Jump to content

TheOldRoman

Members
  • Posts

    12,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by TheOldRoman

  1. On 2/16/2020 at 3:59 PM, VDizzle12 said:

     

    A template of a helmet that's been banned by the NFL is just plain dumb. I've refused to buy any Browns gear with the helmet on it since 1999 and I'm not the only fan that feels this way. Have to think their apparel sales would spike if they made a change. I'm shocked the NFL and/or Nike didn't force them to do something.

     

    There are a few reasons for that template fro the helmets. First off, it's a classic football helmet look. It's what helmets "should" look like, but can't anymore because of the safety regulations. But also, these new helmets are highly branded. Much like Nike designs proprietary uniform templates in part to promote Nike, helmet manufacturers come up with the designs to be unique and instantly identifiable. Kids watching want to wear helmet X because they see it's what JJ Watt wears. Youth coaches might buy helmet Y because he sees Mahomes wearing it. One of these manufacturers could easily make a helmet which looked closer to the logo template, but then they're not instantly recognizable to the brand. Regardless, it makes more sense to me to use a classic template of what a helmet should look like, rather than a dated current helmet template which maybe 1/4 of the players wear, which would have to be changed in a few years as helmets advance and that particular helmet is no longer around. But yes, get a damn primary logo.

     

    On 2/20/2020 at 12:40 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

     

    That number font has to go.  It's a mess;

     

    spacer.png

     

    That stupid angle at the end of the vertical terminators? And the corresponding angle on the turns of the middle horizontals? WFT? Makes the numbers look like they were improperly sewn on. As usual, a simple traditional block would be, by far, the best choice for a team like the browns.

     

    Can't say enough about how horrible this recent Nike trend of slightly modified blockish numbers is. More than looking improperly sewn on, they look like numbers you see on the worst counterfeit jerseys. You have some counterfeits that try to replicate the font, and then you have some that look like someone applied masking tape to a t-shirt to make numbers for intramural basketball. These look like the latter. 

  2. 3 minutes ago, dont care said:

    How’s that different than the current logo of just a helmet

     

    Because the current logo is literally just a Brown helmet, not a logo designed to be a replacement for the primary logo. But aside from that, I'm not arguing that the helmet logo is good as the primary for an NFL team. I want them to get a real primary which doesn't suck.

  3. 1 hour ago, dont care said:

    I think you can easily tell they aren’t eyes from the fact that no body has eyes where their cheek bones are, or half way down their nose.

     

    Regardless, it's not a particularly good or inspired logo. It's meaningless to the Cleveland Browns. It looks like it could be a team logo from an unlicensed NES game that was used for every team with the colors changed each time.

  4. On 2/14/2020 at 11:09 AM, AndrewMLind said:

    I grew up with the Falcons wearing black helmets, so I hope that continues to be the case with their new uniforms. I will say, however, I would be more than okay if they went with that color-shifting (New York Jets-style) shade of red — but with a black facemask. It's when you get into the plastic-looking red that I don't personally care for (a la the Georgia Bulldogs or Kansas City Chiefs).

     

    This would be the worst thing they could do, Instead of using black or red, it would be using a color-shifting red which never actually matches any color on the uniforms. This is the biggest flaw with the new Jets uniforms. It might look cool as a concept or a replica helmet for fans to buy, but it looks bad as part of a uniform.

  5. The B football is a horrendous logo. Absolutely terrible. Looks like an amateur logo that every third dude on this website makes for his fantasy team. Reasons it sucks:

    1. It has a B instead of a C. A team monogram should always be the letter(s) of the city.

    2. The actual rendering is terrible. The white stroke around the B is very thin, compared to the thick white space on the ends of the stripe near the football. Also, the stripes being truncated on that angle looks terrible next to the football which follows the same course, but is slightly rounded.

    3. That striping pattern is irrelevant to the Cleveland Browns. Yes, they used it here and there for a few awful seasons, but their traditional striping pattern is a brown stripe surrounded by orange, which stands out for them because most teams use the darker stripe on the outside. Using that pattern would actually be meaningful to them, but still wouldn't make a good logo. It would be like the Steelers designing a logo around their sleeve stripes.

     

    You could make good arguments that they should use the elf or even the mastiff logo, but the B logo is just awful. Seriously, just come up with some kind of stylized C and call it a day. Bring back the '80s uniforms and leave the logo off of them entirely.

  6. 13 hours ago, McCarthy said:

     

    Unique? Their home uniforms are nearly the exact same as the White Sox. Strong? They use a whispy thin font with an inline that makes it appear even thinner. They're named after mountains, their font should be bolder or BOULDER. Get it!? Timeless? I don't know if there's a team in MLB who looks more "1993" than the Rockies. Maybe the Mariners. 

     

    My thing with the Rockies is that they're the only team that uses purple and they could stand out with that color with purple hats, purple numbers, etc. They sort of get this right with their road uniforms and their purple alternates help, but their white home uniforms are predominantly black and silver and the only purple items on the uniform - the purple pinstripes, read as black from a distance greater than 5 feet. They look like the White Sox, always have, and there's no good reason for that to be the case. Also the black vests still look silly 12 years after 2007. 

     

     

     

    I second all of this. What's worse than the silver in-lines is that they have big bold numbers on the jersey front below them. Having thick black numbers below the wordmark draws more attention from it and makes it almost disappear.

     

    I like that the Rockies have more or less kept things the same, other than adding alts and changing the roads. But they need to clean things up. First thing - bolder font for the wordmark. Then purple hat fulltime, home wordmark/numbers changed to purple with a thick black outline. Heck, they could even do purple letters with a black inline and a silver outline at home/white on the road. It would keep the spirit of the original look, but the black would disappear from a distance. Also, maybe experiment with slightly thicker pinstripes, because they currently look black from any distance.

  7. On 7/10/2019 at 3:33 PM, Gothamite said:

     

    So much better for the Yanks.

     

    I disagree. I really like the standard MLB block, but it doesn't work for all teams. Particularly, it doesn't look right when it's in single color (although it's greatly improved by teams going with the wider version, which is essentially a same-colored outline). The Dodgers need to switch to the thicker version. Anyway, I think that the standard block in single color gets lost on the Yankees jersey. Their varsity block is bolder and a much better choice, particularly with no names competing for space on the back of the jerseys.

  8. 1 hour ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

    now add yellow pants as an option with this helmet and top, and you're really cooking 

     

    Pairing yellow pants with a white helmet takes this from being pretty good for a modern uniform to looking like a high school team.

  9. 1 hour ago, insert name said:

    The Chargers have never looked better. 

     

    Literally every uniform they wore prior to 2007 was better than this. They finally went back to the correct color (for about 6 games a year), but let's not get carried away. These still suck.

  10. On 3/13/2019 at 11:14 AM, DeFrank said:

     

    This is the same flawed logic that says the Jaguars can't have uniforms as simple as the Raiders. 

     

    The Jets will only be a team that doesn't have an "NY" logo that's existed for more than a half century as long as they don't commit to an "NY" logo for more than a half century.

     

    The Jaguars could have uniforms as simple as the Raiders provided they were actually good. The Raiders have a great design. They have helmets with stripes matching their pants. The home jersey is in in their primary color and the white jersey has a secondary color outline. The Jaguars primary jerseys are completely devoid of their primary color (or at least their former primary color which is great, unique, and which the fans have been clamoring for). They are also devoid of their tertiary color. And also any stripes other than the thick cuff which shows up on some jerseys and the nonsensical color block on the back of the legs. Same with the road jerseys - just white with black. And they don't even have helmets in the unique primary color to offset it. So, the Jags could go simpler than their classic inaugural set, sure. They could make good jerseys which incorporate all their of their colors, keeping a unique and bold combo. But instead, they said "give me Penn State, but in black."

  11. On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 6:22 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

    2.  Orioles should be primarily orange with black trim, and the Giants should be primarily black with orange trim.  Any Orioles jersey with a black script gets a downvote from me.

     

    Yeah like I said, I think that jersey is wrong for the Orioles considering that's the Giants' thing. But I still think it's the best look the Orioles have had. Using that piping on the current homes and replacing the crappy Maryland patch with the bird would go a long way to improving the current set.

  12. Those Padres concepts a few pages back are bad. Stay as far away from brown pinstripes as possible. Also, adding a detached yellow outline against yellow numbers is bad. Hopefully the Padres keep things simple and as close to the 1969 jerseys as possible.

     

    My favorite Orioles' jerseys are still the '90s homes. Maybe it's because that's when I started watching baseball and that's what Ripken wore when be broke the record. But the black wordmark, the headspoon piping. Just so damn good. I realize it was wrong for them to use black outlines in orange (that's a Giants thing), but to me, it still looks the best. 

     

    cal-ripken-jr-of-the-baltimore-orioles-h

  13.  

    On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:24 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

     

    Yeah, you'll never convince me that the super-tight jerseys and non-existent sleeves don't have as least as much to do with fashion and aesthetic choice on the part of the players as they do with performance.  If Nike came out with a new jersey cut that was baggy and ended with an elbow length sleeve, even if they showed unimpeachable evidence that it drastically improved performance, players wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. 

     

    I disagree. Much of it is "look good, play good." In high school, we cut slits into our jersey cuffs and tied shoe laces through them so we could have tight sleeves like the pros. But it goes to the pros, too. They want to look like everybody else does. I think if Nike jerked themselves off over a new elbow-length baggy template and got a few top players to buy in, it would be the standard within a few years.

     

    It's less likely to happen because there actually is a functional reason for a football jerseys to be tight. But fashion goes in cycles. Michael Jordan started wearing long shorts, then the entire NBA (along with every college and high school kid) was soon wearing longer shorts. They kept getting longer and the jerseys kept getting baggier, reaching an apex in the early 2000s when Allen Iverson took the court in shorts past his knees with jerseys 3 sizes too big. This was in the awful era or Jncos, Fubu, carpenter jeans, and wide-legged suits with long coats. The Lakers wore lakeshow throwbacks with short shorts about a decade ago, and were so embarrassed by their legs showing that they changed to longer shorts at halftime. But in the last decade, fashion in general changed to tighter clothes for men, and Nike started pushing the fitted jerseys in college for a few years before pros started buying in. Currently, the jerseys are tighter and the shorts have gotten shorter. I don't watch the NBA anymore, but I saw the Lebron James is wearing tighter shorts that stop a few inches above the knee. So maybe in a year or two, players will be mid-thigh shorts and Nike will start pushing ball-hugger shorts John Stockton as their next advancement. 

     

    Anyway, while it probably isn't likely we'll see baggy football jerseys with long sleeves again, I could absolutely see it if Nike starts pushing it and gets a start player to set a trend. Particularly with wide-receivers. I could see a star wearing long sleeves in tribute to Michael Irvin or something, leading to other receivers following suit.

  14.  

    On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 1:30 PM, MattMill said:

    I agree. These and the pirates 1999 era alternates will remain as some of my favorites

    products-DSC_0363-600x600.jpg

    * Photo is of made in China reproduction. 

     

    There's a common theme that works. Grey and black base 90% of the way. Then some sort of bright third or fourth color coloring. 

     

    I don't think a Navy blue or a red would work as that third color. 

     

    The orange with san fran should work. But I don't think it does. So you never know

     

    Those weren't the alts, at least originally. They wore them for all road games when they came out in 97, but I'm pretty sure they stopped wearing them altogether some time in 98. I'm not a Pirates fan, but got that hat as a kid. I still have it. Anyway, I really like gray (and white!) caps. They have a great old-school feel. I would like to see a team go with a white at home and gray on the road, but I don't think we will see it anytime soon. I think if teams use gray or white, it should be the fulltime hat for home/road and there must be a matching helmet.

  15. 4 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

     

    You’ve got it reversed. The outfitter might “suggest” ideas, but it’s the team who “lets” the outfitter execute those ideas (if they like them). If the team wants a royal blue helmet or if they want to add a hint of the growth ring detailing like the originals had, then it shall be. If they said not to touch them at all, then they’re going to remain the same. Simple as that. 

     

    27709464633_d143e92340_b.jpg

     

     

     

    Yes, I know. I was largely being rhetorical. The team makes the ultimate decision. But 1) most teams don't care enough about details to tell Nike to shove it, as the Packers and Panther did; and 2) Nike is going to default to garbage and make the teams push them to tone it down. The above horns aren't are good as the current ones. Colorado Sate used ridged horns before, and they looked okay for them. But considering the Rams have had the same horns for the last 60 years or so, I think they should keep them. Nike is going to default to change the horns just to put their mark on the team. And I think Nike will show them Angelo State's helmet to emphasize "You don't want to do what a small college already did. Let us come up with something that has never been seen before." Hopefully the Rams have enough of a sense of identity to hold strong.

  16. 21 hours ago, Survival79 said:

     

    I'd let it eat cookies in bed.

     

    C2E2AQn.png

     

    Fix the collars, pair those with the current throwback pants, and swap the sleeve/shoulder colors to match the throwbacks. And go with a block font.

     

    Also, I think that we should prepare ourselves for the idea that Nike is going to screw up the horns. There will still be horns, but they will do something bad like make them look more like actual ram horns. Or they'll add white accents or outlines to the horns for no damn reason. As good as that Angelo State helmet looks, there's no way Nike lets them copy a college team which copied them.

  17. On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 7:12 PM, Gothamite said:

    Not if they’re keeping the horns on the shoulders,  That’s the one thing that doesn’t really work on the modern jerseys, but it’s also the one thing the team insists on maintaining.

     

    Nike will probably give them a pointless custom number font, fixing a non-existent “problem”.

     

    See, I was thinking they meant the horns on the helmet were sacred, as that's the one thing the team has had for something like 70 years. I really like the sleeve horns, but I would be fine if they got rid of them as long as the rest of the set was great. The actual template of the StL set would be fine for me with the right colors (and a block font).

     

    In addition to the awful new Nike font, the other great thing they'll ruin will be the pants. It'll be some crap like yellow, white and blue pants to match the jersey. with a weird truncated stripe which curls around like a horn. There's no way these turn out anywhere close to as good as the throwbacks.

  18. On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 8:10 AM, -Akronite- said:

     

    Do we know for sure they wouldn't wear their gold pants, like last Super Bowl? If so, I see your point.

     

    I'd take the Saints in all black over one of the Rams' Frankenstein sets. About a wash with the Pats though, especially if they were matched up with the Chiefs in white.

     

    I assume so. They didn't wear the gold pants at home after the Buccaneers loss. The all black was the home uniform, including in the NFCCG.

     

    8 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

     

    The Saints look great when they stick with gold pants. The black pants are pretty terrible both with the monochrome and the white over black.

     

     

    I disagree there. The Saints haven't had a great look for maybe 30 years, when the pants stripes last matched the helmet stripes. They have had mismatched golds since Reebok took over in 2002, when the pants looked closer to champagne colored. It was particularly apparent with the black jersey and gold numbers. Their SB win came in their best possible combo at the time, but they have looked terrible since Nike took over. They lightened the gold of the helmet to "match" the jerseys and pants, which were switched to a weird beige since Nike refused to make metallic fabrics anymore. Also a product of the Nike change, they have a really awkward number font. Instead of the bold varsity block they used before, Nike created this narrow font that is reminiscent of some of the fonts Nike used on college jerseys last decade. On the front, back and sides, the current numbers look weird and not wide enough. Basically, the whole set is a mess, and the only redeeming thing is that the new Nike template finally did away with the toilet seat collars. I agree with @oldschoolvikings that their unis could be great, but it's going to take a lot of doing.

  19. 35 minutes ago, the admiral said:

    Who is the constituency for navy and yellow besides design guys? Brewers fans pretty clearly just want the old stuff back.

     

    If there ever was a chance of going back to the classic look, the Brewers fans screwed themselves here. From my anecdotal evidence seeing people around Milwaukee a few times and at the Wisconsin state fair last year, Brewers fans bought a whole bunch of the crappy navy BiG hats. I saw maybe 70% royal blue and 30% navy BiG, with literally nobody wearing the official primary hat. Fans I've spoken to have confirmed that's what you see at games. The Brewers' identity is a mess, with the possibility of wearing three different sets of colors on consecutive days. But as long as fans buy the throwbacks and the alts, they have no reason to change anything.

  20. On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 5:45 PM, -Akronite- said:

    The Pats still have trashy duds but the Rams saved this Super Bowl from being atrocious, aesthetically at least.

     

    Rams (TB) - Chiefs or Saints - Chiefs would've been better, but the NFL had other plans. 😁

     

    I was with you until the last sentence. The Saints would have worn black jerseys with their black yoga pants, and that's before you mention the awkwardly shrunken numbers and the washed-out beige serving as gold. That is by far the worst jersey out of those four teams, and one of the worst uniforms in football. The Patriots road set is bad, but it's the Sistine chapel compared to the Saints' home set.

  21. 21 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    If they get rid of the Yankees woven zigzag stripes I'll kick Phil Knight right in the dick.

     

    If they come up with any template besides the typical raglan and set-in sleeves, I'll rip Phil Knight's recently-kicked dick off and shove it down his throat, which will be easy because i'll have already knocked his teeth out.

     

    Well, you've got a year to do forearm exercises and strengthen your dick-ripping hand, because with baseball already going to special occasion jerseys with a manufacturer as un-influential as Majestic, they are probably going to let Nike go wild. I hope MLB does what the NFL did and allows teams to use old templates and materials, but I'm not optimistic about it.

  22. 5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

     

     

    I keep coming back to the originals.

     

    27022151672_1cd196fdbd_b.jpg45256_01_lg.jpg

     

    Yes, those are great. Not a fan of the prototype hat, though. Looks like a '70s trucking company logo. Brown and yellow can look great together, but it's dicey and you walk a reeeeeeal fine line with making it garish. I think with those colors, you need to go as traditional and clean as possible. No pinstripes. Block font. No italics or anything like that. The inaugural set is perfect.

  23. 3 hours ago, jn8 said:

    I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp: Nike doesn’t have full control over the designs of the leagues they have contracts with. They have their influence, but in the end it’s a team decision and if they want to go modern, they’ll go modern, but if they don’t they can just tell Nike’s representatives no and go with a more traditional look. I think a lot of people saw the NBA and over reacted to that. They’re one of the more “urban” and “hip” leagues that chases trends. Baseball is the most traditional sport there is, they won’t suddenly drop classic home and road designations just because Nike pitches the idea to them. Again, Nike isn’t in charge, MLB and the individual teams are. They tell Nike what to do, not the other way around. 

     

    You are partially right. Some teams are going to succumb to Nike and wear ultra-modern, instantly dated crap. The Yankees are sill going to largely look like the Yankees. But this is awful because, more than any other manufacturer, Nike creates proprietary templates which impact the design of the uniform so that any photo of a game is essentially a Nike ad. Like I said, the Yankees are going to look like the Yankees, but what if Nike's template has a triangular neck, gray "hyperCOOL" panels under the arms and behind the knees which help wick sweat 63% faster, and a seam running across the jersey back under which there are no pinstripes? If the league allows it, that's as close to no change as the Yankees will get.

     

    We saw how Adidas destroyed the neck on NHL jerseys. Then Nike took over the NBA and changed the cut of the shorts, shrunk the NOB and removed all striping from the jersey backs. There's a better chance Nike does to the Yankees what it did to the Celtics than what it did to the Packers.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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