NFL changes 2019

[crosfam]

Was hoping the Jets go with Kelly green, white, and dark green trim. Could see as an interesting stripe combo. Vibrant green helmet. Hoping no black. Dark green jersey could be an alt. 

[crosfam]

Falcons are dated. I would use throwback alts as inspiration. But go red helmet. R/B/W at home, R/W/R on road. Alt red jersey. Alt black pants to allow a little mix and match. Perfect. 

[bbb]

1 hour ago, goforbroke said:

I took a look through the NFL 100th season styleguide.  Its actually pretty good... much like the Super Bowl branding, if you ignore the terrible logo then the color scheme and style and branding are actually pretty good.  They are using a cyan, red and silver color palette and a hint of neon green.  I think overall people will be pretty happy with it.

 

It also looks like the NFL 100 logo will replace the regular shield on jersey collars.  Slightly altered though so the shield is centered beneath the 100.

 

Same thing on the game balls.

 

A few years ago during the Super Bowl 50 season, the NFL shield was replaced by a gold version for the full season, and the r/w/b version was basically unseen.  I expect the NFL100 logo to replace the regular shield the same way.

 

Are there gonna be throwback games , much like what the AFL teams did in 2010?

[MrAstrodome]

Wish list:

Texans: bring back red pants for primary or CR jerseys or at least wear red socks with blue pants again. Preferably switch to Battle Reds as primaries.

On 12/18/2018 at 8:05 AM, msubulldog said:

11) Texans:  Blue numbers on white jerseys

 

Navy helmet's made us clones. You can keep your navy numerals.

Falcons: New set based off of Color Rush. go with white, black and silver britches

Browns: Pull a Rams and break out new pants as transition between old and new sets. I'll even take brown pants like the CR if they do a proper Brashier Stripe.

Cowboys: Ditch the seafoam already.

Colts: White striped socks

Saints: Stripes on the black pants if you have to have them and white striped socks.

Patriots: Pats won't change logos until Brady/Belichek era is over. TV numbers on CR.

Cardinals: Overhaul.

[BrandMooreArt]

4 hours ago, bbb said:

 

Are there gonna be throwback games , much like what the AFL teams did in 2010?

 

i doubt it. this campaign is more about looking forward

[daveindc]

5 hours ago, Ashes of Astroworld said:

Wish list:

Texans: bring back red pants for primary or CR jerseys or at least wear red socks with blue pants again. Preferably switch to Battle Reds as primaries.

 

Navy helmet's made us clones. You can keep your navy numerals.

 

 

 

 

 

Battle Red primary and white helmet is what I'm hoping they'll eventually do, especially now that the Titans went to navy helmets. Texans should've always wore white helmets with that logo.

 

 

 

 

[Old School Fool]

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i doubt it. this campaign is more about looking forward

 

I get that aspect but I think they should celebrate the 100 years of the league by digging deep into the past and educating people on what there was. I'd love to see some stuff like Duluth Eskimos or Dayton Triangles as throwbacks. A large majority of people probably aren't even aware of what old NFL teams there were and you gotta remember, some of these teams like the Bears and Packers existed as far back as the 1920's and that's just crazy to me. The league is one thing but an entire organization is pretty wild considering the moving and dissolving that teams have done over the years.

[BrandMooreArt]

19 minutes ago, Old School Fool said:

 

I get that aspect but I think they should celebrate the 100 years of the league by digging deep into the past and educating people on what there was. I'd love to see some stuff like Duluth Eskimos or Dayton Triangles as throwbacks. A large majority of people probably aren't even aware of what old NFL teams there were and you gotta remember, some of these teams like the Bears and Packers existed as far back as the 1920's and that's just crazy to me. The league is one thing but an entire organization is pretty wild considering the moving and dissolving that teams have done over the years.

 

preachin' to the choir, homie. 1 shot to celebrate 100 years and they're going to ignore the logical 

[goforbroke]

 

15 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

I get that aspect but I think they should celebrate the 100 years of the league by digging deep into the past and educating people on what there was. I'd love to see some stuff like Duluth Eskimos or Dayton Triangles as throwbacks. A large majority of people probably aren't even aware of what old NFL teams there were and you gotta remember, some of these teams like the Bears and Packers existed as far back as the 1920's and that's just crazy to me. The league is one thing but an entire organization is pretty wild considering the moving and dissolving that teams have done over the years.

 

 

Disagree. That stuff is for the teams to celebrate. The Packers just did a 100th anniversary season, you want them to do the same thing again next year?

And for defunct teams, sorry not sorry, but NO ONE cares about the Duluth Eskimos.  To me, trying to educate people on rinky dink teams from the 20s back when the NFL was in its infancy and people thought it was a joke compared to college football is a waste of time.  Anyone who cares can do some reading.  From a historical perspective, the NFL's angle on this is going to be the biggest moments, best teams, best players (Maybe an all-time 53 or something).. but outside of that its going to be all about fans and future. 

 

Small tangent, but that's why I don't hate that the NFL pretends its history began with Super Bowl 1 or NFL/AFL merger.  Not only did the merger almost double the league size, but the pre-merger decades were a completely different league, small markets, totally different playing style.  So that's a very convenient starting point for the modern era. Its not to pretend the early years didn't exist - obviously they are including it in the 100 seasons - but the Super Bowl 50th anniversary was a more important milestone in my opinion. 

[BrandMooreArt]

59 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

Small tangent, but that's why I don't hate that the NFL pretends its history began with Super Bowl 1 or NFL/AFL merger.  Not only did the merger almost double the league size, but the pre-merger decades were a completely different league, small markets, totally different playing style.  So that's a very convenient starting point for the modern era. 

 

this is basically the NFL standard now. their whole thing is about future and innovation. im not too concerned with the executional hypotheticals based on a different marketing strategy, but that strategy itself. what does it mean to be around for 100 years? what makes the NFL what it is? how have things changed? what are the roots of this thing and how was it built into what it is today? you get one chance to do this, and ramping up the status quo is just not the best idea IMO. 

[oldschoolvikings]

3 hours ago, goforbroke said:

 

 

 

Sorry, but NO ONE cares about the Duluth Eskimos.

 

 

Ahem... Nonsense.  I care deeply about the Duluth Eskimos.

 

 

Who doesn't care about the Duluth Eskimos?  I don't want to meet that loser.

[guest23]

Now this is a football nickname.

 

 

[FightingGoldenDevil]

It would be cool for the Vikings to get an alternate that's the Duluth Eskimos but purple instead of black, take the horns off the helmets and wear gold pants. I think something like that once could be cool

[G-tron]

I hope the league makes an effort to recognize the last two remaining charter members of the NFL - the Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals. They're not scheduled to play one another in 2019, but it would be fun if they played the hall of fame game in retro uniforms or something. 

 

And while they're at it, the Cardinals can change their uniforms so they look like a properly storied franchise (even if most of their stories suck).

[MilSox]

13 hours ago, goforbroke said:

 

 

 

Disagree. That stuff is for the teams to celebrate. The Packers just did a 100th anniversary season, you want them to do the same thing again next year?

And for defunct teams, sorry not sorry, but NO ONE cares about the Duluth Eskimos.  To me, trying to educate people on rinky dink teams from the 20s back when the NFL was in its infancy and people thought it was a joke compared to college football is a waste of time.  Anyone who cares can do some reading.  From a historical perspective, the NFL's angle on this is going to be the biggest moments, best teams, best players (Maybe an all-time 53 or something).. but outside of that its going to be all about fans and future. 

 

Small tangent, but that's why I don't hate that the NFL pretends its history began with Super Bowl 1 or NFL/AFL merger.  Not only did the merger almost double the league size, but the pre-merger decades were a completely different league, small markets, totally different playing style.  So that's a very convenient starting point for the modern era. Its not to pretend the early years didn't exist - obviously they are including it in the 100 seasons - but the Super Bowl 50th anniversary was a more important milestone in my opinion. 

The last of the small market teams folded in the early 1930s.  Other than Green Bay, obviously.  But even they began playing home games in Milwaukee during that time.

As far as your argument that the playing style back then was too different.  If that's the case, we shouldn't count anything from before 1978 when the pass interference rules were changed.  Or maybe the 1990s because that's when the west coast offense and zone blitz defenses became common.  And I'm sure they'll say the same in 20 years about the current era because hits and tackles that were perfectly legal 5-10 years ago are banned now.

[Froob]

9 hours ago, G-tron said:

I hope the league makes an effort to recognize the last two remaining charter members of the NFL - the Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals. They're not scheduled to play one another in 2019, but it would be fun if they played the hall of fame game in retro uniforms or something. 

 

And while they're at it, the Cardinals can change their uniforms so they look like a properly storied franchise (even if most of their stories suck).

I always thought Arizona was a newer franchise until I looked it up one day lol. So weird they’re so old.

[hawk36]

6 hours ago, Froob said:

I always thought Arizona was a newer franchise until I looked it up one day lol. So weird they’re so old.

I wouldn't consider the Arizona Cardinals a charter member. Yes, technically they are, but in reality each time they move they forfeit their status and start over as a franchise in my book. City and Team really need to remain consistent for true historical status. 

[SFGiants58]

33 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I wouldn't consider the Arizona Cardinals a charter member. Yes, technically they are, but in reality each time they move they forfeit their status and start over as a franchise in my book. City and Team really need to remain consistent for true historical status. 

 

Not really, no. Look at how the SF Giants and LA Dodgers honor their New York heritage, while the Braves have come around to tributing their Boston and Milwaukee stints. The A’s gleefully tie themselves back to Philadelphia (but are reticent on Kansas City, for obvious reasons). Franchises don’t often “reboot” upon moving, especially when they were successful.

 

It’s just that the Cardinals have been irrelevant-to-terrible for most of their existence. Sharing a name (and for a few decades, a city) with a more-successful baseball team doesn’t help their brand recognition.

[BBTV]

I think of the SF Giants and Dodgers as 50s teams. It’s hard for me to instantly identify them as OGs, even though I know they technically are. 

 

Do do people think of the GS Warriors as an original (or at least super old) team? It’s another of those things where I know that they are, but it never crosses my mind when I think of them. If anything, my brain plays tricks on me and I often forget that the 76ers are a relatively new team (having moved to phila in the 60s) and not the same team that Wilt made his name on. 

[goforbroke]

20 hours ago, FightingGoldenDevil said:

It would be cool for the Vikings to get an alternate that's the Duluth Eskimos but purple instead of black, take the horns off the helmets and wear gold pants. I think something like that once could be cool

 

But why??  What are you honoring? A terrible team that no cares about, that won like 5 games over 5 years?    To me thats way worse than when the Jets would throwback to the Titans... at least there's SOME legacy to that .. its the same team, and its a throwback to the original name.  Even the Toronto Raptors playing as the Huskies makes a tiny bit more sense... its the same city and that team played in the first NBA game.   But even still... it just SCREAMS lets sell some different jerseys.

 

Especially on these boards when we kill teams for black for black sake... why should teams wear throwback for throwback sake?  When you throwback you should be honoring something and have a reason.  Why honor a terrible team and barely won a game.. just because they had a pretty cool name?