Carolingian Steamroller

38 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

I don't mind white over white. I do dislike adding a white helmet just to go stormtropper, like the Bengals have done. It's unnecessary. 

 

Unless a team adds a white helmet to make a throwback historically accurate.

So is it not so much the look itself as the marketing surrounding the look?

So does that include this:

or this:

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Somehow I missed this.  Can you list them?

This list has been corrected by @throwmesomepics:

Teams likely to wear black jerseys, black pants, black socks, and a black helmet this season:

Eagles

Jets

Panthers

Falcons

Commanders

Cardinals

Steelers

Ravens 

Jaguars

For comparison, teams likely to wear head to toe white:

Bills

Cowboys

Dolphins

Colts

Cardinals (unconfirmed)

And head to toe Navy Blue

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

Titans

1 hour ago, VDizzle12 said:

All-white is just as bad.

In 1965, half of the AFL's 8 teams wore all white for their away uniform, not counting the Chiefs, Broncos, and Oilers who wore white over white but with non-white helmets.

2 hours ago, throwmesomepics said:

 

And Washington and Carolina too 

That's correct. I forgot about those two. That bumps the number up to 9 out of 32 teams.

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

"Honored to look like a dozen other teams using BFBS. The definition of swaggy."

Last season there were 4 teams with a mono black, including black helmet combination, with the Cardinals/Eagles/Jets adding a black helmet to their mono black sets (NO is not using their black helmet for mono black *at time of record), that number goes up to 7. 

10 minutes ago, Hat Boy said:

 

Miami's current uniform replaced this crappy uniform ("angry cartoon dolphin" logo and amateurish font with muddy drop shadow).

 

This uniform is post-Shula, the last few years of Marino, and was not around in 1972.  Whoever came up with their current design was doing us a favor.

While I think the post-Shula/Marino uniform had merit, it's true that the 2013-2017 uniform did not replace the "classic" Dolphins design. We also forget that that design itself went through a few changes like adding the logo to the sleeves, altering he width of the helmet stripes and changing the pants stripes.

11 minutes ago, Chawls said:

They can just wear the throwback pants with it just has two navy stripes. 
 

Yeah that probably works even better since the jersey doesn't have any silver.

7 minutes ago, nuordr said:

 

From Paul Lukas, 

 

There was a bit of confusion earlier this week when the NFL tweeted a graphic showing all of the new throwback and alternate helmets that had been released so far for this season. The confusing part was that it showed two different white helmet designs for the Cowboys: the standard throwback model with the solid-blue star, the grey facemask, and the blank nose bumper, which the team unveiled last week, and a separate design with the team’s primary outlined-star logo, a white facemask, and a “Cowboys” bumper, which was listed in the Twitter graphic as an alternate.

 

Many fans quickly surmised that the Cowboys planned to use the alternate version with their Color Rush uniform. That uni design has a white jersey, white pants, and white socks, and of course it’s not a throwback, so using the primary logo and a white mask seemed like a logical move.

 

But the Cowboys hadn’t announced anything about that, and I hadn’t heard any chatter about it either. Could the graphic have been wrong? I emailed the Cowboys — no response. I followed up — still no response.

 

Yesterday, however, I was interviewing a league executive about something else and got confirmation: The Cowboys will indeed be wearing both versions of the white helmet this season — one with their throwback uni and one with their CR uni. The league hadn’t initially planned on this when it allowed teams to add a second helmet color, but the Cowboys asked if they could give the white shell two different design treatments. Since the throwback and CR unis are both alternates (which means it’s permissible under league rules for them to be paired with an alternate helmet color), the league said yes.

This is fine. I do wish the center stripe on the Little Giants alternate was silver not white so it would match the pants worn with that set.

46 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

I'd argue that's what they did.

 

 

I prefer the block numbers of the color rush, but the black sleeves with white stripes is silly. I think the stripped down road look is dynamite. 

 

They won this game, by the way. 

That they made it work with the black pants too (white socks!) is the cherry on top.

Also they figured out mid-season that this look is just plain awesome:

1 hour ago, Sport said:

According to President Creamer the helmets are going to be worn with their regular white jerseys. 

Good decision.

The Bengals have a great white jersey look. No need to add a fourth jersey.

Ideally, I would go:

Home: black jersey, white pants w/orange stripes, orange socks

Road (outdoors): white jersey, black pants, white socks

Road (indoors): white jersey, white pants w/black stripes, black socks

Cleveland matchup: white helmet, white jersey, white pants w/black stripes, white socks

Halloween: orange jersey, black pants, orange socks

33 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

So far, it looks like the options are throwback or removing color.

 

Given the two choices, I prefer throwback helmets. But I'd also be happy with neither of the two.

 

Pick a helmet and live with it.

 

PS - I am not a crackpot.

Also there are too many states these days. Please eliminate three (starting with Missouri).

What's vibe among Jet fans for the 80's green/white uniforms compared to the 90's green/black uniforms?

28 minutes ago, Germanshepherd said:

Did it ever really go away?

Sort of.

We saw a lot of Grey For Grey's Sake and a lot Navy For Navy's Sake as well for a while.

The latter being more pernicious since that usually involved the wholesale changing of a clubs color scheme. That's been dialed back in recent years with the Chargers and Rams ditching (mostly) navy for brighter shades.

38 minutes ago, ⋔ 4 ℞ ℞ $ said:

Actually, they used two different sets of grey pants home & away (but did tend to wear the away grey pants with the home blue jersey whenever on the road at Dallas) up through the 2011 season, before ditching the home versions — which were essentially the same ones from during the 2000–2004 years (coincidentally worn both at home and on the road during said era).

Yes I know, I paired it down for simplicity.

Also I just really like the 2005 away grey pants with the blue jerseys over the 2000-2004 pants.

18 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

I've said it before, but I think the late-'60s/early-'70s Giants look balances the best elements of the current look and the throwback/colour rush look. The ny logo on the helmet and the single layer numbers, plus a proper balance of blue on the white jersey. Maybe just add the GIANTS wordmark below the collar. 

 

 

 

I think we might be headed in that direction eventually.

8 minutes ago, 8BW14 said:

I don’t know if I’m willing to die on this hill, but I think the Giants’ original return to the classic uniforms white the Blue/red/blue pants stripe on the gray pants is almost as perfect and timeless as a football uniform can get. Everything they’ve done since has been a downgrade. 

The throwback is awesome and I appreciate the attention to all of the little details down to the knit collar. However IMO, it’s not better than the “correct” uniforms with the gray pants. It’s very much of it’s time in the same way that the Cardinals uniforms are very 2004. That’s not to say they’re bad by any means , but the aesthetic with the stripes on the collar and sleeves is dated and screams 80’s-90’s to me and that’s awesome for a throwback to the LT glory days, but I think The Giants were right to move on from those uniforms, to the 2000 Super Bowl uniforms then the 2005 Eli Era uniforms. I’d take either of those sets full time before the LT uniforms, just my $.02.

What's your preferred Giants road set?

A.

B.
 

C.

11 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

The problem now is that the stripes on the pants are all one color. They look more like Mississippi than an NFL team, at least on the road where the only blue is on the helmet. 

At least with this uniform you have both colors on all parts of the uniform and it just looks better overall with that color balance. 

So, I disagree on two fronts.

1: I prefer the grey road pants which does have a single blue stripe.

2: For me, the relative absence of blue on the road uniform and red on the home uniform is a positive.  I don't think every team can pull off two distinct color palettes for home and away but, imo, the Giants were one that succeeded. For me, having the contrast made the Giants stand out from the rest of the league especially since they could do it by only changing the jersey and socks.

This is just me, but I never found the Manning-era uniform bland in the slightest. They were consistently in my top tier of the NFL. I'm a sucker for when teams pull off two contrasting aesthetics for home and away, and I've always felt the Giants since 2005 pulled that off magnificently despite using the same helmet and pants for both sets. At the time, it was also unique in being the only team to employ flat grey pants and use them as a neutral color outside and apart from their color scheme. (The inclusion of grey in the striping on the current white home pants bothers me for this exact reason since it breaks the idea that grey is just a neutral color and not part of the official color scheme.)

Surprised at the love for the 80's and 90's Giants uniforms given what a huge deal the original 2000 rebrand was.

The 60's style NY remains the superior logo imho. 

I kinda want the 2015-2019 color rush for the Browns to come back.

I liked the three orange stripes with the orange numbers. It worked well with the brown pants with two stripes.

It would allow the Browns to drop the stripeless brown pants while keeping the mono-brown look in their repertoire.

4 minutes ago, canzman said:

The Browns only wore 2 socks in 2021. Brown mid-calf striped and white striped. 

Throwback socks had different stripe proportion.

A little amazed at the push back against non-throwback alternate helmets in the NFL. Especially since for the first 30 years of the NFL, wearing different helmets was often the norm, not the exception.

To me, it a lot comes down to how a team choses to deploy uniform combinations week to week rather than the number of possible outcomes.

Let's compare the two Ohio teams, the Bengals and Browns. (for illustrative purposes, I am counting the Browns throwbacks as distinct)

Both teams wore three jerseys, three sets of pants, and three socks in 2021. But the Bengals wore 10 distinct combination and the Browns wore 5.

If the Saints opt to only wear their black helmets with the color rush fauxbacks, they will not change the number of uniform combinations compared with last season. If they mix and match with their other uniforms, that's going to change things dramatically.

The Rams are only supposed to have four uniforms at this point bone/bone, blue/blue, blue/yellow, white/yellow. However, the team has made the decision to mix the jerseys and pants in unintended ways.

34 minutes ago, willforgetmylogin said:

Fine I'll :censored:ing leak one

It'll get sorted eventually. It's really not a big deal if your guy was wrong about the Bengals. They were already wrong about the Saints. Things change, this isn't rocket science.

As I've said, twice, I really don't like arguing about this because people take it personally. I'm not sure why I even waded into this one (momentary lack of judgment, I guess).

This is why I don't like discussing leaks.

Unless its a photo from the stock room of a sports store, it's impossible to pin down and we go back and forth about who's right or wrong rather than looking at the qualities of what does come out.