MJD7

If you don’t want to “name names” (i.e. address the person you’re arguing against directly) then I’ll say what I assume you’re referring to: Even here, I didn’t read this as @BBTV calling any second helmet stupid from an aesthetic standpoint, much less “objectively bad.” He just stated his opinion that he doesn’t like when teams have multiple identities, no matter how each one looks aesthetically. Sure, a black helmet and a silver helmet could both look good for the Raiders. But some people would prefer they just pick one for consistency’s sake. If you can’t accept that, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Maybe I'm missing something, but when has anybody said that any of those alternate helmet options would look aesthetically "stupid" or "objectively bad?" You seem to be making a straw-man argument, accusing others of saying any second helmet would look objectively bad (which I don't think anyone has claimed), rather than acknowledging the actual opinion being presented, which is that some people here simply don't like multiple helmets for NFL teams, no matter how the second helmet "looks," since having multiple helmets tends to dilute the team's branding when they only have 17 games to play. You're allowed to disagree with that opinion, but at least acknowledge it for what it is instead of portraying it as something else. Nobody has said that a teal helmet for the Jags would look "stupid," nor even that it would look any worse than black. I'd just say that they should pick one color and stick to it, hypothetically. Similarly, nobody has said that a black helmet would look bad for the Raiders aesthetically. Their only claim has been that double-dipping in both silver and black helmets would seemingly dilute the traditional, consistent brand that the team has built up over decades. Teams like the Packers and Bears would fall into this category, as well. For less traditional teams like the Texans and the Titans, you suggested them wearing red & light blue helmets, respectively. That's totally fine, if anything that might be what I'd prefer for both of them. I just wouldn't want either team to use that as their alternate helmet, I'd just rather them wear the new helmet full-time, and drop their current navy helmets. I think you're mistaking a desire for no alternate helmets in general, no matter how they "look" aesthetically, for a fear that every new helmet would turn out horrendous. For me, it's more along the lines of @oldschoolvikings' general sentiment that (to paraphrase): "if your alternate uniform looks better than your primary, then why not just make it your primary?" I think the same principle could be applied for helmets.

I think that’s a bit of an assumption on your part. For me, I’m not necessarily hesitant on the removal of the one-helmet rule because I’m afraid every helmet will be garish, but just that I strongly suspect most if not all of them will be unnecessary. Take your black Raiders helmet example that you consistently bring up: Do I think a black helmet for the Raiders would look fine? Sure, a blackout look could honestly be pretty cool for them. Do I think it’s needed, or adds anything to the brand? Nah, not really. The Raiders look is classic as-is, and adding a black helmet kind of takes away from the “no nonsense” brand they have going for them.

The “old=good, new=bad” stereotype is so tired that it doesn’t even deserve acknowledgment at this point. Like @oldschoolvikings said, it’s an attempt to belittle and invalidate another’s opinion without respecting the simple fact that someone else might simply have a different opinion. As for me, I’m gonna wait until some of the alternate helmets start getting released before I make any judgement, but I can’t say I’m optimistic. I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying out other colors for helmets in doing concepts, and honestly, I think very few NFL teams stand to benefit from having an extra helmet, and virtually none of them do if it’s not a throwback. I don’t really consider myself a traditionalist, but I do like the brand equity that the one-helmet rule helped to maintain. Like @gosioux76 said, since the NFL season is only 17 games, any deviation from the typical branding is much more scrutinized than it would be during an 82-game NBA season. With that being said, here are my predictions for what the alternate shells will end up being (based on @BigDmo’s list): Arizona: probably black for their alternate jersey, although I think copper would be more interesting (maybe for their eventual redesign) Carolina: black or Panther blue seem equally likely, and I think either would be an improvement over silver (the sooner the Panthers get rid of silver in their identity, the better in my opinion). Chicago: this is the most confusing inclusion, the only thing I can think of is possibly an orange version of the throwback helmet with stripes. Cincinnati: this is probably the most obvious one, they’ll almost certainly go with the “white tiger” look, which I honestly think will look pretty nice. Houston: I’d be interested in seeing a “Battle Red” alternate helmet. New Orleans: probably a more “old gold” helmet to match the Color Rush, although a black or white helmet wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world in this case. New York Jets: probably a black helmet to complete the blackout look, although I’d prefer white. Philadelphia: probably another black helmet, since kelly green seems unlikely for 2022. Washington: we already saw this one (unfortunately). Overall, I think about half of those best-case scenarios have a chance at improving the team’s brand (Carolina, Cincinnati, Houston, and New Orleans, in particular). The rest I’d be fine without.

Where is the source for any of these claims? I was under the impression that the NFL didn’t really specify any rules or parameters beyond the newly granted ability to have a second helmet. I’ve anticipated that many teams would treat the second helmet like they would an extra pants option, interchanging it with every possible combo. That’s obviously not what I would want them to do; if it were up to me, a second helmet would be reserved for throwbacks only, sort of like it was before the one-helmet rule was put into place.

I wouldn’t mind navy & white for the new alt. It’d be a unique color scheme in the NFL, while also recalling the Rams’ history. Of course, I’d prefer them not involve navy at all, a yellow jersey would be much better, but navy would be much better than black.

I highly doubt the Rams would hype up a new “uniform” 2 years in advance just for it to be an extra pair of pants.

Just out of genuine curiosity, what would you do for the Cardinals? I know what you mean that it isn’t quite “enough,” as it feels like the Cardinals have had fine uniforms in their past, but never a great one that has withstood the test of time like the Bears, Steelers, Chiefs, or Raiders (an admittedly high bar to match). Because of that, I personally wouldn’t mind seeing them try something completely new, but I could easily see myself eating those words after the Cards eventually come out with a new set. It surprises me that you hate those uniforms, I imagined that most people thought they were just “fine.” The inconsistencies that @oldschoolvikings pointed out definitely sour it a bit, though. Like I asked above, I’m curious what you would do if you had control of the Cardinals’s uniforms, being a fan? It really is difficult to pin down what the ideal Cards look should be, so I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Yea, this seems to be the best, albeit safest, solution. The biggest criticism I’ve heard of a set like this is that it looks too much like Louisville, but honestly Louisville doesn’t even look like Louisville anymore, so the point is pretty much moot. That would be a classic look for the Cards that still keeps them distinct among the NFL, while balancing their colors pretty well, too.

I feel like Washington could have easily designated black as the Color Rush, since it was used as an outline color in the former logo. That way they wouldn’t have had to unnecessarily force black onto the white jersey like they did.

Different (but very similar) pictures.

I agree with this. The logos since 2010 have felt more befitting to the grandiosity and stature of the event. The first few years were maybe a bit boring with the templated Lombardi trophy + host stadium format, but they’ve steadily gotten better as they’ve added more color/local flavor. I think this year’s logo was probably the best ever, with next year’s seeming like it will follow in a similar format.

I noticed that, too. Even Washington’s wordmark is similar to a font the Bengals have been using on socials: (Notice the cuts in the C and the S).

I wouldn’t go quite that far myself—all of those helmets set an extremely low bar—but I do agree that the helmet would be a downgrade. The worst I could say about it though is it just strikes me as sort of Eagles-lite.

I can’t lie, I don’t hate this. I definitely don’t love it, but I do think it would be an upgrade, if ever so slight. *ducks*

I think the Cardinals could afford to have a sort of “desert gray” facemask, maybe a similar shade to USC: It would appeal to the look of a desert cardinal (native to the Southwest, including Arizona), while keeping the team in a traditional aesthetic.

I was referring in the most general sense to the set up of black/black/ (yellow/purple) /black for the main home uniforms. The Falcons have never in their history worn black/black/red/black, so they don’t really apply. That’s before considering that they aren’t even in the same division, or even the same conference. I’m not sure how the Patriots & Cowboys are related, beyond both having blue & silver. I think it’s pretty obvious that the Patriots’ red help set them apart though. Again, they’re in different conferences, as well. If I’m not mistaken, the Bengals original uniforms were literally inspired by the Browns, so I’m not sure what you were going for there. I think the bengal stripe motif does well to set Cincinnati apart in the modern day despite that. I really like both of the Ravens combos that were originally posted, and would honestly be totally fine if they were the main home & away combos. I was just pointing out that they have a similar setup to their literal arch-rival, which maybe they’d want to avoid.

My only issue with this is that they would look like the purple version of the Steelers if they did that.

This is @nate.sweitz’s NFL Redesign series: One of my favorites on the history of these boards, as well.

White pants were a little tough to see on a white background, so I took the liberty of making the background gold: I don't think it works as well as gold pants, since the jersey is more gold-heavy now, but it's definitely preferable to all-burgundy.

I think another factor common to both is not knowing when to not change things up. Both the Rams and Washington had iconic elements of their brands before their redesigns (for the Rams: the helmet horn, for Washington: the dual-stripe was unique to them, and both color schemes were great), but nothing was sacred in either redesign. Both seemed like the design teams felt the need to change pretty much everything about their brands, even the parts that worked & didn't need to be messed with. The end result is that neither team feels part of the same franchise they were before the redesign (with Washington, this was obviously more intentional, but the end result still doesn't turn out well for them). Also, how much better would the home uniform look with gold pants:

Although all of the leaks and the promo video pointed in this direction, it is still astonishing to see how awful the uniforms actually turned out. I try not to overreact whenever these redesigns come out, but this truly feels like Washington immediately downgraded to the worst uniform set in the NFL. The new name is safe, predictable, and boring. The ironies involved its context are quite comical. The new W logo is alright, though as others have pointed out the stenciling really does give it a sort of 3D/origami effect (ironically, the 3D effect is something the Rams actively tried to pull off but couldn’t, in my eyes). The roundels are fine, definitely very soccer inspired, but I don’t see the need for the white-heavy one, I definitely prefer the one that is just burgundy & gold. The wordmark is fine, I actually like the underline & “overline,” but the font itself looks remarkably similar to the Bengals’ new font they’ve been using with their recent redesign. The main burgundy helmet is decent, I even quite like the satin finish, possibly more than a regular gloss. I’m gonna miss the gold facemask though, that was a staple of Washington’s, to me at least. The black helmet, on the other hand, is almost 2013 Jaguars level bad. Putting the logo on the front of the helmet is a baffling move, and both it and the numbers on the side are far too small. The black helmet being gloss also makes it seem like they just got stock black helmets at the last-minute. Whether they wanted to go matte, satin, or gloss, I don’t care, but the two helmets should at least match (ideally they’d only have one helmet, the burgundy of course, but that gate has unfortunately been opened). In a similar fashion to the logos and helmets, the home burgundy jersey is not bad at all in its own right. The gold numbers help to differentiate a bit from the Chiefs, and I like inclusion of the wordmark. The white-heavy roundel on the back collar definitely stands out too much though. The other two jerseys, however, are simply the worst. If the white jersey isn’t immediately the worst in the NFL, it’s easily bottom 3. To start, having the only gold on the jersey be on the Nike swoosh is a sin. The diamond pattern on the numbers and sleeves is simply an eyesore, the comparisons to the Diamondbacks’ 2016 redesign are appropriate, and Washington looks no better here. The wordmark on the front of the jersey looks more “placeholder” than anything from the Football Team did. The black jersey isn’t quite as rough by comparison, but the carbon fiber digi-camo pattern reeks of the early 2010’s Pro Combat era, as others have pointed out. Gold numbers with a burgundy outline don’t look nearly as good as the inverse. The off-center wordmark is also an upsetting trend. One thing I actually don’t mind are the lines above and below the nameplate, if there was more cohesion and direction with that design element I think it could have worked in a better set. Apologies for the long post, I obviously had a lot of thoughts on the rebrand. Overall, there’s honestly very little I find redeeming in this brand, and literally nothing I would take over the Football Team identity. This has to be right up there with the 2014 Bucs & 2015 Browns as the biggest downgrades of the Nike era. It’s truly baffling that most concept artists on here could come up with something better in a week than this set that took them a year & a half to develop.

I take back my earlier comment about a black alternate possibly working. That is definitely legit too, because it all lines up: the random squares design, the segmented & pointy numbers… Carbon fiber camo like that feels so early 2010’s, I’m honestly shocked to see they seem to be going with it.

I hope there are gold pants too, though I can’t say I’m optimistic. I always liked the gold pants for Washington, at least as an alternate option.

This is probably a hot take around here, but I honestly think a black alternate like this could work really well for Washington, if executed properly (which I admit is a big if). The color scheme is really works for it. Unfortunately, although I really like the burgundy numbers on the black base, it could potentially run into some legibility issues. The gold outline might help, though. What really scares me, though, is the white jersey, seemingly restricted to burgundy & black with no gold to be seen. All I can hope for at this point is that jersey isn’t the primary away option, and is just an alternate, like that mockup has it.

It’s funny how opinions are different; I think those changes make them look more like the “Cowboys” than the actual uniforms do…