AFirestormToPurify

2 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Would it look good? Probably.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear lol

2 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

so that’s why some would call it stupid.

Which is a pretty stupid thing to say, ironically

23 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

The flaw with your argument is that every example except for jags teal is a worse option  than what they wear. You are reinforcing the point that the iconic franchises have selected their best option and alternatives worsen their look.

Hard disagree. There are too many black helmets in the NFL already. I know, I know, this goes against my argument that the Raiders should try black helmets once or twice a year, but I'm talking about full time helmets here. Teal looks great and would make them stand out more

If you don't think this helmet is gorgeous I don't know what's wrong with you lol

EDIT: wait nevermind I completely misread your post. My bad. But then again:

19 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Exactly. If you already look the best you could possibly look (Raiders, Bears, Packers, etc.) why would you want to intentionally look worse?

I think the Packers' yellow helmets and uniforms in general are extremely overrated, but that's just me I guess. I do agree that the Bears should never mess with their helmets. The Raiders could pull off black helmets and pants imo. If they had worn black helmets from the start you'd all be saying silver helmets would look "stupid"

28 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

Can somebody clue me in on why anyone wouldn't like this change?

The antlers were better

28 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

They tried an antler decal, it didn't work

Disagree, worst case scenario, go back to the drawing board and come back with improved antlers. It could have been their thing. Nope, they'd rather look like the CFL Packers. Disappointing

47 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

I wouldn't do that because of my preferences for my team but I could see something like that technically working. 

Why are you the only one in this thread who can admit that lol. One of the very few reasonable statements I've seen about 2nd helmets yet

It's perfectly okay to prefer things the way they are and not want to mess with a proven, time tested look but to pretend that a white Bears helmet (Raiders in black, Jaguars in teal, Packers in green/white etc you get the point) would look "stupid" or objectively/technically bad is such a close minded and boring way of thinking

So they're already dropping the antlers to go back to being a Great Value version of the Packers?
Wack

29 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

A knee jerk reaction would be, oh I don’t know, assuming that someone doesn’t like an idea simply because it’s new. Not like anyone would do that…

Not at all. I've spent all day arguing with people, safe to say I'm not assuming anything lol. It just confirmed what I already knew. It's always the same old tired reasons. They don't like the idea of a black Raiders helmet, not because black wouldn't work, but because they've worn silver since the dawn of time. Which is to say, new=bad. Cause there's nothing objectively wrong with a black helmet. All anyone can come up with is, "b-but they've never worn black". Basically, don't fix it if ain't broken + no fun allowed

Anyway, once again sorry everyone for derailing the thread. I thought the discussion was entertaining at first but now that I'm just repeating things I've already said because not everyone bothered to read the whole thing (which is perfectly understandable lol), it's no longer fun and it feels like a chore. I'm gonna go at the rink instead!

8 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Your characterization is off a bit. The raiders org like others know that they have build a massive brand and mystique around silver/black/silver and despite carolina's overstepping, they own that look and choose to stick with it. Sure they could muddy the waters with a cool looking black/silver/black alt uniform but they see no reason to. 

That's what I've been trying to say all along. Why is everyone so scared that the 2nd helmet will absolutely HAVE to look like :censored: because Nike is this big evil corporation that wants to destroy identities? KNEE JERK REACTION.

26 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

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 that someone else might simply have a different opinion.

Not really. It's just an oversimplification but I still feel it's rather accurate. It's about as annoying as being told Sol is a "stupid" colour. Plenty of people on here are waaaaay more disrespectful than I could ever be, and don't even make any effort whatsoever in explaining their point of view further than, it's uncommon or new, therefore it's stupid

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible. Like this is the only option:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad". I'm not making this up, look at the replies I got

I'm not a hypocrite either, I've had knee jerk reactions before like when my Habs unveiled a blue jersey, so I know one when I see one. It's just tiring to read about how stupid or dumb a certain pants or helmet colour would look just because some people prefer traditional uniforms, and I find it ironic that I'm the one being disrespectful and belittling for pointing it out without resorting to calling anyone stupid or dumb

19 hours ago, dont care said:

The commanders…

Are you really gonna use them as an example? They needed a clean break from their old nickname. Who else is in their situation and needs to make a splash?  You're afraid the Colts will use the Commanders as an example? lol

They almost need to be treated as an expansion team. It's not like they can go retro anyway

3 minutes ago, dont care said:

“When you look at the league 10 years ago versus now it’s completely different. Went from one alternate or throwback that could only be worn 2x to now having teams with throwbacks,  alternates, and color rush uniforms that can be worn over 4x (I forget if it was 5 or 6 times the ravens wore their colorrush and alts the last 2 seasons) and now adding anadditional element being the helmet to mix and match where it doesn’t fit. ” this whole part that you refused to acknowledge because it’s true. The evidence of the other leagues doing the same thing evened the traditional teams that you say wouldn’t change for the sake of change and introducing a new revenue stream. If you don’t think Nike will try to pressure the league into some sorta city or reverse retro, or full blown color rush marketing gimmick that teams will have to wear then you are naive.

That's just evidence that a 2nd helmet option was gonna come back eventually, not necessarily evidence that teams will use it to pump out garish looking helmets that will dilute their identity just because they can. Where is the evidence that the Steelers, Cowboys, Bears or Packers will wear something as equally unattractive as the Jaguars split helmet? The Packers are still wearing an outdated jersey template and I'M the naive one for thinking they'll say "thanks but no thanks" to any off-the-wall ideas Nike may come up with? If the league has shown anything lately is that they CAN'T and WON'T pressure any team into wearing what they want. The Rams alternate jersey in the SB, the sock situation, the new number rules. They won't force anyone to wear chrome helmets

Just now, oldschoolvikings said:

 

No, you're missing mine. You just posted a bit about how you considered blocking someone because you felt they were, and I quote, "trying to win arguments instead of just exchanging thoughts and sometimes conceding that the other person made an interesting point"... completely ignoring that fact that you started this entire exchange by belittling the opinions of anyone who disagreed with you as "blind knee jerk reactions". 

 

If you really want to "exchange thoughts", you might consider not kicking off with a condescending blast implying that other people's opinions are somehow not valid or well considered. 

The way I see it, I'm not the one being condescending. You made no point. You just said my (really tame) ideas were, and I quote, "horrific". I can't concede that you've made any interesting point unfortunately, as the only argument in favour of having only one shell is the vague notion that tradition must be conserved at all costs, otherwise, the NFL is inevitably going to look like the NBA and completely dilute their branding soon. I'm just not seeing it, and I'm asking for evidence and all you guys can bring up is a different league

I get the idea that the football helmet has a long history of being seeing as the de-facto logo of every team but is it even the case anymore? Just an example, how is the Eagles wearing a black winged helmet any different than a kelly green helmet? Because kelly green has been worn before? Even in all-black from head to toe, don't you think they'd still be easily identifiable by even the most casual observer? And once again, who's to say teams will jump at the opportunity to go with a secondary colour as opposed to simply being able to wear accurate throwbacks with matching helmets? So far, the Bucs and Seahawks have said that they intented on going retro, right? Well, who exactly came out and said, "nah, none of this wack retro stuff. #blackout baby "

5 minutes ago, dont care said:

In a vacuum no it’s not, but teams have over 50 years of history and brand recognition. Changing for the sake of change and not liking it isn’t a “knee jerk reaction” especially when we have seen what alternates and the like have done to every other league in the world.

Again, I dunno why you feel the need to compare it to every other league in the world. The NFL is clearly its own thing

5 minutes ago, dont care said:

There is plenty of evidence of this. You are just refusing to acknowledge it when presented to you. This is just one more step closer.

What evidence? The Jaguars? They reverted back to a basic black helmet as soon as they could. The... Rams? Now that they've unveiled a white jersey, I've been seeing a lot more positive reactions to their set on this very forum. It seems like their uniforms are growing on people slowly but surely and that if they would ditch the bone jerseys and stop going mono blue, not many would be complaining about the rest of their set

Am I missing something more obvious? I feel like all the teams that have tried going in a more outlandish direction have all reverted back to more traditional uniforms, or will in a few years once they're allowed to. What am I not seeing?

Oh and being a lifelong Montreal Canadiens fan and being lectured on tradition is quite funny to me. The Raiders could wear a black helmet just as the Canadiens wore a blue jersey last year. Sure, it feels weird at first but you could still tell you were watching the Canadiens in their iconic jerseys, it made the colour balance a little different but they didn't "destroy" their legacy or identity or anything like that. No one is saying that the Raiders need a chrome gold helmet to fit with the other Vegas team and nothing makes me think they would ever consider it either

28 minutes ago, Sport said:

And the NBA teams have diluted their brands strength to the point that many of them have lost all meaning. The NBA is the example of what I don't want the NFL to become. 

You can be scared all you want, I see no evidence pointing to that conclusion. You can fear a slippery slope all you want, I just can't see the Steelers getting a chrome helmet or the Packers mimicking Swiss cheese with fake holes on their helmets because the Commanders have a black helmet or because the NBA, a different league, a different sport even, are hellbent on selling as many jerseys as possible and have next to no strong, consistent identities save for a handful of teams

Your irrational fear of matte black or chrome helmets is what is stopping you from embracing the endless possibilities of having a secondary helmet and frankly, I just find it unfortunate for you. And I'm not specifically singling you out, but just the people who hate/dread the idea of a 2nd helmet in general

28 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Most of those alternative helmet suggestion you made sound horrific. However, I'm sure your knee jerk reaction will be to disagree with me.

You're just proving my point. It's "horrific" just because it's not what you're used to seeing. Nothing is objectively horrific about a black Raiders helmet. It would look great with the black jerseys, and if they had been using black helmets for the last 50 years and I had suggested silver, you'd be saying it's "horrific". You're not even reasonable enough to say "I wouldn't like it, I prefer when things stay simple" instead

I didn't even suggest a chrome or matte finish, 50/50 splits, gradients or anything that could potentially be seen as distasteful by a vast majority of people. I mostly suggested colours that have mostly been used by the team before, save for teal and light blue. Some college teams use those colours on their helmets and they don't look "horrific"

You know what, now I just want the Vikings to prove me wrong and bust out a ridiculous matte black helmet with a tiny logo on the forehead and an iridescent yellow/purple facemask just so I can laugh at your impotent rage

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Yeah, how about those traditional and consistent Chicago Bulls. 

 

Not trying to poke fun, but the point remains: when this train gets rolling, there's nothing stopping everybody from jumping on board. 

To be honest, I had completely forgotten about that jersey lol. Then again, it's the NBA. The Bulls are still about as traditional and consistent as you're gonna get in that league where even the Lakers and Knicks don't see their uniforms as sacred and untouchable, maybe I could have said the Spurs instead but you get my point, both leagues are absolutely NOT comparable in terms of uniform culture

39 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Now, it seems feasible that the Ravens could incorporate a Maryland flag-inspired helmet or the Steelers could embrace chrome (as an homage to steel, I suppose) or the Eagles could take a full-on Liberty Belle theme. 

Frankly, I don't think any of that seems "feasible", while we're at it, isn't also feasible that the Raiders add hot pink to their colour scheme?

I get your point about Washington already making people nervous but I'm pretty sure they would have butchered their identity with or without the extra helmet. This is a very specific case where the owner is an idiot and where they also had to distance themselves as much as possible from the old identity with the forbidden old nickname. I don't think any of this applies to the Steelers who haven't changed their uniforms in forever. Or the Ravens that haven't changed their uniforms in like 25 years. Or the Eagles that also haven't changed their uniforms in 25 years. Like I said, and I'm just a regular guy with no connections and average intelligence lol, but I'd still bet a lot of money on the fact that no self respecting team will come up with outlandish stuff like that. None of them have ever done anything to make me feel anxious about a chrome helmet or a flag helmet. It would be extremely out of character for the vast majority of teams. I could see the Eagles coming up with a black helmet but let's be real, it's way more likely that they would just make a kelly green throwback. And worst case scenario, I don't think a black helmet would "destroy" their identity more than the black jersey already does. They'd still have the iconic wings. You're all stressing out for no reason. Everything will be fine, I promise lmao

There aren't too many team we need to be worried about I think. Even the Jaguars have probably learned their lesson with their last two non-traditional helmets that were universally derided. Titans, Jets? Rams, maybe? Probably the only teams I could see going the outlandish route

I also think there's a huge difference in uniform culture in the NFL and NBA. There aren't too many teams in the NFL that have drastically changed their identity several times like the Warriors, Hawks, Rockets, Nuggets, Jazz, Wizards, Raptors etc, I could go on and on. For every team like the Bulls and Celtics there's 10 teams that can't seem to choose an identity and stick to it. It's not as common in the NFL. It's the other way around actually. I don't think it's fair to compare them

7 minutes ago, dont care said:

Further destroying brands

That's just your opinion. If you think having three pairs of pants is "destroying" your identity, then sure, adding an extra helmet is probably the end of the world for you. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you any further. You never have anything nice to say to anything or anyone. I don't recall ever seeing you praise a uniform or agree with anyone. All you do on here is whine and act like a know-it-all, always trying to win arguments instead of just exchanging thoughts and sometimes conceding that the other person made an interesting point. The only reason I haven't blocked you yet is because I'm not a coward lol

3 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

All it takes is for one to find a revenue stream and the others will be close behind

 

That isn't knee-jerk. I just don't share your optimism. 

You're right, I guess you could say I'm just being optimistic. I'm not sure how alternate helmets could represent an additional revenue stream, though. I know some people buy replica helmets but the market for that has to be tiny compared to jersey sales

Weren't teams forced into participating in the color rush program by the NFL? Again, comparing apples to oranges I think. And even then, correct me if I'm wrong but some teams resisted the idea and sorta refused to participate fully (not wearing solid socks for example, or just wearing shoulders-to-knee white), and didn't Washington just opt out completely and flat out said "no"? I may be optimistic but you're being overly pessimistic lol

5 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Speaking of knee-jerk reactions ....

 

Like with anything, there's a degree of scale in play here that will define whether adding alternates adds or subtracts from the league's overall visual identity. I think we've witness with the NBA how alternate overload has watered down the impact of some of the league's core brands.

 

I'm with @BBTV on this, not because I'm opposed to anything new, but because I have no faith that teams won't abuse the situation and take it too far. 

Again, knee jerk reaction. The NBA have up to four (or is it FIVE?) jerseys a year, at least one of them can't be worn for more than one season and they're strongly encouraged to think outside the box and experiment with different colours

You're comparing apples to oranges. None of this is gonna happen with the introduction of ONE extra helmet. I bet most teams won't even use their right to have more than one. Do you seriously think the Raiders will add a black helmet? or the Bears will add an orange one? The teams that are gonna add an helmet to the rotation are the ones that have already watered down their identity by wearing 20 different combos a year so in the grand scheme of things I don't think the league's overall visual identity will suffer much from it. No more than it already has at least. Until I'm proven wrong and the Packers come out with a matte black helmet, it's mostly just gonna be an opportunity to have more accurate throwbacks

1 hour ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

I'm going to disagree there.

 

It's very possible for a team to have different template, color balances, even logos across their overall look. We see it all the time in hockey and baseball where it works well (just think about how many teams wear pinstripes at home but not on the road). 

 

I think it works quite well in football so long as you get some kind of unifying element (defined broadly). Think about how different the NY Giants home and away looks have been for the last decade and a half, and especially since the team switched to white britches at home. 

 

Its definitely possible if its done well and there are tons of examples of teams that have done it well. 

 

 

 

This!

Just the same old knee jerk reaction we see every time on here whenever something new is announced. Because old=good, new=bad!

Of course some teams are gonna go with a generic black helmet and it's gonna suck (I immediately think of the Jets and Eagles but some teams might surprise us like I dunno, the Cards maybe?)

I feel like some teams are gonna go with white since the stormtrooper look is trendy right now. The Lions might be one of those teams. The Bengals definitely will and it's gonna look great. Most teams could look okay with a white helmet but it's kinda boring

What I personally hope to see

Bills - No need for a second helmet but red could be nice with the color rush or with the regular jerseys once or twice a year

Ravens - No need but purple might look good against the Steelers especially

Panthers - Process Blue! And hopefully by year 2 it becomes their primary

Bengals - White obviously

Browns - I can hear the pitchforks coming but why not... Brown? Not that they really need a 2nd helmet

Broncos - Orange. Either the throwback but why not the current helmet in orange? I think it could look good

Packers - Internet pitchfork mob coming once again. I can't stand yellow helmets. They need a green or white helmet

Texans - Battle red!

Jaguars - Teeeeeeal

Raiders - I don't care what anyone says, they NEED a black helmet. To hell with tradition, once a year at least

Patriots - Either white with the flying Elvis or maybe navy? I've never been a fan of silver helmets unless they're paired with silver pants and I don't like the throwbacks either

Seahawks - Current helmet in silver once or twice a year with silver pants. I don't like the throwbacks and lime green would only look good on paper I think

Titans - Powder blue

I don't think any other team needs or should have a second helmet

On 2/4/2022 at 9:28 PM, sayahh said:

Has anyone created/uploaded a version of Super Bowl finalists like one but with both team's helmets instead?

 

They should have used the Rams' and Vikings' horns, Eagles' wings and Bengals' stripes, missed opportunity

Here's my unsolicited take on the Cardinals that I'm sure everyone will appreciate lol

They can't go back to any of their old designs, they were all way too plain and boring and they've never won in them anyway

I think the current jerseys have good elements that can stay, the name & number font, the black trim that is just the right amount, the red shoulder yokes on the white jersey and the classic white helmets obviously. I even like the gray facemasks, but I think the metallic silver the Falcons use would look even better. They can even keep the red pants, in an ideal world they would only wear them occasionally when they play a team that wears white pants and they would have striped socks to avoid the leotard look with the red socks or the equally unappealing 1800s quaker look with the plain white socks

They just need to get rid of the outdated piping and vertical panels and weird tapered pant stripes and the black alternate(s), basically. Oh and no Arizona flag, please. It looked so out of place and forced

1 minute ago, dannykraft said:

A winter classic jersey is a lot different than a home jersey. 

True. If it had been a permanent change I'd probably be pissed lol

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

Then they decided to go back to a red primary look but they wanted to keep the striping. The chevron stripes meant that white or gold as the main secondary colour would be "too much," so they opted for black. 

And once you've committed to large black stripes on red you might as well go with a flaming black C and numbers?

The red version of the Blasty era jersey should have just been all red. With yellow/black/white chevron stripes. Like the RR version of Blasty basically, where it was all black instead of black with red below the chevron stripes. All red with a white C and white numbers would have pretty looked good. But then again, they would have still had the problem of being another red jersey and black pants team

3 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Like...if the Canadiens rolled out a new red sweater with a blue C we'd all be going "what the ?" It just flies in the face of the team's established visual identity.

Wouldn't be that weird imo. We've had a white C before and it looked great (inb4 toilet seat jokes)

9 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Now, saying that, I think the big question there would be if we'd have even seen something as weird as the pedestal if that rebrand had come in, say, 1991 when experimentation was mostly limited to colors like with SJ, as opposed to being in the mid-90's during the height of the NHL's "throw literally everything at the wall and see what sticks" aesthetic phase that birthed such things as Wild Wing or the Pooh Bear; would we have instead seen something more subdued, like a simple modification of their original look to incorporate some black into it?

Impossible to say for certain but if the Flames had rebranded in '91, I think it would have looked a lot like the North Stars rebrand from '88. Mostly the same but with black gear and a few black stripes or outlines

Basically the pedestal jerseys but without the pedestal and the weird contrasting/incomplete sleeve stripes. Could have looked alright I guess. Not as good as the original jerseys, though