelled out "New York", though). I have no real "defense" for feeling this way; but it's one tradition I'd still like to see the NFL stick with.
  17. This is really my whole argument against the idea of a team's uniform requiring an undershirt (and putting sleeve patterns and stripes on that); there is no real reason that the NFL couldn't do it. Heck, there's no reason a team couldn't opt to do it. As long as the league has the will to enforce it, it could be done. I mean, if I were a team owner and that kind of design was chosen as our uniform, my response to players who complained would be, "That's our uniform; you're being paid handsomely to wear it (among other things)." If there's a rule, or just a will, you can enforce it.
  18. And as another member of Gen X, let me remind you that the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were all decades ago. Heck, that was last century! You and I are both getting old, though I hold out hope we're still aging gracefully.
  19. I remember Parcells being quoted when the "old" uniforms first returned that the team now "looked like the Jets again." That will also be true whenever that look returns, too.
  20. Well, if you blend the white with the black swoosh, I believe you'll get grey. Or, just skip cleaning the uniforms for a week or two...
  21. Actually, if this were done, I think the NFL "uniform police" would at least attempt to enforce the wearing of the undershirt. I mean if they can fine people for the other things they do, there's no reason they couldn't attempt to enforce wearing an undershirt.
  22. "Tweak" I think is the right word for this. Like most of it, but I agree with the worry about Black alts coming at some point. I see what they were going for with the C, but think the execution of that idea could have been better. With those two concerns, I call it an A- to B+; while also realizing that half of the football fans out there will not notice any changes.
  23. Well, I think it was more along the lines of “Hey, there are some soccer uniforms that have done this” (and there were at the time), so “Let’s try this on a football jersey”. And IMHO, it did look cool.
  24. You actually know that that’s not completely true about the Yankees, right? Babe Ruth, other than in appearances after he was retired, never wore a Yankee jersey with the NY insignia on it. His Yankee home uniforms just were plain pinstripes. And the road set varied during his playing career, too: having either “New York” or “Yankees” across the front. (This is one of my favorite pieces of both uniform and sports trivia).
  25. After a few days, I’ve really come to these main conclusions on the Falcons new set: 1. As a set it has way too many options, especially if you swap around socks (and you know they will). 2. There is a good, maybe even slightly above-average set to be found in these combinations. I still think if they had limited themselves to black over white at home, white over black on the road, and the throwback (and never went monochrome), it’s right in the middle of NFL uniform sets. 3. Besides the gradient, going mono for both home (black) and road (white) Is awful, turning them into a team following the trend of the Saints, their division rivals (I don’t mind it for the Saints as it seems to be the Saints thing, but other teams shouldn’t imitate them - I’d feel the same way if another team put a logo on only one side of their helmet, that is a Steelers thing). 4. I think the Falcons will, at some point in the next three seasons become the first team to wear a different uniform combination for each game in the season (they can do it with this set, as long as you swap around socks). This is also not a good thing. I guess to sum it up, it’s not a great design (gradient, not a great font, too many options); nor do I believe they will show restraint in using their mix and match combinations (starting with the “default” mono-looks). Lastly, I shudder at the idea that the next team that builds on these ideas will be even worse — here’s a mix and match set with 8 basic combinations and multiple gradient uniforms featuring another awful custom font (and it’s possible that could be the Rams within a few weeks).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.