oldschoolvikings

48 minutes ago, tscuzzy said:

 

Pants stripes (discounting lightning bolts or some other graphic design) need to go the full length of the pants  from top to bottom.  When they don’t, they suck.  
 

There are no exceptions to this rule.  

Way too easy.

12 minutes ago, Silver_Star said:

 This is just like how they stated the Seattle Seahawks throwbacks were the 1990's look and now they call this their 1977 uniforms when they have worn that look from 1968-1996. Gee whiz already. These "scholars" have never done historical research!

 
No, actually the pants stripe, socks, and sleeve stripe spacing mark these as an earlier version than the 80s/90s uniforms.  

For me, as long as these didn’t turn out to be a complete disaster I was probably going to see them as an update.  I’ve been so tired of seeing the last uniform and I can’t pretend I’m not happy just to see it gone. 
 

I’d say the jerseys and pants are at least minor upgrades.  The triangle nonsense is stupid, the white helmet is pointless, the sock combinations are terrible, and the helmet stripe is laughably ridiculous.  But the number font is an improvement and I think I kinda like the sleeves.  
 

The Lions did better, the Jets did much better, and I’m guessing the Texans will crap the bed.  

1 hour ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

When it comes to grey facemasks, that was just the original color of the material from the manufacturer, kind of like how we don't count the silver from the chinstrap buckles.

That changed when the first colored masks became available and teams could opt to move away from factory grey.

The Cardinals in 2023 are the first instance I've seen of a team trying to retroactively add that facemask color to their overall scheme (admittedly they switched the facemask color to silver from grey to pull that off).

I'm not necessarily saying that gray facemasks should count as a team color, I just think you'd be unwise not to consider that idea that a team might decide to claim it as an excuse to add gray to the uniform.  The colts built an entire black uniform (poorly) by changing the Nike swooshes on the white jersey only to black. Speaking of the Colts, in an awesome troll job, they made "Facemask Gray" one of their official colors... I like to fantasize specifically to mess with the people on the site who cry like babies every time there's a gray mask when there's no other gray in the color scheme (here you go, whiners... "Facemask Gray" as an official color).

I don't want to see this supposed Vikings' alt, because it will suck, but I have no doubt that NFL teams will gladly break any "rules" they want and bend the language to make it happen.  As usual.

Last shot of the video is throwback socks. 

1 hour ago, rfraser85 said:

 Last time I checked the Vikings have never used silver, so there's no historical precedent for that color (facemasks don't count).

 

Why don’t they?

29 minutes ago, Kirill_The_Thrill97 said:

CTESPN's alleged leak of a new Vikings alternate...

On 4/18/2024 at 11:48 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

My guess (not my hope) is the silver pants will have a stripe that matches the helmet, but all the other pants, blue white, and probably black, will be without stripes.  

Nostrodomus, apparently.  

44 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

You're wrong here because you simplified the problem. 

 

No, I'm not.

44 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

 

- If you have stripes on the Blue pants, they don't match the Silver helmet or White jersey.  If you do decide to put stripes on the Blue pants, then they either have to match the Primary jersey stripes or the Alternate jersey stripes, or you lose a combination.  So you make them solid and you can wear them with the Home, Away, or Alternate jerseys.  

- If you have stripes on the White pants, they should match the Away jersey.  But then, technically, they don't match the helmet.  And if you want to, for some reason, wear them with the Blue or Black jerseys, you have mismatched stripes.  

 

So, I see why they went solid on the White, Blue and Black pants.  Not that I love it, but I get it.  In an ideal world, they wouldn't have  Blue or White pants and they wouldn't have a Black uniform, but given the design challenge, this is the solution.

 

You're wrong here in thinking every instance of striping within the uniform has to slavishly match every other instance.  How about this... the stripes on the blue jersey match the stripes on the blue pants. The stripes on the white jersey match the stripes on the white pants. And the stripes on the silver helmet match the stripes on the silver pants. Round of applause,  take a bow, high fives all around, end of story.

17 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

Yes, I mentioned this earlier today - mixing & matching with striped pants can get tricky, especially when both the helmet & jersey ahve the striping.  And, it almost becomes too much, especially on mono-looks.
 

I disagree to begin with.  Striped pants are better than non-striped pants 10 out of 10 times.  But the solution is easy. Just never wear mono-looks.  
 

The Lions blue jersey-silver pants is amazing.  The white jersey-silver pants is also amazing.  Everything else is a miss.  

My guess (not my hope) is the silver pants will have a stripe that matches the helmet, but all the other pants, blue white, and probably black, will be without stripes.  

Assuming the black jerseys get worn with the blue helmets and pants this will be the least offensive black alt in the NFL.  

Still sucks but better than all black head to toe. 

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

I should hate this, but I don’t?

Why should you hate it?

51 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

It slightly bugs be that they couldn’t figure out how to face the jet forward on the left side of the helmet

 

Here you go...

19 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Bold and tough and rep the city. I'm excited!

The use of the word tough had the exact opposite effect on me.  

16 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Make the star on the blue helmet solid silver and it’s a decent helmet for that uniform

Yeah, design wise that works, but if you notice, the Cowboys never have the star as anything but blue with a blue offset outline.  That’s why it has that awkward final white outline.  It must be some kind of marketing consistency they stick to.  

31 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

No,  what I'm saying is making this hard turn back to an old-school throwback as a full-time uniform is usually done as a course correction away from something justifiably terrible. It's like admitting you made a mistake and you had it good before. 

 

The Vikings uniforms -- in what appears to be a widely shared view, yourself excluded -- aren't anywhere near the level where a course correction would be necessary.

 

In fact, I'd argue the current uniforms were that course correction from the abhorrent 2006-2012 uniforms, and they nailed it. 

For the record, I couldn’t agree more with this last sentence.  The side panel Viking uniform was an abomination.  
 

And also, I don’t dislike the current Vikings uniforms at all.  Easily one of the best of the new designs since Nike took over.  If I made a list in my head, it would probably be top ten. Probably.   
 

But I also think modern uniform designs… even the best of them… just aren’t really meant to be “forever” uniforms. The Raiders, the Colts, the Bears, the 49ers, (like the Yankees, Dodgers, Celtics, Canadians) have uniforms that they can wear forever.  If you had a future viewing machine, and saw those teams wearing basically the same thing 50 years from now, you wouldn’t be surprised.   But the current Vikings?  As nice as it is overall, it just doesn’t feel built to last to me.  Quirky asymmetrical stripes, high concept number font.  I honestly don’t think it’s an insult to say it’s not a “forever” uniform.  And as a huge Viking fan, and crazy uniform fanatic, I want the Vikings to be in one of those classic untouchable uniforms.  
 

It’s sort of like the argument I used to make about the Padres all those years when they fought against going back to brown.  It really doesn’t even matter if it looks better.  It’s just how they’re supposed to look.  IMO the Vikings throwback is how they’re supposed to look.  Period. Of course, as my good friend @infrared41 used to say, your mileage may vary.  

Just now, gosioux76 said:

 

I'd never suggest these uniforms aren't fantastic -- they are. But I think a move like this only works if the uniforms it would be replacing are terrible. I can't say that about the current Vikings look. I don't care for the current facemask color, but that's about the only issue I have with them. They're otherwise a perfect modernization of a classic look. 

I disagree.  You would only replace a uniform if it's terrible?  That seems like a weird stance. Obviously terrible is terrible, and those uniforms need to be burned, but if a team can go from good (current Vikings) to great (throwback Vikings) as well as bringing back an iconic look from when the team was annually one of the best teams in the league (just obviously not the best team in any of their 4 Super bowls ) then you do it IMO.

To be clear, if it were up to me, I wouldn't allow even a second helmet for NFL teams. It needlessly dilutes the brands. However, if this is the new game, I guess I can play...

Just now, bowld said:

Guessing the Jags will bring back the old helmet to pair with throwback jersey. Likely a better choice than some Teal alternate

Since the old helmet was black, they can do both. Hell, starting in 2025, the can have a black, teal, AND a white helmet.

1 minute ago, BadSeed84 said:

The Doplhins should be thinking to do the same thing as the Jets.

And...

41 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

So how did the Jets get away with an all-black alternate uniform? As far as I can tell there's no black anywhere on the green or white set. 

Because the "rules" aren't really rules, and teams will pretty much do whatever they want.