oldschoolvikings

The brown facemask instead of gray is a significant downgrade for them, both visually and in branding/attitude, but I guess if they're getting rid of the rest of the look it's still a major win. If they don't go with the superior choice of gray, I guess brown is a little better than white, to me. Brown just kind of sadly disappears, but the white, like a lot of white masks, just stood out too much.

Good gravy, that's a lot junk on one font. Never mind that the font itself is garbage, but add in a polka dot pattern and three outlines, one of reflective material? The lack of restraint is breathtaking.

Um, yeah, sure... of course it was.

Boom.

Let's just streamline this.

That's interesting. I tend to think of it as three stripes with a separation. I love that stripe. Of course, I've been looking at it on Ohio State all my life.

Those jerseys are pretty much fine as is, but I prefer the earlier pants stripe; The added black ties into the logo so nice, and there's something kind of generic looking about the twin red stripe, to me.

Yep, the above uniform is pretty much perfect, although I'd lop off half the sleeve stripe so it matches the pants. I've always loved those pants. And you could put the exact same stripe, as is (Houston Oiler style) on the red jersey. That's the perfect Cardinal look. As for the Seahawk debate... hmmm, like it or dislike it, it's surprising to me to think anybody would use "clean" as an adjective to describe it. If you like it, I assume one of the reasons you like it is the over the top application of the pattern shoe horned into any available space... tiny versions on the helmet and numbers, medium on the pants, big on the shoulders, even that strange little pearl necklace of it on the collar. It really is a case of a real lack of restraint IMO, which is the opposite of what I think of when I hear something described as "clean".

One last shot...

So, like this?

It's definitely too empty without the B but the stupidity of an animal logo with a random floating letter plastered on the side is something I can't get past. And the reverse B is really bad.

I don't love the Patriots' color rush uniform like so many people seem to. Obviously, I hate the matching pants and jerseys, but also I just think the design is sort of plain. And I don't think basic UCLA stripes look good at all on the Nike template. However, there seems to be some momentum for it, so I thought I'd see if I could warp it a bit to make myself happy.

Well, this just isn’t true. I’ve explained a few times why I think these things are definitely part of a slippery slope. I mean, yeah, I did ignore your earlier post about how my opinion was “the dumbest thing, by far, you’ve ever read on this site” (now there’s some “mature discussion”), because I thought it wasn’t really worth responding to, and from the goofy hyperbole I half assumed you were kidding. But if now, after calling my opinion “worse than Tnak’s” you’d like to engage in some “mature" debate, I’ll give it a try. (Although as you have pointed out my obvious limited intellectual facilities, how well can I really expect to do?) Here’s the slippery slope, as it has pertained to the NFL’s stance on alternate jerseys. The first example of any sort of alternate jersey, at least in the Super Bowl era, was back in the 90’s when everyone wore Throwbacks a couple times that year. Seemed like a one time deal. But after that a few teams starting mixing them in. So the NFL instituted a policy that teams could wear EITHER a throwback or an alt jersey in a secondary color, only twice and only at home. Checking Gridiron Database, you can see that this stated policy got messed with before too long. The Panthers started wearing their alt on the road, and at some point, three became the maximum amount instead of two. OK, that seems a bit slippery to me. Next came a possible FORTH jersey, when the NFL decided to do the Color Rush stuff. But don’t worry! They have a very strict policy! Only on Thursday nights! Except that that policy (slippery slope?) went away in two years. Now a team can wear that color rush jersey whenever. And mix and match them with other uniform pieces. And if there are still restrictions on how often you can wear an alternate uniform, I can’t tell what they are. Last year the Ravens and Titans wore 9 different combos. The Jaguars wore 10. (Again, according the Gridiron Database.) Now you can like all this variety or dislike it… that’s up to you, but I don’t see how you can debate (mature or otherwise) that the track alternate jerseys and uniforms followed from 1994 until today can be seen as a slippery slope. So, you’re right, that there’s no absolute proof that alternate helmets would follow this same path. The NFL could institute a policy (you know, like all those previous defunct policies) that says alt helmets are for throwbacks only. But, really… is it all that crazy to think that, based on everything I outlined above, after opening the door to alternate helmets those rules (whatever they are at first) will become more relaxed as time goes by? That a newer team that doesn’t have a throwback helmet possibility from their history might want to try out an alt helmet too? That Nike and the NFL might want to push another Color Rush type promotion, this time including helmets? I don’t know, maybe that is the dumbest thing you’ve ever read on this site, but even if it is, there seems to be more than a few people on here that agree with me.

For those of you excited by the death of the one helmet rule... say hello to 2023.